Power Station scaled down

I hear there’s some spare land going down Molongolo valley at the moment…

I use my a/c in winter, to keep mu 104 cm plamsa TV cool.

No seriously, I use it to heat the house. Better than those oil radiators that Bunnings sells.

@ vicepope: FRACK OFF CNUT!!

The use of the word “nimbies” et al makes you lose any credibility that you might have had.

whorebags – cogeneration is all good and well, but it would not add more than a few % saving in GHGs.

As for NIMBYs and windfarms, those people are morons. Wind farms have not hurt property values in Japan or Europe, nor do they produce a lot of noise.

ant – simple economics. Solar panels are currently too expensive. Govts won’t even properly regulate the way people build houses, how are they going to tack a big extra cost onto every house? A much more effective and cheaper option would be to require all new houses to be built along passive solar guidelines.

frank – it was always going to be peakload. All gas plants in this country are used for peakload because of the relative price of gas vs coal, and anyone who said it would be baseload in any time other than an emergency where power from outside the ACT was cut off was telling fibs.

Al – we should talk some time.

Why isn’t the local government investing more in least cost demand reduction measures (like the hEAT program), and why isn’t the federal govt changing the structure of the NEM to make electricity more demand elastic? That’s where the changes should start. Get people to use less, not build more plant to accommodate their waste!

Oh, and mandate all airconditioners must be purchased with accompanying solar PV cells – when do you use a/cs? When the sun is high in the sky. That would ameliorate the peaks in summer electricity demand which have become a major problem.

Hi Caf, have a re-read – you miss the key point of my post – the gas-fired option is unacceptable from a GHG perspective in my view, and I did suggest an alternative to gas-fired that can work and could be co-located.

But I beg to differ that “the whole point of the exercise to was co-located”. If that was the point, then the DA would have been for what it has now been scaled back to. The point I believe was to try to use the data centre and the promise of jobs to help boost through an otherwise unacceptable proposal for a major power station close to town that would do far more than be an emergency backup. The generator was always the main game for McKay I reckon, with the data centre only the sweetener.

Which brings me back to my other key point – McKay answers to no-one in the public here – is that acceptable?

Skid: nice try, but I don’t think people would have a problem with the data centre out this way, but Mitchell doesn’t have the space left any more and unfortunately planners of years gone by have not provided adequately for either its expansion, or its protection from encroaching residential development.
On the power station out this way – this is where I’d differ from *some of* the residents down there – I don’t think it is fair to be saying just move it. As I said above – there are better ways than gas, and we proposed as much in our submission on the solar feed-in tariff bill. In it I put forward the concept of a medium scale alternative energy generation facility in a highly visible gateway location near the Federal Highway. And that facility would be owned by a community cooperative, thereby allowing people who don’t have a spare $10,000 lying around but may have $500 – $4,000 say to also invest in solar (or other) GHG-friendly energy.

Switched sides? From where to where?

Cotter Road has rural properties on it as does Majura Rd (not to mention Brand Depot, Police training, MTB track and rifle range). I guess if Actew only want to get offside with a few dozen people rather than a few thousand then they might be able to push it through. A number of the rural people might only be renting anyway so Actew might be able to offer the actual owners a big fat cheque for the properties and the tennants might have to GTFO.

Caf – the site was 600m from the closest house, and 900m from the actual gas plant.

It came out on tonight’s news that the govt was planning to move the rehab facility if the plant went ahead – why so if they were confident that the plant met all emission levels?

This thing has been mismanaged. Consultation should involve a back and forth exchange, not just a notice in the paper.

And Jon Stanhope is wierd. This time around he is staying very hands-off, and saying it isn’t for the government to get involved in planning decisions – yet when they want to they just use their call in powers to authorise seven storey buildings in Deakin, or mega old folks complexes in small Ainslie streets.

And if the government can’t get involved in massive development projects, or issues which have a large proportion of the community upset – what are they there for??

And for those saying this project was curtailed by a few protesters – it wasn’t just a few – there was massive opposition to this thing, and to the way it was being foisted on the residents with no notice, and much of the opposition wasn’t even from the closest residents. When large sections of the community are against something, it should at least be a reason to stop and think about it.

Indeed, VicePap.

But I guess now that the Tuggeranong plan has failed:
Gungahlin Al is going to be completely against the idea when they want to put one in Gungahlin, creating local jobs in construction, use it as a draw card for local corporate IT development, and use it as a pitch for putting a Federal Government department out there…

But wait!
Other sites? Try Majura Valley a little off the flightpath – electrons not bothered much by noise at all. – Gungahlin Al, 14:04, 28 May 2008

The political action has begun in earnest, and he has already switched sides!

Futto – I won’t say which suburb, but it’s quite close. A modest walk, even for an aged shell such as myself.
Pandy (#17) – articulate as ever. Ask nicely and I can suggest some things you might read about how to develop an actual line of argument.

The whole campaign against was an emission of noxious gas far worse than anything the power station would produce. Shame on the nimbies, and shame on the politicians who exploited them.

Gungahlin Al: The whole point of the exercise was to co-locate the data centre and the power generator in order to save costs. First, dedicated data centres need on-site generation backup (the building I’m in has a diesel generator in the basement) – having a gas power plant literally next door means you save money there. Second, data centres need a LOT of cooling – in this facility they plan(ned) to use the waste heat from the power plant to provide cooling (probably using Absorption Refrigeration) – this one saves both money and GHG emissions. Third, you save on transmission losses (which are not huge, but are significant).

While the protesters make me giggle deep within with their unrealistic views on power supply and their name (Canberrans for power station relocation, yes that is their team name, what will they do with themselves when this is all over?), their point about being worried about the amount of nitrogen dioxide emissions. If I was a mother I would not want to live 600 meters away from a plant that leaked a gas that causes respiritory difficulties. And I would not give a damn about any health safety regulations.

I think a big chunk of the problem here was that the unelected John McKay has seemed to be moving more and more towards some sort of Deputy Chief Minister role, but without the democratic accountability.

Statements like that he’ll build the thing “whatever it takes” give insight into the mindset. And that gets back to the core problm of privatising core community infrastructure. You take control of vital services from people who are answerrable to the community at large and put in in the hands of people answerrable only to shareholders.

They tried to link two essentially unrelated developments into the one all or nothing DA – it’s a blatant attempt to manipulate politically, and it backfired.

The data centre can go anywhere – its just a collection of commercial/industrial buildings. And sorry Deano, but electricity travels longs distances without any significant drop in reliability. Other sites? Try Majura Valley a little off the flightpath – electrons not bothered much by noise at all.

The power station is a different situation all together. As RNR said gas may be less GHG than coal, but not by much. And our juice comes from Snowy Hydro anyway. Solar thermal is indeed an alternative worther of better consideration, and it’s not like there’d be any shortage of ANU techs to work on a local demo plant… Solar thermal addresses the peak and base load criticisms that people often put up against PV and wind. The heat can be “banked” underground and tapped into when needed – even at night or in winter.

The question now is: is the scaled-back result still a “thin edge of the wedge” though?

A sad outcome indeed and a win for the fuktards who believe any “consultation” process is flawed simply because all of their halfwitted ideas aren’t immediately adopted. Who are these unelected douche-bag numbnuts that believe they have a right to dictate to the rest of the Canberra community what can and cant be built?

I actually supported the original concept but reckon it could have gone ahead in a better location. That site was chosen as it was the most suitable AND cost effective site in the ACT. Go to the next one on the list that is not as cost effective and bob’s your uncle. It will just take a few more year to pay off….

This was a classic case of top down management – problem is the workers revolted and the elected officials got cold feet!

ACTEW did not consult. As I said to their rep at the info session – a few articles in the Crimes is not consultation. And then calling info sessions when the calims and counter claims are flying is no way to inform, listen and work with the community.

The ACTEW PR manager should be sacked.

And the quote by the data centre guy in the Crimes today that Singapore and Hong Kong are viable options is the complete opposite to what their rep told me at the info session. They hate Singapore because it is a large city with it’s own power and space issues and Hong Kong is trouble because their clients are not keen on having their information stored in China….

Woody, stick it up yourself. People power wins elections.

Yes, after which elected officials and the public service make decisions in the interests of all constituents. This does not involve asking permission from a small and vocal subset of the electorate, or caving to their particular views. If that was the way government operated nothing would ever get done because nobody wants anything in their backyards.

I voted for a government to make decisions on my behalf, not a tiny group of people who know nothing about the issue, and who approach gathering and analysing evidence like lawyers, grasping whatever supports their views no matter how tenuous, and rejecting everything else. I’ll vote for them again before I support minority mob rule, whether I agree with their decision or not.

There seemed to be confusion as to whether the thing was meant to supply base-load or peak-load power. While this may seem like a piddling detail, the devil is in the detail…

When my source in the local community mentioned renewable energy alternatives to ActewAGL, the “we need baseload power” argument was used to dismiss them, however correspondence recieved the next week from ActewAGL noted the station was to provide peak-load power.

In Canberra, our peak-load power comes from Snowy Hydro, backed up by Gas Fired plants in Vic, so the GHG effect of the plant for peak-load would be either nothing (more likely) or making the situation worse by displacing hydro (less likely, considering the lack of water to let out). On the other hand, a number of renewable techs can provide base load power, for example – the huge number of wind turbines apparently about to be built near Bungendonre by the NSW Gov, or the mooted Solar thermal thingy.

I wonder why there isn’t more of a push for new houses to have roofs made of solar power collectors? They could feed the power into the grid.. imagine all of Gunghalin, generating power.

sepi: I believe the closest house was less than a kilometre from the site boundary, but more than a kilometre from the power station itself.

RNR & DMD I agree, and for a $2 billion investment we could get all the exciting solar thermal and solar chemical work at the ANU fully commercialised and in production. Perhaps have enough money to buy a few billion ‘wafer’ pvcs as well. There are at least two recent cases of Australians taking their solar technology overseas because they couldn’t get the investment here to commercialise their product – one of them is now one of Australia’s richest people (wafer cells guy)and the other is building a base-load capable plant in California. These guys only needed a few million to get going, and here in the little old ACT we’ve got billions to waste on a gas-fired plant!

RuffnReady: one of the big selling points, AFAIK, wasn’t just that there were less GHG produced, but that cogeneration at facility also provided the cooling capacity for the adjacent data centre. Cooling is a big power cost for a data centre of this size, so not having to draw that power from the grid saves more emissions.

There was (or is) a large scale windfarm planned for the Tarago area – here’s a link to it on ActewAGL’s site. Don’t be suckered in by Actew’s claims of strong community support. Even with a windfarm, the NIMBY contingent were up in arms about views, land values, birds, noise.

Everyone loves the convenience of cheap electricity, but nobody wants to live near a generating facility. I think that solar has the highest community acceptance, so with a bit of luck that technology will become economically feasible on a large scale very soon.

“I’m sure those windmills will keep them cool”
“WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY! GOODNIGHT!”

Deano: Tidbinbilla Tracking Station

So their going to build one half the size with probably the same noise output or similar lol. Similar situation to the cotter dam. Build it small and have to expand it or build another at massive cost latter.

captainwhorebags said :

Any GHG-producing power station that doesn’t get built has to be something of a positive.

I disagree. If this power station was to produce less GHG per MW, then it would have been a positive. Now the datacentre will just burn up more brown coal. At least the pollution is exported to another state.

Hmmm. Sure, gas produces about 20% less GHGs than black coal, but it’s not that much of a step up, and much more expensive per MWh of power than coal. It has the advantage of quick start and shutdown for providing peak power at a premium, but it’s not feasible as anything else.

What I would like to know is why any government in this country is allowing new coal or gas plant to be built!? There is this one, and two monster coal-fireds (10x the output of the original plan for this gas-fired) planned for Gladstone and Anvil Hill in the Hunter. WTF??? I thought we were serious about the environment! lol

We have abundant wind, sun and hot rocks, and the technology to use them all. Wind is not much more expensive than gas, and within 5 years (ie. with a carbon price and economies of scale), it, geothermal and solar PV will be competitive, if not cheaper than coal. Not only that, governments aren’t even seriously attempting least cost mitigation which is DEMAND REDUCTION.

Nah, let’s not be rational and think long-term here, let’s just keep chewing up the planet because the electoral cycle only runs 3 years…

*bangs head against wall*

These two articles discuss a company running a real data centre… nothing like the toy site planned for Tuggeranong / Hume / Maccarthur:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/24/switch_supernap/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/24/switch_switchnap_rob_roy/

ActewAGL have a lot to learn as this site has some genuine green credentials not like the GHG gas version planned for here.

Pandy said :

People power wins elections.

Which would explain the current standard of government in this country.

ant said :

Consultation? What do they think that word means?

This is a serious question to those who have raised objections to the development process…

What would you consider to be adequate consultation?

ant said :

They appear to have set out to conceal the scale of the thing (and its location) until they were found out… I wonder if they hoped to be able to start up the bulldozers and start digging before they were sprung?

It is pretty easy to conceal things from people who resist all efforts to be informed.

What about behind the Hume industrial area for one spot?

Because that is in New South Wales – why should they get the benefit of a development funded by ACT residents.

For all the other suggestions about sticking this out in the middle of nowhere – infrastructure is the key. A datacentre needs access to highly reliable electricity and communications – neither of which is available in the sticks. Not to mention the fact that people need to travel there to work.

I suppose some people will insist on living south side, if you can call it living.

Consultation? What do they think that word means? I honestly think they see the requirement to undertake it as a nuisence, something to be manipulated while they get on with what they intend to do. I don’t think they ever have any intention of responding to community concerns or changing anything. These plans are always fait accompli, I’m not sure what “consultation” is even meant to be, other than a bureacratic process and a box to tick.

Any GHG-producing power station that doesn’t get built has to be something of a positive.

I disagree. If this power station was to produce less GHG per MW, then it would have been a positive. Now the datacentre will just burn up more brown coal. At least the pollution is exported to another state.

Frack off Vicepoe.

Woody, stick it up yourself.

People power wins elections.

cranky said :

This decision to reduce the facility is cutting your nose off to spite your face – the concept was good, just wrong location.

Actewagl said it needed to be the larger size to be viable. On a smaller scale, is it still worth it ? I agree with cranky… why not put it in a better location, the concept was good.

I heard the head of ACTEW on radio this arvo talking about this. He sounded pretty angry, so I don’t think this smaller version was his original plan.

He kept saying how they had consulted, cos an article had appeared in the Canberra times in October last year. That’s not really consulting. Not everyone reads the paper, and it’s not a forum where you get any right of reply. And anyway – that is when they kept talking about Hume.

He promised faithfully that they will not ever increase the size of this power station and that they will build some more, but nowhere near built up areas – he said they have learnt their lesson on that. (Not enough to actually cancel this project and do it somewhere else though.)

He also kept saying this project is over kilometer from houses – it is under a kilometer to some of Macarthur I thought.

And Macarthur isn’t a suburb of mcmansions – there are plenty of pretty daggy 3beddies there.

Anyway – ACTEW man was saying all the right things (his pr person must’ve had a word), but he sounded so bitter and aggressive that the community had turned against his organisation, I don’t know if hte interview was a good idea.

people expressing their democratic rights

Semi-hysterical minority MOB!!! (POISON GAS DHMO OMFG) getting its own way != democracy.

Not that it did anyway – I’m still n’thing the conspiracy theory that this was what was planned all along.

Why the total disinterest in relocating the facility to a less sensitive site? Half way down Cotter Road would be out of sight, out of mind, close to water supplies and the grid. And by no means the only possible location.

This decision to reduce the facility is cutting your nose off to spite your face – the concept was good, just wrong location.

aronde said :

If I was cynical I would say the ‘new’ proposal is what they wanted all along! Go for a big, pollution making facility that no one will want in the first instance and then ‘listen’ to concerns and get what you wanted all the time and get some kudos at the same time! brilliant!

A conspiracy theory, love them… hows this one.
The Stanhope Government has whipped the community into a frenzy by encouraging Actewagl to build a huge powerstation on the edge of surburbia. They then make a great show of ” community consultation ” and say aren’t we fantastic because we care about what the people think and we will build a smaller one. The end result in a election year is that Stanhope and his crew look good, ActewAGL still get a power station, the Environmental issues might be overlooked because its the lesser of two evils.

Any other conspiracy theories?

To all the tards here who bitch about people expressing their democratic rights….and having them listened to, I notice that none of you say what suburb you are from.

So if a person who is going to be affected by a change and complains about it is a “nimby”, what are you? A hypocrite because you live in Dunlop?

I live in Watson and i think this power plant was an awful idea. All this damn space and paddocks as far as the eye can see, and we put it a few kilometre from thousands of people.

ant said :

And was this really the only place to put it? What about behind the Hume industrial area for one spot?

Might that interfere with the proposed Tralee development? Not sure if Tralee is still going ahead, wasn’t there an issue about it being under the aircraft flight path and therefore too noisy
?

The whole thing was very weird. They appear to have set out to conceal the scale of the thing (and its location) until they were found out… I wonder if they hoped to be able to start up the bulldozers and start digging before they were sprung?

This seems like decision-making on the run. I don’t think anyone’s won, and it’s bloody concerning that the gov’t does things in this manner. How much money has been wasted in this bumbling exercise? And what are the effects of the generation thingy not going ahead? Why build this thing half-baked? And was this really the only place to put it? What about behind the Hume industrial area for one spot?

Outrageous. I hope stanhope is going to introduce a regulation banning big TVs, air con etc in Macarthur.

ActewAGL are looking at building the full scale thing elsewhere in ACT at a later date when they “find somewhere suitable”. I don’t believe there is anywhere. Where ever they build it there will be people affected. Probably only a few rural leaseholders that won’t make enough noise like the Macarthur residents did. And probably after the election…

I am looking forward to the bold experiment by Macarthur residents who have decided they no longer need electricity to power their McMansions. I mean, they’d be utter hypocrites if they still wanted to be on the grid, wouldn’t they?

VicePope said :

Giving in to nimbies is about the dumbest thing ActewAGL or the ACT government could have done.

There is an election in the near future and Stanhope is the major shareholder in Actew. Do you think he didn’t have something to do with influencing the decision so that it would remove a potential election issue that the Liberals could use to their advantage.

It will be interesting to hear the Nimbies response, because in reality a power station is a power station and a smaller one is potentially more polluting than a larger one.

If I was cynical I would say the ‘new’ proposal is what they wanted all along! Go for a big, pollution making facility that no one will want in the first instance and then ‘listen’ to concerns and get what you wanted all the time and get some kudos at the same time! brilliant!

Agreed with VicePope 100%.

Lets hope some lessons have been learned and this time some quality information is offered so people can respond in an accurate and informed manner.

Will this scaled down version be the first stage with expansion options in the future ? Is it the same development just marketed differently ? Lets wait and read the detail.

One thing stood out in the media release … it didn’t sound like the original proposal was going to meet pollution or noise safe levels.

Bring on the new proposal !

Giving in to nimbies is about the dumbest thing ActewAGL or the ACT government could have done. The awareness of the pain level will just drive more people to resist vital infrastructure from which they will benefit. I would have doubled the size.