News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

[PD2/20]

the spin from you people is unbelievable

its like a religion or dare I say cult

Would you like to inform us what it is that you consider spin and why?

[Aidan]

abc, your posts seem to have as much spin as anyone else's on this thread.

You also have quite poor comprehension: you mistook a post about a fire in a coal mine for an assumption about your opinion on coal seam gas!

I notice you posted a map of the coal fired power stations under construction but not the ones closing down. Some would say that was misleading. But I presume you posted it because you want to know why any at all are still being built. So here are some reasons:

• Not everywhere in the world is sunny or windy.
• Some places have too high a population density, so don't have space for enough solar and wind power to satisfy energy demands, but aren't well suited to nuclear power either (for technical or political reasons).
• Using local coal is cheap in low wage countries, especially when environmental costs are ignored.
• When construction started, transitioning to 100% renewables didn't seem to be possible.
• Some power stations are built for political purposes rather than to serve a genuine need.

[abc]

abc, your posts seem to have as much spin as anyone else's on this thread.

You also have quite poor comprehension: you mistook a post about a fire in a coal mine for an assumption about your opinion on coal seam gas!

I notice you posted a map of the coal fired power stations under construction but not the ones closing down. Some would say that was misleading. But I presume you posted it because you want to know why any at all are still being built. So here are some reasons:

• Not everywhere in the world is sunny or windy.
• Some places have too high a population density, so don't have space for enough solar and wind power to satisfy energy demands, but aren't well suited to nuclear power either (for technical or political reasons).
• Using local coal is cheap in low wage countries, especially when environmental costs are ignored.
• When construction started, transitioning to 100% renewables didn't seem to be possible.
• Some power stations are built for political purposes rather than to serve a genuine need.

this was the post I was responding to

now would you like to retract your statement?

it seems comprehension is your problem

Genex Power, the owner and operator of the Bouldercombe Battery today issued an ASX announcement regarding the fire https://app.sharelinktechnologies.com/a ... baa65f64c6 .

The fire was described as minor, of low intensity and affecting only 1 of the 40 Megapack modules.

can't be put out with water

firefighters had no choice but to allow to burn out

do you still think this is good for the environment?

Give me a break with your diatribe.

Ever heard of a coal seam fire. Burned for 45 days in 2014. Long term affects on residents of the La Trobe Valley. There are hundreds/thousands around the world uncontrolled.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... tudy-finds

Go find some context.

[PeFe]

• Not everywhere in the world is sunny or windy.

Sorry but I disagree......everywhere in the world is either sunny and/or windy. Even in climatic extremes like Antartica where the sun disappears for totally for 3 months and practically for 6 months you still have wind.....in fact it is the windiest place on earth and combine that with storage...

Some places have too high a population density, so don't have space for enough solar and wind power to satisfy energy demands, but aren't well suited to nuclear power either (for technical or political reasons).

Well lets take Hong Kong for example, yes its really dense and land is at a premium but that doesn't stop you installing rooftop solar on as many buildings as possible and building pumped hydro in the mountainous regions, plus batteries of course.
So making Hong Kong 100% renewable is doable.

Even in deserts 100% renewables is still possible......guaranteed solar every day, store excess energy in batteries etc. Where there is a will there is a way and there is lot of research world wide to build batteries/storage that is cheaper than lithium-ion batteries. The story continues.

[rubberman]

abc, your posts seem to have as much spin as anyone else's on this thread.

You also have quite poor comprehension: you mistook a post about a fire in a coal mine for an assumption about your opinion on coal seam gas!

I notice you posted a map of the coal fired power stations under construction but not the ones closing down. Some would say that was misleading. But I presume you posted it because you want to know why any at all are still being built. So here are some reasons:

• Not everywhere in the world is sunny or windy.
• Some places have too high a population density, so don't have space for enough solar and wind power to satisfy energy demands, but aren't well suited to nuclear power either (for technical or political reasons).
• Using local coal is cheap in low wage countries, especially when environmental costs are ignored.
• When construction started, transitioning to 100% renewables didn't seem to be possible.
• Some power stations are built for political purposes rather than to serve a genuine need.

this was the post I was responding to

now would you like to retract your statement?

it seems comprehension is your problem

can't be put out with water

firefighters had no choice but to allow to burn out

do you still think this is good for the environment?

Give me a break with your diatribe.

Ever heard of a coal seam fire. Burned for 45 days in 2014. Long term affects on residents of the La Trobe Valley. There are hundreds/thousands around the world uncontrolled.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... tudy-finds

Go find some context.

So are you abc? Is this an alt account?

Coal seam fire =/= coal seam gas. Two different things.

[abc]

abc, your posts seem to have as much spin as anyone else's on this thread.

You also have quite poor comprehension: you mistook a post about a fire in a coal mine for an assumption about your opinion on coal seam gas!

I notice you posted a map of the coal fired power stations under construction but not the ones closing down. Some would say that was misleading. But I presume you posted it because you want to know why any at all are still being built. So here are some reasons:

• Not everywhere in the world is sunny or windy.
• Some places have too high a population density, so don't have space for enough solar and wind power to satisfy energy demands, but aren't well suited to nuclear power either (for technical or political reasons).
• Using local coal is cheap in low wage countries, especially when environmental costs are ignored.
• When construction started, transitioning to 100% renewables didn't seem to be possible.
• Some power stations are built for political purposes rather than to serve a genuine need.

this was the post I was responding to

now would you like to retract your statement?

it seems comprehension is your problem

Give me a break with your diatribe.

Ever heard of a coal seam fire. Burned for 45 days in 2014. Long term affects on residents of the La Trobe Valley. There are hundreds/thousands around the world uncontrolled.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... tudy-finds

Go find some context.

So are you abc? Is this an alt account?

Coal seam fire =/= coal seam gas. Two different things.

nowhere in the article does it say "coal seam"

so why call it coal seam?

[rubberman]

this was the post I was responding to

now would you like to retract your statement?

it seems comprehension is your problem

So are you abc? Is this an alt account?

Coal seam fire =/= coal seam gas. Two different things.

nowhere in the article does it say "coal seam"

so why call it coal seam?

Because coal is deposited in layers called "seams". The article didn't have to specify that. It's reasonably common knowledge. Nobody expects news media to list definitions of every term they use.

[SBD]

Could you two please stop picking on each other and get back to discussing electricity infrastructure?

[rubberman]

Could you two please stop picking on each other and get back to discussing electricity infrastructure?

There's at least five regular posters in the discussion...and it is about electricity infrastructure.

[abc]

remind me how the wonder battery prevented the recent power outages across Adelaide....

I'll wait

[cocoiadrop]

Because a battery can't prevent high speed winds from knocking down trees and lines, just like a coal plant can't?

[SRW]

images-3.jpeg (8.17 KiB) Viewed 1689 times

[abc]

Give me a break with your diatribe.

Ever heard of a coal seam fire. Burned for 45 days in 2014. Long term affects on residents of the La Trobe Valley. There are hundreds/thousands around the world uncontrolled.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... tudy-finds

Go find some context.

why do you assume I support coal seam gas?

if you want context maybe start with the fact these batteries generate zero electricity

Correct - they don't generate electricity. They store it from times with excess generation to be released at times of excess demand. They also provide various kinds of technical modulation that had traditionally been provided by heavy flywheels. It seems like in a few years time, just about every major substation in the network will have a battery farm next to it. I assume this will improve resilience to adverse events that remove long transmission lines at random such as the big storm a few years ago. I think the batteries have just about taken over the need for the synchronous condensers that were only installed a few years ago to compensate for the loss of spinning "baseload" (always on) generators.

Because a battery can't prevent high speed winds from knocking down trees and lines, just like a coal plant can't?

and here is my point all along...

[Aidan]

abc, there’s a big difference between the long transmission lines and the shorter distribution lines. The latter are much more vulnerable, but affect far fewer people.

More batteries in the metro area would reduce vulnerability to transmission line faults, though as these are rare it probably wouldn’t make much difference to overall reliability.

[SBD]

abc, there’s a big difference between the long transmission lines and the shorter distribution lines. The latter are much more vulnerable, but affect far fewer people.

More batteries in the metro area would reduce vulnerability to transmission line faults, though as these are rare it probably wouldn’t make much difference to overall reliability.

Maybe once enough houses have solar and centrally controlled batteries, distribution failures can be isolated and individual streets can work as islands. That would take some major rethinking by SAPN to make able to happen, and require battery owners to be prepared to have their output controlled.