Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Chamberlains - complete legal services for business

ACT getting two new solar farms

By Barcham - 19 August 2013 98

Simon Corbell announced the winners of the ACT Solar Auction today, which means Canberra will now be getting two new large solar farms.

“I am pleased to announce two new solar farms will be developed in Canberra as a result of the Solar Auction process, which will now contribute over $100 million worth of capital investment in renewable energy for our city,” Mr Corbell said.

The winners of the regular stream process of the ACT Solar Auction are:

— Zhenfa Solar for their 13 megawatt Mugga Lane Solar Park on the corner of Mugga Lane and the Monaro Hwy, adjacent to the Mugga Lane Resource Management Centre.

— OneSun for their 7 megawatt OneSun Capital Solar Farm in the district of Coree, near Uriarra Village.

“Including the FRV Royalla Solar Farm announced in September 2012, the three solar farms will produce renewable energy, equivalent to the power needs of 10,000 Canberra households, and zero emissions,” Mr Corbell said.

“The ACT Solar Auction is delivering large scale renewable energy at an affordable price. The maximum cost to households is expected to be 45 cents per week when all three farms are operating in 2016. This is forecast to drop to 27 cents per household per week by 2021.”

I hope they look sufficiently futuristic and cool, and would be happy to work as a ‘future aesthetic consultant’ during construction if they need assistance.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
98 Responses to
ACT getting two new solar farms
CraigT 9:12 pm 19 Aug 13

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

gasman 9:01 pm 19 Aug 13

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.

CraigT 8:59 pm 19 Aug 13

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.

gasman 8:50 pm 19 Aug 13

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.

CraigT 8:03 pm 19 Aug 13

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.

CraigT 7:56 pm 19 Aug 13

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.

Ben_Dover 6:50 pm 19 Aug 13

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?

Mark of Sydney 6:25 pm 19 Aug 13

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.

IrishPete 5:45 pm 19 Aug 13

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 5:38 pm 19 Aug 13

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 ‘.

MERC600 5:27 pm 19 Aug 13

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

IrishPete 4:39 pm 19 Aug 13

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

IP

davo101 4:19 pm 19 Aug 13

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).

Solidarity 4:04 pm 19 Aug 13

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

Chop71 3:22 pm 19 Aug 13

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.

1 2 3 7

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site