ACT getting two new solar farms

HelenO said :

…………this area is known for catastrophic fire events and extreme weather conditions….

All you’ve done there is reinforce the major reasons why Uriarra Village shouldn’t have been built in the first place. I believe there was a report commissioned by the ACT Government that came to the same conclusion – but as usual, whinging from some ACT Housing tenants with a sense of entitlement and lobbying from Bob Winnell/Village Building Company in the name of a ‘cheap’ money making opportunity – meant Labor caved-in, and we ended up subsidising the lifestyle choices of a very small community.

And you obviously do not realise how stupid your argument about the emissions of toxic smoke from burning solar panels is – considering just how much toxic smoke is emitted by an average house fire.

If you don’t like the solar farm’s location, maybe you should go ask Bob and VBC for your money back?

HelenO said :

The easiest way to ignore another’s opinion is to label your opponent with what is meant to be an offensive word, it makes it easier to disregard their point of view and labels them with behaviours and beliefs that do not exist. The people who live in the village work in the ACT they all lived in the suburbs you live in and simply decided to move to a new ACT suburb it just happens to be a short drive out of town.

This village is less than 30kms from the centre of Civic it is not up in the hills. It is closer to Civic than Tuggeranong is to Civic. The village supports renewable energy. It doesn’t support lack of consultation and it doesn’t support setting a precedent that could impact on any suburb in the ACT. Consider the amount of green space we have in our suburbs that could be infilled with renewable energy resources.

If this solar installation is less than 50 metres from houses and their is a fire (this area is known for catastrophic fire events and extreme weather conditions) the whole village is trapped they will not be able to exit the village due to the toxic fumes from the panels and the proximity to the road. Given the direction that the winds generally blow through the village the fumes from the toxic smoke will engulf the Belconnen and Civic region within a very short space of time and will settle in lower lying areas.

In the US and UK there are now strict guidelines for location and proximity of these installations to populations for these very reasons. In Europe there are significant issues with cheap panels leaching toxins into the atmosphere and waterways causing untold damage to the environment. This is still relatively new technology and the issues with its use are only just emerging.

The other issues is it is not just a case of drilling four holes in the ground putting in some poles and placing a panel on the top. 40 hectares of land will have to be bulldozed flat, huge amounts of concrete poured steel structures that will need to withstand cyclonic winds (yes the area is prone to that too) put in place to support panels that will be 2.5 metres above ground. That’s the average height of a single storey home.

EVERY TREE, shrub and plant within that area will be removed water catchment areas down to the river will be impacted, not only with the run off from development but if there is damage to a panel then via toxic leaching.

This installation is not the end of it the company Elementus Energy has leases 300 hectares from this property owner that is 740 acres of land, all earmarked for future development.

Large installations such as these are industrialised thinking, build a wucking great factor it’s the same concept. It is actually less damaging to place smaller safer panel units on top of every house in the ACT.

And we haven’t even started to talk about the $100,000,000 plus that will be paid by you the tax payer to the business consortiums every year in feed in tariffs agreed by the ACT government on your behalf that will go in at least 2 cases to overseas companies. Plus we will all still be paying more in electricity.

This deserves serious thought consideration and discussion.

I wish you and the Uriarra residents, and indeed the land owner (if they are willing to participate) all the best in coming to an agreement on this issue. One that may suit both parties. I hope proper consultation is given to you residents as the concerns outlined are quite valid and worrisome.
I for one wouldn’t want it that close to my house. I’ll be keeping an eye out for progress on this.

All the best.

The easiest way to ignore another’s opinion is to label your opponent with what is meant to be an offensive word, it makes it easier to disregard their point of view and labels them with behaviours and beliefs that do not exist. The people who live in the village work in the ACT they all lived in the suburbs you live in and simply decided to move to a new ACT suburb it just happens to be a short drive out of town.

This village is less than 30kms from the centre of Civic it is not up in the hills. It is closer to Civic than Tuggeranong is to Civic. The village supports renewable energy. It doesn’t support lack of consultation and it doesn’t support setting a precedent that could impact on any suburb in the ACT. Consider the amount of green space we have in our suburbs that could be infilled with renewable energy resources.

If this solar installation is less than 50 metres from houses and their is a fire (this area is known for catastrophic fire events and extreme weather conditions) the whole village is trapped they will not be able to exit the village due to the toxic fumes from the panels and the proximity to the road. Given the direction that the winds generally blow through the village the fumes from the toxic smoke will engulf the Belconnen and Civic region within a very short space of time and will settle in lower lying areas.

In the US and UK there are now strict guidelines for location and proximity of these installations to populations for these very reasons. In Europe there are significant issues with cheap panels leaching toxins into the atmosphere and waterways causing untold damage to the environment. This is still relatively new technology and the issues with its use are only just emerging.

The other issues is it is not just a case of drilling four holes in the ground putting in some poles and placing a panel on the top. 40 hectares of land will have to be bulldozed flat, huge amounts of concrete poured steel structures that will need to withstand cyclonic winds (yes the area is prone to that too) put in place to support panels that will be 2.5 metres above ground. That’s the average height of a single storey home.

EVERY TREE, shrub and plant within that area will be removed water catchment areas down to the river will be impacted, not only with the run off from development but if there is damage to a panel then via toxic leaching.

This installation is not the end of it the company Elementus Energy has leases 300 hectares from this property owner that is 740 acres of land, all earmarked for future development.

Large installations such as these are industrialised thinking, build a wucking great factor it’s the same concept. It is actually less damaging to place smaller safer panel units on top of every house in the ACT.

And we haven’t even started to talk about the $100,000,000 plus that will be paid by you the tax payer to the business consortiums every year in feed in tariffs agreed by the ACT government on your behalf that will go in at least 2 cases to overseas companies. Plus we will all still be paying more in electricity.

This deserves serious thought consideration and discussion.

Robertson said :

Theycallmealfo said :

If your happy to have one, why dont you suggest it? Better still write a petition, asking for it to be 50m from your place. See how many of your neighbors agree.
Sounds like you would have been happy to condemn MacArthur residents to potentially toxic fumes in their back yard. Reverse NIMBY-ism (is that even a word) is a dangerous thing – because it doesn’t effect you it should be ignored. Congratulations.

I don’t see what’s so wrong with these people expressing their concerns, asking for more information, nor asking to be consulted? Which so far they havent. Sounds like people are not apposed to the project, just it’s location being 40m from their houses, fair enough. Push it back 300 – 500m from the from of the village. Why cant their be compromise? Give people in a proven catastrophic fire area their 300-500m fire abaitment. Project still goes ahead. Everyone is happy. There is so much open land out there, why not push it back slightly?

Oh yes, gas-fired power stations emit toxic fumes.

One thing you can always rely on with NIMBYs, it’s a never-ending supply of fantasy with which to concoct their complaints.

Why should they “push it back slightly”? It’s not your land, you simply don’t get a say in how it is lawfully used, you selfish, meddling, luddite.

Your right I’m an extremely selfish individual thinking how others may be disadvantaged from this. Shame on me apparently compassion for other people is now tied with selfishness.
And i guess i dont have a right to express my conncern how this sets a precedent for any other development.
And no it’s not my land, however I do know if I wish to build something on MY land, other people and the impact it has on them must be considered. I’m not allowed to put certain things in my backyard if it impacts too much on those around me my application to do so would/could be rejected.

Like I have repeatedly stated, I’m not against solar, nor specifically the solar farm and it’s general area, more the proixmity to those who have to live with it. The land owner can still make his/her/their $$$ from having a solar farm, ACT govt can still make $$$, ACT residents can still have solar farms, if it’s put back a bit from houses.
I would be very interested in hearing from the land owner, they may have valid reasoning as to why that specific location so close to other residences was chosen, and that may be something that can be discussed by both land owner and those negatively affected. Maybe they can come to an agreement or understanding the ‘why’ behind it.

Theycallmealfo said :

If your happy to have one, why dont you suggest it? Better still write a petition, asking for it to be 50m from your place. See how many of your neighbors agree.
Sounds like you would have been happy to condemn MacArthur residents to potentially toxic fumes in their back yard. Reverse NIMBY-ism (is that even a word) is a dangerous thing – because it doesn’t effect you it should be ignored. Congratulations.

I don’t see what’s so wrong with these people expressing their concerns, asking for more information, nor asking to be consulted? Which so far they havent. Sounds like people are not apposed to the project, just it’s location being 40m from their houses, fair enough. Push it back 300 – 500m from the from of the village. Why cant their be compromise? Give people in a proven catastrophic fire area their 300-500m fire abaitment. Project still goes ahead. Everyone is happy. There is so much open land out there, why not push it back slightly?

Oh yes, gas-fired power stations emit toxic fumes.

One thing you can always rely on with NIMBYs, it’s a never-ending supply of fantasy with which to concoct their complaints.

Why should they “push it back slightly”? It’s not your land, you simply don’t get a say in how it is lawfully used, you selfish, meddling, luddite.

Robertson said :

c_c™ said :

If ACT govt can put a solar farm, what, 50m from these people’s houses, what’s stopping them from putting them 50m from my house, or god forbid yours? Would you want one that close, I wouldn’t.

The proximity to residential area is what I’d be concerned about. Gungahlin, look out you’ll be next

I genuinely wouldn’t have an issue with them putting them in near me.

These panels in fact will probably have less of a nasal and audible impact than the cattle that current inhabit the land. It’s not an oil recycling depot (hello Mitchell), it’s not a pest control site for animals (hello Theodore), it’s not a cell-phone tower (hello heaps of places) or a wind turbine (hello Collector).

Exactly – I’d love to see a solar farm pop up in my neighbourhood.

NIMBYs who oppose everything should be ignored. Their arguments are specious and their entire approach is ignorant and selfish.
If the Macarthur NIMBYs had been ignored, we would now have a gas-fired powerplant next to the tip producing power locally for us, providing jobs, and enabling industry.

NIMBYs will prevent any kind of progress if you let them.

If your happy to have one, why dont you suggest it? Better still write a petition, asking for it to be 50m from your place. See how many of your neighbors agree.
Sounds like you would have been happy to condemn MacArthur residents to potentially toxic fumes in their back yard. Reverse NIMBY-ism (is that even a word) is a dangerous thing – because it doesn’t effect you it should be ignored. Congratulations.

I don’t see what’s so wrong with these people expressing their concerns, asking for more information, nor asking to be consulted? Which so far they havent. Sounds like people are not apposed to the project, just it’s location being 40m from their houses, fair enough. Push it back 300 – 500m from the from of the village. Why cant their be compromise? Give people in a proven catastrophic fire area their 300-500m fire abaitment. Project still goes ahead. Everyone is happy. There is so much open land out there, why not push it back slightly?

Here’s another informative article for the ininformed to ponder:
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/agl-says-9gw-of-baseload-fossil-fuels-no-longer-needed-35369

“We guess there is around 9,000MW of oversupply in the market. That’s not helpful, either for existing assets or for trying to get new projects off the ground.”

That assessment of 9,000MW equates to nearly one-third of the country’s baseload generation – a sure sign that renewables, and in particularly rooftop solar, are changing the dynamics of the market. And it also suggests that some state governments built more generators than was necessary, as they have done more recently with poles and wires.

c_c™ said :

If ACT govt can put a solar farm, what, 50m from these people’s houses, what’s stopping them from putting them 50m from my house, or god forbid yours? Would you want one that close, I wouldn’t.

The proximity to residential area is what I’d be concerned about. Gungahlin, look out you’ll be next

I genuinely wouldn’t have an issue with them putting them in near me.

These panels in fact will probably have less of a nasal and audible impact than the cattle that current inhabit the land. It’s not an oil recycling depot (hello Mitchell), it’s not a pest control site for animals (hello Theodore), it’s not a cell-phone tower (hello heaps of places) or a wind turbine (hello Collector).

Exactly – I’d love to see a solar farm pop up in my neighbourhood.

NIMBYs who oppose everything should be ignored. Their arguments are specious and their entire approach is ignorant and selfish.
If the Macarthur NIMBYs had been ignored, we would now have a gas-fired powerplant next to the tip producing power locally for us, providing jobs, and enabling industry.

NIMBYs will prevent any kind of progress if you let them.

c_c™ said :

These panels in fact will probably have less of a nasal and audible impact than the cattle that current inhabit the land. It’s not an oil recycling depot (hello Mitchell), it’s not a pest control site for animals (hello Theodore), it’s not a cell-phone tower (hello heaps of places) or a wind turbine (hello Collector).

It’s not a solar panel factory (you definitely would not want to live next to one of those, given the chemicals used and then dumped).

c_c™ said :

Theycallmealfo said :

c_c™ said :

The NIMBYs are piping up over this, a couple of them on ABC News tonight saying no to it and threatening to take ‘all’ the action they can. Go for it, litigation is an amazingly common way of being left penniless.

How refreshingly shortsighted of you 🙂

If ACT govt can put a solar farm, what, 50m from these people’s houses, what’s stopping them from putting them 50m from my house, or god forbid yours? Would you want one that close, I wouldn’t.

The proximity to residential area is what I’d be concerned about. Gungahlin, look out you’ll be next

I genuinely wouldn’t have an issue with them putting them in near me.

If lease holders were given some undertaking prior to purchase that there would be no solar farm (or similar development) near by, then I would have some sympathy. But i’ve yet to hear of any such assurance having been made.

And what is with this complaint that it’s near a residential area. The resident on ABC made a similar argument, saying how dare they turn the neighbouring land into an ‘industrial area’. Dafaq?

We’re talking fundamentally slabs of polycarbonate and silicone, mounted on steel frames that rise no higher than a suburban home in aspect, that have so little impact on their surrounds that usually, agistment can continue on the land.

These panels in fact will probably have less of a nasal and audible impact than the cattle that current inhabit the land. It’s not an oil recycling depot (hello Mitchell), it’s not a pest control site for animals (hello Theodore), it’s not a cell-phone tower (hello heaps of places) or a wind turbine (hello Collector).

That’s true, but it is in essence a power plant, there has to be transformers and the like to convert the power. It has to be stored and put back into the grid. Not to mention the materials the panels are made from. If something goes wrong I wouldn’t like that 40m from home?  Not to mention these solar farms,to my knowledge, have never been put so close to residences. There are reasons America and UK have guidelines specifying how far solar farms must be from residential areas. They have done the research. Their are risks. 
What’s to say, in 5 years time (when they do place another one 50m from residences, hell maybe even 20m), that like so many supposed “risk free” developments/products it’s discovered they were not as “risk free” as we thought. Sorry, but I can’t just shrug my shoulders to that. I wouldn’t want it to happen to me, I don’t want to condemn someone else.

Am I arguing shoul they stop the project, no. I do think that they should move it back from the housing development, and as previous poster said maybe 300m for the fire abaitment.
I may be wrong but last year Uriarra area was issued catastrophic fire danger alert, and now they want to put toxic filled solar panels 50m from homes in that area. I remember the Canberra fires well, I was, and am in Chapman. And again, if that previous poster is correct, why not give the residences their 300m fire break?

What I’m saying is, this is their issue now, but this development sets a precedence for other developments of its kind. I wouldn’t like it that close to my house, and many people wouldn’t, if we let this go, there is nothing stopping it happening again. 

And I still find it hard to believe that out of all the land available, the best site for this project was 50m from residences. 

There is no where else in Australia proposing such a mass of solar power generation so close to a residential area.

The village supports the solar farm, and the social an economic benefits it brings, just not putting an industrial scale power facility within 50 metres of houses. It simply needs to be set back to a more appropriate distance from the houses. Hardly seems unreasonable…

Theycallmealfo said :

c_c™ said :

The NIMBYs are piping up over this, a couple of them on ABC News tonight saying no to it and threatening to take ‘all’ the action they can. Go for it, litigation is an amazingly common way of being left penniless.

How refreshingly shortsighted of you 🙂

If ACT govt can put a solar farm, what, 50m from these people’s houses, what’s stopping them from putting them 50m from my house, or god forbid yours? Would you want one that close, I wouldn’t.

The proximity to residential area is what I’d be concerned about. Gungahlin, look out you’ll be next

I genuinely wouldn’t have an issue with them putting them in near me.

If lease holders were given some undertaking prior to purchase that there would be no solar farm (or similar development) near by, then I would have some sympathy. But i’ve yet to hear of any such assurance having been made.

And what is with this complaint that it’s near a residential area. The resident on ABC made a similar argument, saying how dare they turn the neighbouring land into an ‘industrial area’. Dafaq?

We’re talking fundamentally slabs of polycarbonate and silicone, mounted on steel frames that rise no higher than a suburban home in aspect, that have so little impact on their surrounds that usually, agistment can continue on the land.

These panels in fact will probably have less of a nasal and audible impact than the cattle that current inhabit the land. It’s not an oil recycling depot (hello Mitchell), it’s not a pest control site for animals (hello Theodore), it’s not a cell-phone tower (hello heaps of places) or a wind turbine (hello Collector).

Theycallmealfo said :

c_c™ said :

The NIMBYs are piping up over this, a couple of them on ABC News tonight saying no to it and threatening to take ‘all’ the action they can. Go for it, litigation is an amazingly common way of being left penniless.

How refreshingly shortsighted of you 🙂

If ACT govt can put a solar farm, what, 50m from these people’s houses, what’s stopping them from putting them 50m from my house, or god forbid yours? Would you want one that close, I wouldn’t.

The proximity to residential area is what I’d be concerned about. Gungahlin, look out you’ll be next

Because an array of rectangular objects would clash with the architecture of Gungahlin?

c_c™ said :

The NIMBYs are piping up over this, a couple of them on ABC News tonight saying no to it and threatening to take ‘all’ the action they can. Go for it, litigation is an amazingly common way of being left penniless.

How refreshingly shortsighted of you 🙂

If ACT govt can put a solar farm, what, 50m from these people’s houses, what’s stopping them from putting them 50m from my house, or god forbid yours? Would you want one that close, I wouldn’t.

The proximity to residential area is what I’d be concerned about. Gungahlin, look out you’ll be next

In 2003 Uriarra was devastated by the Canberra bushfire. 17 of the 23 homes burnt to the ground.

A 300 metre fire break now exists on 3 sides of the village EXCEPT the escape route.. which will now have 26,100 photo voltaic panels 20 meters from the road. Remember the toxic smoke from the Mitchell industrial fire 2 years ago?

At a minimum the panels should be located outside of the fire exclusion zone that exists around the rest of the village.

The NIMBYs are piping up over this, a couple of them on ABC News tonight saying no to it and threatening to take ‘all’ the action they can. Go for it, litigation is an amazingly common way of being left penniless.

HelenO said :

What ever happens people don’t deserve to be treated with such blatant disrespect and lack of basic consideration.

You don’t get to dictate what others do on their land.

You may have bought your house at a time when some nearby land was unoccupied. That land is now being occupied. Bad luck, stop being selfish. I doubt you were particularly concerned about the impact *your* building project had on others who were there before you…

Incorrect. That’s exactly what the DA approval process is for. You can’t just go around building whatever you want with absolutely no regard for the people around you.

HelenO said :

What ever happens people don’t deserve to be treated with such blatant disrespect and lack of basic consideration.

I assumed the ACT Government might have learned something from the Royalla fiasco, but based on your comments, it seems not. But at least you get to vote in ACT elections, and you have an ACT MLA. Contact them and complain loud and long. At the very least you should have been consulted before the announcement.

IP

Martlark said :

It is rather more complicated than just ‘turn it back up again’. A ‘real’ power station will only be built if it can be economically justified. There will be few organisations that will build a large power station that will be turned on and off willy nilly due to wind/rain/clouds/night etc. fluctuations from wind and solar. It’d just be too expensive to finance without a reasonable minimum supply gaurantee.

That’s exactly what ACTEWAGL (or maybe it’s just AGL, I get confused by corporate shenaingans, I think that’s the point of them) were planning near Goulburn – a gas fired plant which will operate just a few days a year. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/agl-suspends-dalton-construction/story-e6frf7ko-1226499549032

IP

HelenO said :

What ever happens people don’t deserve to be treated with such blatant disrespect and lack of basic consideration.

You don’t get to dictate what others do on their land.

You may have bought your house at a time when some nearby land was unoccupied. That land is now being occupied. Bad luck, stop being selfish. I doubt you were particularly concerned about the impact *your* building project had on others who were there before you…

The whole point of the objection has been lost. Aside from the fact that ACT residents are going to be paying the equivalent of $10,000 per home to generate enough electricity for the same number of houses and sending millions of our dollars offshore every year to OS companies. We do not even know where the panels are being made particularly given the issues in Europe with low quality panels.

No one has even discussed that the ACT Government believe that they do not need to disclose, consult or consider the impact that this is going to have on those people affected.

You might be in favour of Solar, I am I have it on my roof, BUT do you want 40 hectares (98 acres) of it outside your front Door (less than 100 metres away), sitting 2 metres off the ground, all fenced in 2.8 meter fencing with barbed wire surrounded by 10 metres of fire break plus space for ancillary services.

Would you be excited to potentially lose $100,000’s of dollars on a home you just spent years saving for and building?

Did you know that the people in the village had incredibly strict development conditions to meet just in order to build in the village, so as to maintain a ‘rural feel’ and have little as possible impact on the heritage of the area, with thousands of dollars worth of additional inclusions in the build costs not faced by people in town?

Did you know that the villagers still pay full ACT rates PLUS they pay a corporate fee every year and pay for EVERY part of the villages upkeep and maintenance including electricity, road and community maintenance. The ONLY service they get from ACT is a garbage collection.

Did you know the village doesn’t even get treated water, the water is pumped straight from the dam to holding tanks?

No one in that community complains about any of that because they wanted a community where they could bring up their kids, in a community near kangaroos and horses and cows and sheep. They invested in a lifestyle,

And that does not even begin to express what the original villages must be thinking given how hard they had to fight just to get the OK to rebuild their village, after losing it all in 2003.

Without any notice or consultation 98 acres of solar farm is being dumped on their front door and they are told to suck it up…..

If it is so fantastic and brilliant put in on the edge of Lake Burley Griffin or incorporate it into the Arboretum as an art installation.

What ever happens people don’t deserve to be treated with such blatant disrespect and lack of basic consideration.

howeph said :

They are called peaking power plants and they are a standard feature of the grid now. They are economically viable because when demand is much greater than supply the wholesale spot price of energy is much higher.

As we transition to a 100% renewable grid, they are more likely to be needed to deal with extended troughs in supply rather than peaks in demand but the same economics still apply.

A number of options are available to provide 100% renewable peaking supply; all centred around the issue of storage. How do you store the excess energy produced on really windy and consecutive sunny days so that it can be converted back to electricity when the wind isn’t blowing and the clouds roll in? The market will determine which solutions are the most cost effective as the need arises.

I just came across this:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513000797

“A consequence of this system is that significant deployments of low marginal cost electricity generators, including renewables, can reduce the spot price of electricity. In Australia, this prospect has been recognized in concern expressed by some coal-fired generators that delivering too much renewable generation would reduce wholesale electricity prices. In this analysis we calculate the likely reduction of wholesale prices through this merit order effect on the Australian National Electricity Market. We calculate that for 5 GW of capacity, comparable to the present per capita installation of photovoltaics in Germany, the reduction in wholesale prices would have been worth in excess of A$1.8 billion over 2009 and 2010, all other factors being equal. We explore the implications of our findings for feed-in tariff policies, and find that they could deliver savings to consumers, contrary to prevailing criticisms that they are a regressive form of taxation.”

To summarise:
– renewables will bring down electricity prices
– feed in tariffs deliver savings to consumers

Is it any surprise that so many people are telling lies in their efforts to keep electricity prices high?

It’s just like climate change:
– A lobby group conducts a PR campaign in favour of their vested interest.
– Many people find the ideological couching of the PR-lies attractive according to their own ideological biases, and adopt those lies as their own.

Martlark said :

IrishPete said :

…
Obviously you can turn down the power on a gas or coal power station, just like you can turn it up. So it gets turned down when there’s lots of solar and wind generation, you turn it back up again when needed. Emissions are reduced for the period that the output is turned down.

IP

It is rather more complicated than just ‘turn it back up again’. A ‘real’ power station will only be built if it can be economically justified. There will be few organisations that will build a large power station that will be turned on and off willy nilly due to wind/rain/clouds/night etc. fluctuations from wind and solar. It’d just be too expensive to finance without a reasonable minimum supply gaurantee.

They are called peaking power plants and they are a standard feature of the grid now. They are economically viable because when demand is much greater than supply the wholesale spot price of energy is much higher.

As we transition to a 100% renewable grid, they are more likely to be needed to deal with extended troughs in supply rather than peaks in demand but the same economics still apply.

A number of options are available to provide 100% renewable peaking supply; all centred around the issue of storage. How do you store the excess energy produced on really windy and consecutive sunny days so that it can be converted back to electricity when the wind isn’t blowing and the clouds roll in? The market will determine which solutions are the most cost effective as the need arises.

IrishPete said :

davo101 said :

Baggy said :

The amount of electricity produced cannot be reduced until the alternative power source is reliable. At present, the solar farms to be built will not operate at night, nor efficiently when cloudy. So, the same amount of power must be produced

Wrong.

I love the minimalist response.

Baggy’s claim just shows how much the public has been misled, presumably by interest groups and crazy people like the Dr Judy Ryan in today’s Canberra Times letters page http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/ct-letters/bank-health-no-gauge-20130819-2s737.html who claims coal is clean and environmentally friendly (she should tell the scores of Chinese miners who die each year mining the stuff).

Obviously you can turn down the power on a gas or coal power station, just like you can turn it up. So it gets turned down when there’s lots of solar and wind generation, you turn it back up again when needed. Emissions are reduced for the period that the output is turned down.

IP

It is rather more complicated than just ‘turn it back up again’. A ‘real’ power station will only be built if it can be economically justified. There will be few organisations that will build a large power station that will be turned on and off willy nilly due to wind/rain/clouds/night etc. fluctuations from wind and solar. It’d just be too expensive to finance without a reasonable minimum supply gaurantee.

davo101 said :

Martlark said :

So, what you’re really arguing is that as solar power is now inconsequential it does not matter, and when it becomes significant, then it’d be wasteful and inefficient?

Yes and no. At the moment we are in the “low hanging fruit” stage of the process where you can thrown in some form of renewable and get a reduction in CO2 emissions. However as we get closer to 100% the costs are going to start to get very eye-watering. This is a rather atomic view on the subject.

OpenYourMind said :

It’s not even on a greenfield site and the 1600mW plant has blown out past $10billion.

Given that I’d need at least three of them to charge my phone that really is quite poor value for money 😉

D’oh. Make that 1600MW.

Martlark said :

So, what you’re really arguing is that as solar power is now inconsequential it does not matter, and when it becomes significant, then it’d be wasteful and inefficient?

Yes and no. At the moment we are in the “low hanging fruit” stage of the process where you can thrown in some form of renewable and get a reduction in CO2 emissions. However as we get closer to 100% the costs are going to start to get very eye-watering. This is a rather atomic view on the subject.

OpenYourMind said :

It’s not even on a greenfield site and the 1600mW plant has blown out past $10billion.

Given that I’d need at least three of them to charge my phone that really is quite poor value for money 😉

CraigT said :

bundah said :

CraigT said :

Pork Hunt said :

Extend day light saving = more solar. I can’t see a problem…

Only works in Queensland.

Who don’t have daylight saving.

….because it used to fade their curtains and made the cows wake up early.

Those bloody banana benders are sooo backwards…

Ltdttm said :

So I guess my power bill will go up so others can feel good about themselves

Yep, the same way we pay rates so your garbage gets collected so we can “feel good about ourselves”. It appears you are massively missing the point.

bundah said :

CraigT said :

Pork Hunt said :

Extend day light saving = more solar. I can’t see a problem…

Only works in Queensland.

Who don’t have daylight saving.

….because it used to fade their curtains and made the cows wake up early.

There has been no consultation with the village. Two members of the community were invited to a ‘meeting’ yesterday and told about the project. This array will be as big as the village itself, will be less than 200m away from residential homes, will impact on property prices, will be fenced by 2.8 metre high fences, potentially with barbed wire. Additional storage sheds parking lots n equipment store will need to be included. Also NO information was available on this project when we bought land. We have been rolled………

Few people realise just how quickly the price of solar PV is dropping. There’s a prediction that an installed watt of PV will drop to 36c by 2017. On an annual basis, no power generation is as reliable as solar. An installed kW in Canberra generates 4.1kWh per day on average year in year out.

To put 36c/watt in perspective against nuclear, the closest comparison you can make for a country like Australia is the new Olikuoto nuclear plant under construction in Finland. It’s not even on a greenfield site and the 1600mW plant has blown out past $10billion. That’s $6.25 per watt to install – without counting running costs/guarding/operators/nuclear fuel/decommissioning/waste disposal or astronomical (govt backed) insurance. Let’s not mention Fukushima.

The $6.25 per watt is not a fair comparison in that you need 6x kW solar PV just to match the nuclear kW. But if solar PV gets to 36c/watt it’s still way cheaper than nuclear install alone. Naturally storage of energy will be a challenge, but it’s a surmountable problem.

Let’s not forget that nuclear, even if it makes it through an approval process could take 10-15 years to actually finish construction. By that time, who knows how much cheaper solar will be.

Nuclear is indeed the gold (not silver) plated solution!

So I guess my power bill will go up so others can feel good about themselves

CraigT said :

Pork Hunt said :

Extend day light saving = more solar. I can’t see a problem…

Only works in Queensland.

Who don’t have daylight saving.

Pork Hunt said :

Extend day light saving = more solar. I can’t see a problem…

Only works in Queensland.

Extend day light saving = more solar. I can’t see a problem…

howeph said :

IrishPete said :

Obviously you can turn down the power on a gas or coal power station, just like you can turn it up. So it gets turned down when there’s lots of solar and wind generation, you turn it back up again when needed. Emissions are reduced for the period that the output is turned down.

IP

On this point, for coal, you are incorrect IP. To operate efficiently the big furnaces in a coal power plant either operate full bore or not at all.

Ok, so I just took the time to read the article and it provides information that I wasn’t aware of.

Sorry IP I was wrong. The coal power plants generation units can operate at a range of power settings from, it appears, around 50% – 100% load without dramatically effecting efficiency.

This is really good news to me. It means that every addition of renewable generation is displacing fossil fuel generation. Thanks Davo101

johnboy said :

No longer: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2392586/Oxford-English-Dictionary-admits-used-wrong-sense-word-literally.html

The OED is figuratively going to the dogs.

Deref said :

gasman said :

Either they haven’t read the evidence, or don’t understand it, or somehow deny it in spite of the evidence.

That “somehow” is usually “have a vested interest in the fossil fuel industry”. many people who are genuinely ignorant (and that’s hardly forgivable in this day and age) are swayed by the massive funding being put into ant-scientific propaganda by the fossil fuel industry.

It’s basically a bullshit-detector failure. They listen to Andrew Bolt and their detector doesn’t go off for some bizarre reason.

howeph said :

IrishPete said :

Obviously you can turn down the power on a gas or coal power station, just like you can turn it up. So it gets turned down when there’s lots of solar and wind generation, you turn it back up again when needed. Emissions are reduced for the period that the output is turned down.

IP

On this point, for coal, you are incorrect IP. To operate efficiently the big furnaces in a coal power plant either operate full bore or not at all. Starting and stopping them is slow and inefficient; costly in both money and emissions….blah blah luddite blajh

This is why old-school, inefficient coal power stations are being phased out in the first-world, replaced by modern coal-and gas-burning power stations that can quickly respond to changes in demand.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/new-coal-fired-plants-could-be-key-to-german-energy-revolution-a-854335.html

The premise in first-world countries like Germany is that free energy should be consumed first, with fuel-burning sources to fill in the gaps – gaps that are shrinking as progress occurs.

What the ACT government is trying to do here is to expose us gently to the idea of being a first-world country like Germany.

Some people clearly can’t cope.

I am kind of annoyed I stuffed that up.

It is literally a silver bullet solution if you use the figurative meaning of silver bullet.

Does that work?

Hmm.

caf said :

Solidarity said :

How does implementing solar on a wide scale compare to say, a nuclear power plant, which is literally a silver bullet solution?

Nothing is “literally a silver bullet solution” unless it really does involve ballistic projectiles made of Argentum.

I literally pissed myself laughing, oh wait, no, not literally..

johnboy said :

No longer: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2392586/Oxford-English-Dictionary-admits-used-wrong-sense-word-literally.html

I’ve been longing to link to that! It’s the end of civilisation, of course. Literally.

Solidarity said :

How does implementing solar on a wide scale compare to say, a nuclear power plant, which is literally a silver bullet solution?

Nothing is “literally a silver bullet solution” unless it really does involve ballistic projectiles made of Argentum.

gasman said :

Either they haven’t read the evidence, or don’t understand it, or somehow deny it in spite of the evidence.

That “somehow” is usually “have a vested interest in the fossil fuel industry”. many people who are genuinely ignorant (and that’s hardly forgivable in this day and age) are swayed by the massive funding being put into ant-scientific propaganda by the fossil fuel industry.

IrishPete said :

Obviously you can turn down the power on a gas or coal power station, just like you can turn it up. So it gets turned down when there’s lots of solar and wind generation, you turn it back up again when needed. Emissions are reduced for the period that the output is turned down.

IP

On this point, for coal, you are incorrect IP. To operate efficiently the big furnaces in a coal power plant either operate full bore or not at all. Starting and stopping them is slow and inefficient; costly in both money and emissions.

There are a lot of hacks built into the current electricity system to deal with this limitation of coal power: off peak pumped hydro; and cheaper off peak electricity at night time for example that try to smooth out demand for power to make it better fit coal power’s generation profile.

Remove these hacks and the demand profile more closely matches solar PV’s generation profile.

But still the baseload power needs to be resolved as renewable takes over. There are lots of options, a mix of which will be needed. They include:

* solar thermal – solar power that can produce 24hour power

* renewable powered pumped hydro

* smart grid technology – instead of the current simplistic “off peek” is just a certain time period each day; smart grid technology would allow your hot water system and EV car charging system to communicate with the grid and take advantage of cheaper spot prices as supply surges on sunny windy days.

* generating hydrogen gas using surplus energy and burning it in gas power plants when renewable supply is low

* battery backup

davo101 said :

Martlark said :

Which in some ways makes solar power a farce if the intention is to reduce fossil fuel use.

Still wrong. Until renewables become a significant portion of the generator output then whatever they can put into the grid is offset by throttling back on the coal burning. As the article points out: running at 50% capacity the coal plant is burning 53% of what it would consume at full capacity.

So, what you’re really arguing is that as solar power is now inconsequential it does not matter, and when it becomes significant, then it’d be wasteful and inefficient?

As you can really only generate significant power using solar on average %30 of the 24hr day when solar power becomes widely used you’d need some backup for the other %70 of the time.

IrishPete said :

davo101 said :

Baggy said :

The amount of electricity produced cannot be reduced until the alternative power source is reliable. At present, the solar farms to be built will not operate at night, nor efficiently when cloudy. So, the same amount of power must be produced

Wrong.

I love the minimalist response.

Baggy’s claim just shows how much the public has been misled, presumably by interest groups and crazy people like the Dr Judy Ryan in today’s Canberra Times letters page http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/ct-letters/bank-health-no-gauge-20130819-2s737.html who claims coal is clean and environmentally friendly (she should tell the scores of Chinese miners who die each year mining the stuff).

Obviously you can turn down the power on a gas or coal power station, just like you can turn it up. So it gets turned down when there’s lots of solar and wind generation, you turn it back up again when needed. Emissions are reduced for the period that the output is turned down.

IP

How long does it take to efficiently turn up or down the plant? Does anyone know, because I dont.

If it is near-instantaneous, great, but with my limited knowledge on coal-fired power plants’ operating parameters, I think it is not. So, should the wind die down suddenly (as is the case in the linked article – nice work, by the way, davo, solar isn’t wind) or should clouds roll in, how long will it take for traditional power output to reach demand levels to cover a sudden drop in say, peak period?

IP, please note I don’t appreciate the intimation that I’m a simple sheeple, unable to undertake my own research and easily led by people with outlandish claims like clean, environmentally-friendly coal. I live in the real world, and am aware of the broad pros and cons of most sources of power generation.

HiddenDragon said :

… Re the gas option, isn’t there talk of gas prices (local users having to compete with international demand) shooting up in the next few years?

johnboy said :

Considering that gas is being found faster than it can be extracted I can’t see a great shortage anytime soon.

Australia currently exports gas from WA and Darwin. The gas fields and pipelines in the eastern states are not connected to a LNG gas terminal and so they physically can’t/couldn’t be exported.

So demand in the eastern states has been purely domestic. Big cheap easy supply to a small market has meant low domestic prices for gas.

Now with the opening up of the LNG terminals in Gladstone the gas in the eastern states will be available for export. Suddenly domestic consumption will be competing with international demand. International prices are much higher than our domestic prices. Who do you think the gas companies are going to sell to first? Hence get ready for higher gas prices in the near future.

Don’t you just love the open market….

The only saving grace is that it makes renewables more cost effective against gas.

johnboy said :

Considering that gas is being found faster than it can be extracted I can’t see a great shortage anytime soon.

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/07/gas-wars-heat-up/

Whatever the truth of the matter, it would surely only be a sunny (solar-powered?) optimist who would expect gas prices to fall back, or, at worst, rise at no more than the rate of the CPI.

gasman said :

Nobody is suggesting that solar PV panels will solve all our energy needs. However, they can solve much of our energy needs, at a carbon cost that is way below fossil fuels if deployed on a large scale. In conjunction with storage technology, wind power, geothermal, tidal, biofuel etc

A large part of our energy needs are to power air conditioners in summer. That is when solar PV panels are at their best.

We have just returned from a holiday in Holland and Belgium. They are so far ahead of us. Wind turbines everywhere, and 400-year-old farmhouses stacked with solar panels. This despite getting far less sunshine than Australia. The Dutch even recycle the heat from fresh milk as it cools in a heat exchanger!

How does implementing solar on a wide scale compare to say, a nuclear power plant, which is literally a silver bullet solution?

Martlark said :

Which in some ways makes solar power a farce if the intention is to reduce fossil fuel use.

Still wrong. Until renewables become a significant portion of the generator output then whatever they can put into the grid is offset by throttling back on the coal burning. As the article points out: running at 50% capacity the coal plant is burning 53% of what it would consume at full capacity.

Nobody is suggesting that solar PV panels will solve all our energy needs. However, they can solve much of our energy needs, at a carbon cost that is way below fossil fuels if deployed on a large scale. In conjunction with storage technology, wind power, geothermal, tidal, biofuel etc

A large part of our energy needs are to power air conditioners in summer. That is when solar PV panels are at their best.

We have just returned from a holiday in Holland and Belgium. They are so far ahead of us. Wind turbines everywhere, and 400-year-old farmhouses stacked with solar panels. This despite getting far less sunshine than Australia. The Dutch even recycle the heat from fresh milk as it cools in a heat exchanger!

davo101 said :

Baggy said :

The amount of electricity produced cannot be reduced until the alternative power source is reliable. At present, the solar farms to be built will not operate at night, nor efficiently when cloudy. So, the same amount of power must be produced

Wrong.

I believe the original author of your quoted post is referring to the need, due to the erratic nature of solar power, to have fossil fuelled backup power ‘nearly’ available. Which in some ways makes solar power a farce if the intention is to reduce fossil fuel use.

What about geothermal? Look at what they do in the Rift Valley, may surprise you. Sure we dont have that set up, but we have the other necessity, no earthquakes.

davo101 said :

Baggy said :

The amount of electricity produced cannot be reduced until the alternative power source is reliable. At present, the solar farms to be built will not operate at night, nor efficiently when cloudy. So, the same amount of power must be produced

Wrong.

I love the minimalist response.

Baggy’s claim just shows how much the public has been misled, presumably by interest groups and crazy people like the Dr Judy Ryan in today’s Canberra Times letters page http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/ct-letters/bank-health-no-gauge-20130819-2s737.html who claims coal is clean and environmentally friendly (she should tell the scores of Chinese miners who die each year mining the stuff).

Obviously you can turn down the power on a gas or coal power station, just like you can turn it up. So it gets turned down when there’s lots of solar and wind generation, you turn it back up again when needed. Emissions are reduced for the period that the output is turned down.

IP

CraigT said :

gasman said :

Solidarity said :

Zero emissions hey… so solar farms just grow on trees?

Are you implying that solar panels are not environmentally friendly (for want of a better phrase)?

Its true that solar panels require electricity to produce. Thats called its embodied energy. However, a typical solar panel will produce the same electricity that was required to make it in about 3-5 years. So, admittedly, for that first 3 to 5 years of their life, solar panels are not carbon neutral.

Most solar panels are rated to produce electricity at 80% of their initial value after 20 years. They are virtually indestructible. So realistically, they could be producing meaningful electricity for over 50 years.

So, we can do the maths: subtract say the first 4 years of a solar panel’s lifetime, you still get many decades of clean electricity. Solar photovoltaic panels are far, far better in terms of carbon release that any fossil fuel powered generator.

Well, Solar is quite a big up-front investment, but as investment grown, the technology gets better – something the ignoramuses above don’t want to know about is Solar’s ability to produce electricity at night.
eg, http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/solar-plant-generates-power-day-and-night/9518

Oops, that’s one in the eye for the luddites, isn’t it?

But anyway, as far as energy returned on energy invested goes, solar is only better than nuclear (and nuclear is really, really piss-poor in all sorts of ways, many of them completely externalised from the costs anyway), although you wouldn’t know that, given the PR-pollution produced by the dishonest pro-nukes lobby.

Wind is by far better on EROEI, and hydro is the best.

Coal looks good so long as the costs of pollution remain externalised, but thankfully that’s a hidden cost that is finally being addressed.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/media/157678/eroi_500x220.jpg

Speaking of Hydro. Being so close to the Snowy Mountains Hydro Scheme, why are we not tapping into this pollution free power source?

Baggy said :

The amount of electricity produced cannot be reduced until the alternative power source is reliable. At present, the solar farms to be built will not operate at night, nor efficiently when cloudy. So, the same amount of power must be produced

Wrong.

If it truly does only cost another 20 or so bucks a year, and it reduces the risk of power outages, particularly on scorching hot summer days, it will surely be worth it. Re the gas option, isn’t there talk of gas prices (local users having to compete with international demand) shooting up in the next few years?

but commercial and industry are going their own way http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/financial-services/ikea-has-designs-on-its-own-electricity-as-it-plans-self-sufficiency-through-leitrim-wind-farm-1.1492190

CraigT said :

There are several points, but if yours were an honest question, you would have answered it yourself, from personal research.

The bottom line is, when we draw power from our local solar plant, we will use power without burning fuel, without putting miners’ lives at risk, damaging land through causing subsidence, polluting groundwater, without polluting the atmosphere, and without transmission loss.
On average, this will reduce the amount of coal-generated power we consume.
This is the way of the future. Get with the program or become irrelevant.

This is factually incorrect.

The amount of electricity produced cannot be reduced until the alternative power source is reliable. At present, the solar farms to be built will not operate at night, nor efficiently when cloudy. So, the same amount of power must be produced, which means miners’ lives will still be at risk and all other of your comments remain the same as well.

Eventually we might see a reliable enough baseload source of renewable energy, but until then, nothing changes. It’s why earth hour as a means to ‘save power’ is a waste, as the energy produced is going to waste.

From little things big things grow. Start small, get big. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/wind-farm-proposed-for-irish-sea-will-be-visible-from-rush-to-wicklow-town-1.1432120

450,000 households is probably about a quarter of Ireland’s population. Admittedly there’s likely to be some marketing hyperbole in the output claims, and it doesn’t mention commercial buildings and industry, but it’s still a hell of a lot of wind power. Solar isn’t really viable in Ireland for obvious reasons if you have ever been there – my parents’ solar hot water system creates lukewarm water on “hot” days.

IP

Robertson said :

Mark of Sydney said :

I’m generally in favour of pricing carbon (though not the politically foolish way in which it was introduced) .

I agree – I wish they hadn’t “wiped Whyalla from the map” the way they did.

Oh, hang on – that was just Tony playing at Chicken Little for the benefit of his peanut gallery.

You come across as a luddite. 1 in 25 households today, 2 in 25 tomorrow, etc… Progress comes in stages.

$23/household compares very favourably with the doubling of gas/electricity bills that has happened as a result of the massive rises in the cost of energy since 2002.

Quite simply, if we don’t start investing now, we will be at the mercy of an industry that has already hammered us with unconscionable price rises of around 25x inflation in the last 12 years.

Perhaps I’m a luddite but also a political realist. In referring to the politically foolish way in which carbon pricing was introduced I wasn’t referring to Whyalla being wiped off the map, but Labor being wiped off the map.

You do realise don’t you that Tony Abbot will be PM in two and half weeks and that will at least partly be a consequence of the way in which carbon pricing was introduced. And that if the Coalition gets control of the Senate the carbon tax will be repealed. Or perhaps you think that Abbot’s Direct Action policy will set us on the road to energy nirvana?

> Solar power is a natural fit with the Australian climate. In a country like ours it makes sense to harness the power of the sun for energy use.

> …will introduce a range of initiatives to boost renewable energy use in Australian homes and communities, including investing $100 million each year for an additional one million solar energy homes by 2020.

From the Coalition Government Direction Action plan.

http://www.greghunt.com.au/Issues/DirectAction/DirectAction-Index.aspx

Robertson said :

Quite simply, if we don’t start investing now, we will be at the mercy of an industry that has already hammered us with unconscionable price rises of around 25x inflation in the last 12 years.

Ah yes, 2001; it was a golden age–when a man could buy a kWh of electricity for 0.6c

Mark of Sydney said :

I’m generally in favour of pricing carbon (though not the politically foolish way in which it was introduced) .

I agree – I wish they hadn’t “wiped Whyalla from the map” the way they did.

Oh, hang on – that was just Tony playing at Chicken Little for the benefit of his peanut gallery.

You come across as a luddite. 1 in 25 households today, 2 in 25 tomorrow, etc… Progress comes in stages.

$23/household compares very favourably with the doubling of gas/electricity bills that has happened as a result of the massive rises in the cost of energy since 2002.

Quite simply, if we don’t start investing now, we will be at the mercy of an industry that has already hammered us with unconscionable price rises of around 25x inflation in the last 12 years.

gasman said :

Solidarity said :

Zero emissions hey… so solar farms just grow on trees?

Are you implying that solar panels are not environmentally friendly (for want of a better phrase)?

I’m talking about the toxic (and nuclear!) wastes that are created as part of the manufacturing process.

CraigT said :

Mark of Sydney said :

So every household pays 45 cents a week extra to subsidise solar energy for just 10,000 households. Assuming there are around 250,000 households in the ACT, this means it would cost every household an extra $11.25 a week or $585 a year to go completely solar (though of course we could only use power when the sun is shining without a further massive investment in batteries, which have to be replaced every few years).

Can someone enlighten me as to the point of this exercise.

There are several points, but if yours were an honest question, you would have answered it yourself, from personal research.

The bottom line is, when we draw power from our local solar plant, we will use power without burning fuel, without putting miners’ lives at risk, damaging land through causing subsidence, polluting groundwater, without polluting the atmosphere, and without transmission loss.
On average, this will reduce the amount of coal-generated power we consume.
This is the way of the future. Get with the program or become irrelevant.

It is an honest question, to which your arrogant response encapsulates much of what it is about the green left that gets up the nose of open-minded people.

For what it’s worth I accept that the weight of scientific evidence supports action on climate change. But I repeat, what’s the point of this solar energy policy? Where does it end? The large solar plants that the government is now committed to will theoretically meet the electricity demands of about 1 in 25 households at an extra cost for every ACT household of $23 a year. How much more are people here willing to pay than they would have to pay in Queanbeyan for the sake of knowing that all the electricity they consume is generated by renewable means? What happens when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow?

Construction of these plants will create some temporary jobs. But is that it? Or are you arguing that Canberra will become a centre for the solar energy industry? Seems unlikely given this a high-cost location (and getting costlier thanks to government initiatives such as this) for manufacturing and other business sectors (as johnboy has recently pointed out)? Even if the solar energy industry was attracted to the region they would be more likely to set up in Queanbeyan, confident that mainstream politics in NSW will always be more concerned about that state’s competitiveness for business than the public sector intensive ACT.

I’m generally in favour of pricing carbon (though not the politically foolish way in which it was introduced) and other evidence-based initiatives, but not municipally based self harm such as the ACT Government’s approach.

Canberra is in for a big economic shock in the near future. Until we see how that pans out, perhaps put a hold on local initiatives that drive up costs.

gasman said :

Its amazing that there are still large sections of the general public that dispute this, or don’t care.

Either they haven’t read the evidence, or don’t understand it, or somehow deny it in spite of the evidence.

Or maybe they are just proposing that this particular scheme is not worth the candle, and are not disputing global warming or its effects at all.

Maybe you should read less of the invisible writings of these people.

But please don’t let that prevent you from riding your hobby horse.

The one that is to be built near Uriarra is going to be about the same area size as the village itself.

http://www.elementusenergy.com.au/Elementus_Energy/OneSun_Capital.html

Also of note is…

– Winning company for the project was Elementus Projects (OneSun Capital)

– Solar farm will be approx 40 hectares in Size and up to 2m off the ground with the panels fixed to North facing.

– OneSun Capital will be leasing the land direct from the land holder for a period of 20 years.

– The land will also continue to be used for sheep grazing.

– OneSun Capital has undertaken to meet with owners/residents to answer any queries/concerns they may have regarding the Solar Farm and its construction. Once I am contacted by the contractor I will advise so that all owners have the opportunity to attend.

– Depending on outcomes of the consultation process the contractors will consider requests for extra plantings along Brindabella road to screen the solar farm.

– As part of the construction the existing mains power line to the area will be upgraded.

– A DA will be lodged with owners/residents given the opportunity to query/object to the proposal.

– If approved construction is expected to commencing mid 2014 with the system operational by early 2015.

gasman said :

Ben_Dover said :

Pandering to the mad Grennie / leftie crowd vote, what else?

Yeah – the thousands of scientists who contributed to the IPCC (InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report were all mad Greenies.

Climate change (and the human contribution to it) has such a high degree of evidence that it can be regarded as a scientific fact.

Of course, there is still debate about how fast it is happening, possible future consequences, the degree to which different pollutants contribute etc, but the scientific community no longer debates its existence.

Its amazing that there are still large sections of the general public that dispute this, or don’t care.

Either they haven’t read the evidence, or don’t understand it, or somehow deny it in spite of the evidence.

Um, can you point out the part of Ben Dover’s comment that suggests he doesn’t believe in climate change?

IrishPete said :

MERC600 said :

MERC600 said :

And so on a gloomy day at 5.27 pm, when I guess peak demand is very near, are these things punching it out ?

should have written ‘ capable of punching it out ‘.

In summer, yes.If it’s sunny, as it usually is. No form of power generation is continuous – everything is capable of being interrupted. Ask the Japanese.

IP

I asked the Japanese, and here’s what they told me:

“None of Japan’s commercial wind turbines, totaling over 2300 MW in nameplate capacity, failed as a result of the 2011 T?hoku earthquake and tsunami, including the Kamisu offshore wind farm directly hit by the tsunami.”

http://www.webcitation.org/5zAoObMnC

Directly hit by the Tsunami, didn’t miss a beat. Kept providing power to fill the gap left by the exploding catastrophe at Fukushima. Go nukes!

gasman said :

Solidarity said :

Zero emissions hey… so solar farms just grow on trees?

Are you implying that solar panels are not environmentally friendly (for want of a better phrase)?

Its true that solar panels require electricity to produce. Thats called its embodied energy. However, a typical solar panel will produce the same electricity that was required to make it in about 3-5 years. So, admittedly, for that first 3 to 5 years of their life, solar panels are not carbon neutral.

Most solar panels are rated to produce electricity at 80% of their initial value after 20 years. They are virtually indestructible. So realistically, they could be producing meaningful electricity for over 50 years.

So, we can do the maths: subtract say the first 4 years of a solar panel’s lifetime, you still get many decades of clean electricity. Solar photovoltaic panels are far, far better in terms of carbon release that any fossil fuel powered generator.

Well, Solar is quite a big up-front investment, but as investment grown, the technology gets better – something the ignoramuses above don’t want to know about is Solar’s ability to produce electricity at night.
eg, http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/solar-plant-generates-power-day-and-night/9518

Oops, that’s one in the eye for the luddites, isn’t it?

But anyway, as far as energy returned on energy invested goes, solar is only better than nuclear (and nuclear is really, really piss-poor in all sorts of ways, many of them completely externalised from the costs anyway), although you wouldn’t know that, given the PR-pollution produced by the dishonest pro-nukes lobby.

Wind is by far better on EROEI, and hydro is the best.

Coal looks good so long as the costs of pollution remain externalised, but thankfully that’s a hidden cost that is finally being addressed.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/media/157678/eroi_500x220.jpg

Solidarity said :

Zero emissions hey… so solar farms just grow on trees?

Are you implying that solar panels are not environmentally friendly (for want of a better phrase)?

Its true that solar panels require electricity to produce. Thats called its embodied energy. However, a typical solar panel will produce the same electricity that was required to make it in about 3-5 years. So, admittedly, for that first 3 to 5 years of their life, solar panels are not carbon neutral.

Most solar panels are rated to produce electricity at 80% of their initial value after 20 years. They are virtually indestructible. So realistically, they could be producing meaningful electricity for over 50 years.

So, we can do the maths: subtract say the first 4 years of a solar panel’s lifetime, you still get many decades of clean electricity. Solar photovoltaic panels are far, far better in terms of carbon release that any fossil fuel powered generator.

gasman said :

Ben_Dover said :

Pandering to the mad Grennie / leftie crowd vote, what else?

Yeah – the thousands of scientists who contributed to the IPCC (InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report were all mad Greenies.

Climate change (and the human contribution to it) has such a high degree of evidence that it can be regarded as a scientific fact.

Of course, there is still debate about how fast it is happening, possible future consequences, the degree to which different pollutants contribute etc, but the scientific community no longer debates its existence.

Its amazing that there are still large sections of the general public that dispute this, or don’t care.

Either they haven’t read the evidence, or don’t understand it, or somehow deny it in spite of the evidence.

Well, “denial” is a coping mechanism: people who are trying so desperately to ignore the evident facts by saying, “climate change is crap” are clearly very, bvery alarmed by the situation.

As well they should be: scientists are naturally sceptical and conservative, and the IPCC has been severely underestimating the progress of climate change.

Here is a very alrming fact, from the “mad greenies” at NASA:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/news/grace20121129.html

In a landmark study published Thursday in the journal Science, 47 researchers from 26 laboratories report the combined rate of melting for the ice sheets covering Greenland and Antarctica has increased during the last 20 years. Together, these ice sheets are losing more than three times as much ice each year (equivalent to sea level rise of 0.04 inches or 0.95 millimeters) as they were in the 1990s (equivalent to 0.01 inches or 0.27 millimeters). About two-thirds of the loss is coming from Greenland, with the rest from Antarctica.

This rate of ice sheet losses falls within the range reported in 2007 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The spread of estimates in the 2007 IPCC report was so broad, however, it was not clear whether Antarctica was growing or shrinking. The new estimates, which are more than twice as accurate because of the inclusion of more satellite data, confirm both Antarctica and Greenland are losing ice. Combined, melting of these ice sheets contributed 0.44 inches (11.1 millimeters) to global sea levels since 1992. This accounts for one-fifth of all sea level rise over the 20-year survey period. The remainder is caused by the thermal expansion of the warming ocean, melting of mountain glaciers and small Arctic ice caps, and groundwater mining.

And, in pictures for the cranky-pensioner-halfwits:
http://ess.uci.edu/researchgrp/velicogna/files/slide2.jpg

Basically, last time CO2 levels were this high, sea level was about 10 metres higher than it is today. And we haven’t by any means even come close to stopping the emissions of CO2.

This is civilisational collapse in the making. Congratulations, farckwits.

Ben_Dover said :

Pandering to the mad Grennie / leftie crowd vote, what else?

Yeah – the thousands of scientists who contributed to the IPCC (InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report were all mad Greenies.

Climate change (and the human contribution to it) has such a high degree of evidence that it can be regarded as a scientific fact.

Of course, there is still debate about how fast it is happening, possible future consequences, the degree to which different pollutants contribute etc, but the scientific community no longer debates its existence.

Its amazing that there are still large sections of the general public that dispute this, or don’t care.

Either they haven’t read the evidence, or don’t understand it, or somehow deny it in spite of the evidence.

Mark of Sydney said :

So every household pays 45 cents a week extra to subsidise solar energy for just 10,000 households. Assuming there are around 250,000 households in the ACT, this means it would cost every household an extra $11.25 a week or $585 a year to go completely solar (though of course we could only use power when the sun is shining without a further massive investment in batteries, which have to be replaced every few years).

Can someone enlighten me as to the point of this exercise.

There are several points, but if yours were an honest question, you would have answered it yourself, from personal research.

The bottom line is, when we draw power from our local solar plant, we will use power without burning fuel, without putting miners’ lives at risk, damaging land through causing subsidence, polluting groundwater, without polluting the atmosphere, and without transmission loss.
On average, this will reduce the amount of coal-generated power we consume.
This is the way of the future. Get with the program or become irrelevant.

Mark of Sydney said :

So every household pays 45 cents a week extra to subsidise solar energy for just 10,000 households. Assuming there are around 250,000 households in the ACT, this means it would cost every household an extra $11.25 a week or $585 a year to go completely solar (though of course we could only use power when the sun is shining without a further massive investment in batteries, which have to be replaced every few years).

Can someone enlighten me as to the point of this exercise.

It’s way cheaper per KWh than subsidising a nuclear power plant. Seems like a pretty good idea to me.

Now, if we just had a gas-fired power plant – near the tip say – we would have the capacity to quickly ramp up power production in order to meet spikes in demand without having to inefficiently import electricity all the way from the Hunter or Bairnsdale, thus incurring massive transmission loss.

Now, who scotched our gas-fired power plant again?…..Zed. I’m going to remember that, in 3 weeks time. And in every subsequent election, come to think of it.

Mark of Sydney said :

Can someone enlighten me as to the point of this exercise.

Pandering to the mad Grennie / leftie crowd vote, what else?

So every household pays 45 cents a week extra to subsidise solar energy for just 10,000 households. Assuming there are around 250,000 households in the ACT, this means it would cost every household an extra $11.25 a week or $585 a year to go completely solar (though of course we could only use power when the sun is shining without a further massive investment in batteries, which have to be replaced every few years).

Can someone enlighten me as to the point of this exercise.

MERC600 said :

MERC600 said :

And so on a gloomy day at 5.27 pm, when I guess peak demand is very near, are these things punching it out ?

should have written ‘ capable of punching it out ‘.

In summer, yes.If it’s sunny, as it usually is. No form of power generation is continuous – everything is capable of being interrupted. Ask the Japanese.

IP

MERC600 said :

And so on a gloomy day at 5.27 pm, when I guess peak demand is very near, are these things punching it out ?

should have written ‘ capable of punching it out ‘.

And so on a gloomy day at 5.27 pm, when I guess peak demand is very near, are these things punching it out ?

Let’s hope someone told the neighbours this time, like they didn’t in Royalla.

IP

Chop71 said :

What a total flog-fest. 45cents per KW to feel warm and fuzzy

A 4 year old would say I hope it looks cool, while mums and dads pay the huge electricity bills.

Two things:
1. It’s kWh not KW.
2. It’s 0.3c per kWh (So 45c on top of an existing $35 per week).

Zero emissions hey… so solar farms just grow on trees?

What a total flog-fest. 45cents per KW to feel warm and fuzzy

A 4 year old would say I hope it looks cool, while mums and dads pay the huge electricity bills.