Hazelwood, the OECD's dirtiest powerpower station, to close by March
15 replies, posted
[quote]Hazelwood power station, Australia's dirtiest coal-fired power plant, will officially close in the Latrobe Valley in Victoria by the end of March next year.
The plant employs about 750 people, with 450 direct employees and 300 contractors.
It is the oldest brown coal plant operating in the Latrobe Valley and is considered to be Australia's dirtiest coal-fired plant.
The company said about 250 workers would remain at the power station between 2017 and 2023 to manage the site's rehabilitation.
ENGIE chief executive in Australia, Alex Keisser, said the 1,600-megawatt power station had been operating in a difficult national energy market environment for some time.[/quote]
[url]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-03/hazelwood-power-station-in-victoria-to-close/7987018[/url]
Goodbye 25% of Victoria's baseload electricity.
That's unfortunate, we need more powerpower stations so we can get twice the power of a normal power station.
Although on the other hand, maybe we should be switching to nuclearnuclear instead, it's much better for the environment.
too bad they couldn't just u know... replace it with one that doesn't cost a fuckton to maintain or destroy the enviroment
[QUOTE=Sableye;51299553]too bad they couldn't just u know... replace it with one that doesn't cost a fuckton to maintain or destroy the enviroment[/QUOTE]
So nuclear.
[QUOTE=Sableye;51299553]too bad they couldn't just u know... replace it with one that doesn't cost a fuckton to maintain or destroy the enviroment[/QUOTE]
There's a report somewhere from the 90's that mention they could of increase efficiency of the station by putting something that generates energy near heat exchanges.
Still. Why not instead of normal fission reactor a thorium? The US Government in the 70's did build a working on and the Chinese are doing the same now! It's that or a commercial cold fusion reactor.
[QUOTE=Sims_doc;51299607]There's a report somewhere from the 90's that mention they could of increase efficiency of the station by putting something that generates energy near heat exchanges.
Still. Why not instead of normal fission reactor a thorium? The US Government in the 70's did build a working on and the Chinese are doing the same now! It's that or a commercial cold fusion reactor.[/QUOTE]
The MSRE in the 1960s wasn't a thorium reactor, it was a salt fueled reactor that originally ran on HEU and then ran on U233 which is the stuff you breed from thorium. Honestly, a better stepping stone for a nation with little nuclear experience would be a molten salt reactor running on LEU rather than taking the leap on a two-fluid breeder reactor.
Also, cold fusion isn't a real thing.
[QUOTE=helifreak;51299568]So nuclear.[/QUOTE]
The hippies will keep the shovel from even hitting the ground until 2030.
Additional political red tape will add another 10 years onto that.
[QUOTE=download;51299624]Also, cold fusion isn't a real thing.[/QUOTE]
Sure! If you haven't read anything on the topic since 1980.
[QUOTE=Sims_doc;51301478]Sure! If you haven't read anything on the topic since 1980.[/QUOTE]
He means we can't do it, not "It's impossible".
[QUOTE=Sims_doc;51301478]Sure! If you haven't read anything on the topic since 1980.[/QUOTE]
[citation needed]
Prove it.
You know, I really think if cold fusion was a thing we'd ALL KNOW.
Also it isn't of huge importance if base load power generation is lost, because you can still make it up with intermittent sources of power anyway.
[QUOTE=Carlito;51304198]You know, I really think if cold fusion was a thing we'd ALL KNOW.
Also it isn't of huge importance if base load power generation is lost, because you can still make it up with intermittent sources of power anyway.[/QUOTE]
Do you know the definition if intermittent?
[QUOTE=download;51304436]Do you know the definition if intermittent?[/QUOTE]
Yes I do. I suppose I should have elaborated and said that you can make up for base load by drawing from a variety of intermittent sources that are active at different times in order to produce an output that is consistent. It's pretty much what countries do when they source large amounts of power from renewables and need to account for the lack of constant output that is inherent in them.
[QUOTE=Sims_doc;51301478]Sure! If you haven't read anything on the topic since 1980.[/QUOTE]
cold fusion is impossible lol
[QUOTE=Carlito;51305257]Yes I do. I suppose I should have elaborated and said that you can make up for base load by drawing from a variety of intermittent sources that are active at different times in order to produce an output that is consistent. It's pretty much what countries do when they source large amounts of power from renewables and need to account for the lack of constant output that is inherent in them.[/QUOTE]
Uh, no.
The countries that draw on large amount of renewables (if you can call 30 to 40% large) need loads of peaking (read: inefficient) generators to make up for it and level out the intermittent. That is unless you have heaps of hydro like Iceland or New Zealand.
The only renewable that could replace baseload is hydro and that's better served as peaking. We also don't have enough of it in Australia to do either.
[QUOTE=download;51305772]Snip-O[/QUOTE]
On the subject of hydro. There was a suggestion sometime ago about building a pipeline between Tasmanian and Victoria to move extra water between the two states and also use this water as a source of energy.
But it's very impractical to build.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.