Gillard spruiks massive solar power project
Posted 42 minutes ago


The solar panels will generate an extra 44 megawatts of power each year. (kogansolarboost.com.au)
Prime Minister Julia Gillard has approved the construction of the southern hemisphere's largest solar power project on Queensland's western Darling Downs.

She made the announcement while touring the Kogan Creek coal-fired power station near Dalby, north-west of Brisbane.

CS Energy will spend $104 million installing solar panels at the plant which will generate an extra 44 megawatts of power each year.

"I am very confident this project is going to be a standout - a standout in Australia, a standout in the world - about how power generation can be changed to give us a cleaner-energy future," Ms Gillard said.

Ms Gillard says the project could be one of many under the new carbon tax scheme.

"With the clean-energy future I want for our nation, I want it to be a norm," she said.

"That's why we have to price carbon, to create the right incentive that we do have a clean-energy future."

What's the female equivalent of being held by the short & curlies?
No don't answer that.
Whatever it is, Bob Brown's surely got Gillard by it.

So cheap laughs aside.
What have you got against the Renewable industry?

It's not a cheap laugh. It's a helluva lot more expensive than coal.
Come back & see me in 20-30 years when battery technology will allow it to provide base load.

We use at our business 1.8million KW a year, how many megawatts is that?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 3:35pm:

So cheap laughs aside. What have you got against the Renewable industry?

Basically the cost...$104 million dollars for a 44 MWatt solar generator, sited next to and as a 'booster' to a 750 MWatt coal power station....

It will produce 1/17th of the output the coal station does...AND at that, only while the sun is up and in the right place (although if the panels can move to track the sun, that'll be good too)...But even so, that's still only 12 hours out of every 24, at best...

Battery technology exists now that could be used in this project, expecially since the solar is an add on to a coal fired plant.

I wonder why a coal fired power plant is installing a solar thermal annex? Must be a reason, hey bogarde?

Please delete wrote on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 3:47pm:

Battery technology exists now that could be used in this project, expecially since the solar is an add on to a coal fired plant. I wonder why a coal fired power plant is installing a solar thermal annex? Must be a reason, hey bogarde?

Because it looks good for the public and the media????

Are you sure it's a Solar Thermal plant Ernie?????

Looks like it's 'just' a solar array in the pics and media releases....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 3:48pm:

Please delete wrote on Apr 13th, 2011 at 3:47pm: Battery technology exists now that could be used in this project, expecially since the solar is an add on to a coal fired plant. I wonder why a coal fired power plant is installing a solar thermal annex? Must be a reason, hey bogarde? Because it looks good for the public and the media????

$104M PR exercise. That makes sense.

PS at that cost, it calcualtes out as $2.36B per GW - MUCH cheaper than nuclear.

Please delete wrote on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 3:51pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 13th, 2011 at 3:48pm: Please delete wrote on Apr 13th, 2011 at 3:47pm: Battery technology exists now that could be used in this project, expecially since the solar is an add on to a coal fired plant. I wonder why a coal fired power plant is installing a solar thermal annex? Must be a reason, hey bogarde? Because it looks good for the public and the media???? $104M PR exercise. That makes sense. PS at that cost, it calcualtes out as $2.36B per GW - MUCH cheaper than nuclear.

Don't know about that....It's not 24/7, and nuclear is....

Solar thermal is 24/7, since it uses the same heat storage tech that nuclear does (not in this case, since there is a coal fired power station next door).

And we've argued this at length gizmo - why do you keep arguing against solar thermal?

Please delete wrote on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 3:55pm:

Solar thermal is 24/7, since it uses the same heat storage tech that nuclear does (not in this case, since there is a coal fired power station next door).

Yes, solar thermal might be 24/7, but the Kogan Creek plant isn't solar thermal is it???

Nuclear works out (roughly) to $1400 per Kw, so that'd be $14,000 per Mw and about $14 million per Gw?  A Gigawatt is 1000 megawatts, isn't it???....Or is it a million megawatts??

Please delete wrote on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 3:51pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 13th, 2011 at 3:48pm: Please delete wrote on Apr 13th, 2011 at 3:47pm: Battery technology exists now that could be used in this project, expecially since the solar is an add on to a coal fired plant. I wonder why a coal fired power plant is installing a solar thermal annex? Must be a reason, hey bogarde? Because it looks good for the public and the media???? $104M PR exercise. That makes sense. PS at that cost, it calcualtes out as $2.36B per GW - MUCH cheaper than nuclear.

I looked up what our 1.8million KW is, and is 1800 megawatts.

This thing is only producing 44 megawatts of power a year.

Our annual electricity bill is $280k.

By my calculations thats not much a return.

Surely something is wrong with my calculations.

The largest solar project in the Southern Hemisphere and the largest project of its kind in the world
The Kogan Creek Solar Boost Project will involve the installation of a solar thermal addition to CS Energy’s 750 megawatt coal-fired Kogan Creek Power Station in South West Queensland.

The solar addition will increase the amount of electricity generated by up to 44 megawatts during peak solar conditions  providing an additional 44,000 megawatt hours of electricity per year.

The innovative solar project will augment the Kogan Creek Power Station’s steam generation system to increase the station’s electricity output and fuel efficiency.  It forms part of CS Energy’s commitment to producing cleaner electricity from existing coal-fired power stations.

                             *********************
Augmentation, not replacement, not base load. An investment to reduce emissions imposts which have been threatened for ages.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 3:35pm:

So cheap laughs aside. What have you got against the Renewable industry?

I dont have a problem with it smithy but I do have a problem with the way its being sold..

we are being exploited!

when they close all the mines.. which one presumes renewable will eventually do.. what then?????...who will we sell all those megawatts we have collected toooooo.

I mean if this is going to be the way we are going, and its going to cost you and I  almost nill to have,

what country is going to avoid having solar energy??.. why would China of all countries not have renewable instead of coal?...and renewable is free or almost to every user....isnt it?????????..

not that I like that word I dont think anything is FREE.

however the idea is we shut the mines down  especially the coal industry, not sure how they feel about that but lets hope they are philosphical like the Clyde Oil Refinery that will be closing.

mind you! do you think this has anything to do with our carbon footprint??.. it should make a difference and by golly they wont be paying the TAX anymore than the renewable will be..

I am thinking that will help to keep the price of petrol down wont it??

Please delete wrote on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 3:58pm:

And we've argued this at length gizmo - why do you keep arguing against solar thermal?

I'm not arguing against it.....I just think nuclear is cheaper and easier....

Since we (the taxpayers) are going to be funding it, I think we should have some say in which energy source they build....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 4:05pm:

Please delete wrote on Apr 13th, 2011 at 3:58pm: And we've argued this at length gizmo - why do you keep arguing against solar thermal? I'm not arguing against it.....I just think nuclear is cheaper and easier.... Since we (the taxpayers) are going to be funding it, I think we should have some say in which energy source they build....

So put the numbers up - all you've ever done is respond to my data. You didn't say at the time that the figures were wrong, and you don't seem to dispute the numbers in this project, so how can nuclear be cheaper than solar thermal?

Please delete wrote on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 4:07pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 13th, 2011 at 4:05pm: Please delete wrote on Apr 13th, 2011 at 3:58pm: And we've argued this at length gizmo - why do you keep arguing against solar thermal? I'm not arguing against it.....I just think nuclear is cheaper and easier.... Since we (the taxpayers) are going to be funding it, I think we should have some say in which energy source they build.... So put the numbers up - all you've ever done is respond to my data. You didn't say at the time that the figures were wrong, and you don't seem to dispute the numbers in this project, so how can nuclear be cheaper than solar thermal?

I will, as soons as I find some......You posted a costing on 2 AP1000 reactors being added to a plant in the US, as soon as I find the link again, I'll do a comparison...

In the mean time, I just don't think we should dismiss ANY power system that can replace coal or oil or any fossil fuel, just because some people don't like it.....

I think a combined power grid is the way to go...wind, wave, solar, solar thermal AND nuclear (whether uranium or thorium) is a viable option.....
I know fossil fuels are running out and we need to find alternatives, I just think we need to use ALL the alternatives, not just one or 2....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 3:47pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 13th, 2011 at 3:35pm: So cheap laughs aside. What have you got against the Renewable industry? Basically the cost...$104 million dollars for a 44 MWatt solar generator, sited next to and as a 'booster' to a 750 MWatt coal power station.... It will produce 1/17th of the output the coal station does...AND at that, only while the sun is up and in the right place (although if the panels can move to track the sun, that'll be good too)...But even so, that's still only 12 hours out of every 24, at best...

Your all correct, its not economically feasible, it cant provide 24/7 power, it's not baseload & it's cost a sh!tload of money.
However I will stay in its defense that the thought of providing renewable energy at anything other than feel good look at me I'm a hippie, has only really come into our conscieness in the last 20 to 25 years.
The technology to go to baseload is still in its infancy & therefore requires more time & money to achieve what we want.

"The technology to go to baseload is still in its infancy"

Molten Salt heat storage was developed by the nuclear industry - if it is in its' infancy, then so is nuclear.

Gizmo, if enough people are "uncomfortable" with nuclear, is it right to inflict it upon them?

If 45% of Australia said they didn't want it (and I think the number would be higher, after a debate where ALL the facts were aired) would you go ahead anyway?

And can we put thorium to bed? It sounds great, but ain't gonna happen in the short to medium term.

Please delete wrote on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 4:48pm:

"The technology to go to baseload is still in its infancy" Molten Salt heat storage was developed by the nuclear industry - if it is in its' infancy, then so is nuclear. Gizmo, if enough people are "uncomfortable" with nuclear, is it right to inflict it upon them? If 45% of Australia said they didn't want it (and I think the number would be higher, after a debate where ALL the facts were aired) would you go ahead anyway?

Well that's the point, isn't it....we've never had a debate about nuclear power, or a referendum.....So we can't really tell exactly what percentage of people are for or against nuclear power....

Perhaps we should actually have a vote on yes/no for nuclear power....I have no problem accepting the result of a nation wide vote....but let's at least HAVE one....

Please delete wrote on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 4:49pm:

And can we put thorium to bed? It sounds great, but ain't gonna happen in the short to medium term.

And as for Thorium pebble bed reactors....why should we put it to bed???

It's a viable, and tested system...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 5:50pm:

Please delete wrote on Apr 13th, 2011 at 4:49pm: And can we put thorium to bed? It sounds great, but ain't gonna happen in the short to medium term. And as for Thorium pebble bed reactors....why should we put it to bed??? It's a viable, and tested system...

Without ONE in production yet.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 5:49pm:

Please delete wrote on Apr 13th, 2011 at 4:48pm: "The technology to go to baseload is still in its infancy" Molten Salt heat storage was developed by the nuclear industry - if it is in its' infancy, then so is nuclear. Gizmo, if enough people are "uncomfortable" with nuclear, is it right to inflict it upon them? If 45% of Australia said they didn't want it (and I think the number would be higher, after a debate where ALL the facts were aired) would you go ahead anyway? Well that's the point, isn't it....we've never had a debate about nuclear power, or a referendum.....So we can't really tell exactly what percentage of people are for or against nuclear power.... Perhaps we should actually have a vote on yes/no for nuclear power....I have no problem accepting the result of a nation wide vote....but let's at least HAVE one....

So you WOULD inflict a "scary" (for want of a better word) technology on 49.9% of Australians who said they didn't want it?

Please delete wrote on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 6:18pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 13th, 2011 at 5:49pm: Please delete wrote on Apr 13th, 2011 at 4:48pm: "The technology to go to baseload is still in its infancy" Molten Salt heat storage was developed by the nuclear industry - if it is in its' infancy, then so is nuclear. Gizmo, if enough people are "uncomfortable" with nuclear, is it right to inflict it upon them? If 45% of Australia said they didn't want it (and I think the number would be higher, after a debate where ALL the facts were aired) would you go ahead anyway? Well that's the point, isn't it....we've never had a debate about nuclear power, or a referendum.....So we can't really tell exactly what percentage of people are for or against nuclear power.... Perhaps we should actually have a vote on yes/no for nuclear power....I have no problem accepting the result of a nation wide vote....but let's at least HAVE one.... So you WOULD inflict a "scary" (for want of a better word) technology on 49.9% of Australians who said they didn't want it?

So when did 49.9% of Australians say that nuclear was 'scary'???