Thread: Katoomba Monthly Temp average set to be SMASHED!!! AGAIN!!!

Brett

That is a very dramatic presentation that brings home the tragic reality of bushfire. Sometimes I use an analogy for appreciating the true reality of circumstances as opposed to living an ordeal compared to reading about it. I liken it to my understanding of childbirth: I can imagine all I wish , but I can never truly know.

Regards
Paul

Gospers Mtn. One bloody lightning strike and good old Parks and Wildlife couldn't get off their #*#*# and put it out. Thanks for the memories.

We still have sixteen thousand worthless shares in the solar tower that was to be built at Mildura. "Save the world air" it was called, pity they didn't build it.

All of took was an unstoppable plague and locking up 760 million Chinese people for a month to lower outputs by 25%....

Analysis: Coronavirus has temporarily reduced China’s CO2 emissions by a quarter

Originally Posted by rustynail

Gospers Mtn. One bloody lightning strike and good old Parks and Wildlife couldn't get off their #*#*# and put it out. Thanks for the memories.

I read an article that said NSW had quietly dismantled their Parks based remote area fire response team although they were all fully trained and Park employed volunteers. So, a bit hard to respond when all the funding and equipment are gone.

Originally Posted by woodPixel

All of took was an unstoppable plague and locking up 760 million Chinese people for a month to lower outputs by 25%....

Analysis: Coronavirus has temporarily reduced China’s CO2 emissions by a quarter

So that's why it's been so cold for the last couple of days.

Originally Posted by NeilS

Looking at the AEMO/NEM maps .... the glaring gap is a connector between WA and SA.

I was interested to hear Mike Cannon-Brookes (co-founder and co-CEO of the software company Atlassian) on ABC Nat Radio this morning give a tick to my thought bubble on an east-west interconnector.

So I revisited the idea to see if any work had been done on the idea and came up with the following submission (March 2019) to the Senate Inquiry on How to ensure affordable, reliable and sustainable electricity to Australia from Prof Simon Bartlett.

See page 8 for the section on an east west interconnector.

The submission is only available as a download, here.

Prof Bartlett is well qualified on the topic. He is Chair in Electricity Transmission, University of Queensland. He has had forty years’ experience in the power industry in electricity transmission and power generation in Australia, Europe and Canada. His experience includes planning, design, construction, system operations and asset management and organisational leadership. Past roles include Chief Operating Officer, Powerlink Queensland; Board Director, Electranet SA; Chairman, Australian Power Institute.

His estimate of the cost of an east-west (WA-SA) bi-directional interconnector would be 2.5bn and a further $1.5bn for beefing up the connector from SA to the eastern seaboard to get the benefits to those higher population densities. His submission points to the underutilisation of potential renewable energy sources in the west (they have much more than they are ever likely to need) and the cost benefits of constructing an east-west (Nullarbor) interconnector.

Not covered in the submission, is the relative benefits of spending $5bn on the Nullarbor interconnector compared Snowy 2.0 for the same cost (but some are also warning that Snowy 2.0 might blow out to $10bn). The Nullarbor link could be delivered much sooner and deliver more energy than Snowy 2.0 will ever be able to deliver. Not that I'm arguing for one over the other as they are complementary sources of renewable power.

The west could be powering the pumping cycle at the Snowy with its cheap excess renewable power and the Snowy could then provide security to the national grid by dispatching its hydro power into the grid if the wind is not blowing and the sun not shining in the west.

So, my thought bubble is looking more like a worthy candidate as a worthwhile contributor to a workable solution.

We got a commitment to Snowy 2.0 before a previous election. Maybe we will get Nullarbor 2.0 (the Eyre Hwy was N 1.0) at the next election...

Originally Posted by Toymaker Len

I read an article that said NSW had quietly dismantled their Parks based remote area fire response team although they were all fully trained and Park employed volunteers. So, a bit hard to respond when all the funding and equipment are gone.

It doesn't take money to put out one lightning strike. It takes a fortune to correct what has happened through their negligence. I'm not even remotely interested in excuses. Some d*#k head needs his butt kicked.

Originally Posted by rustynail

It doesn't take money to put out one lightning strike. It takes a fortune to correct what has happened through their negligence. I'm not even remotely interested in excuses. Some d*#k head needs his butt kicked.

True, but if the people are no longer working for National Parks (or Forestry) because of staff cuts mandated by lack of funding, the d!ckhead is a politician, not a public servant.

Neil's reference to Snowy 2.0 caused me to refresh my memory on what has be spoken of with that scheme. I knew the principle of how hydro worked and where it fits into electricity generation, but not much in the way of detail. It appears that the original cost suggested by Malcolm Turnbull of $2b has grown to a contract being awarded to the Perth contactor Clough (in conjunction with the Italian firm Salini Impregilo" for $5.1b and this is likely to extend to $6.0b by completion despite being a "fixed" contract. There may be some aspects that are still excluded from this costing. This was from the original report and looking at the substance I don't think the contractor would be involved with most aspects:

Snowy key exclusions.png

More detail can be found here:

Snowy 2.0 cost blows out to $5.1b - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

The first of six units is expected to come online in 2024 and when finished can produce up to 2000MW. The website says that this represents 175 hours of storage capacity. What that means it that if the scheme, when complete, put out 2000MW every hour for 7.3 days the dam would be empty. Also this would require the top dam, Tantagara, to be completely full and the lower dam,Talbingo, to be empty. The complication is that the water would have to continue on down through two more dams to realise the full 2000MW and in doing so may starve the existing Tumut 3 station. Apparently it would be just about impossible to pump the water back up despite the pumped capability and even less likely at an economic rate. I have not be able to nail down the exact pumped capability, but it seems likely it is around half.

I did see another reference that the costs involved of the scheme have not included transmission lines. I also saw another reference that the federal government has bought out the NSW and VIC state government interests for $9b.

Interesting. Although I was sceptical about Neil's transmission link to WA I am now leaning more towards the viability of that than the Snowy 2.0 scheme. Having said that Snowy seems to be set in concrete.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by AlexS

True, but if the people are no longer working for National Parks (or Forestry) because of staff cuts mandated by lack of funding, the d!ckhead is a politician, not a public servant.

I don't care if he's Jesus Christ, he still needs his butt kicked. Individually or collectively. These idiots have been able to get away with BS for years.
Almost all our bush fires start in National Parks and have done so with monotonous regularity. The new mentality of "Oh just let it burn itself out" is not going to cut it. This fire is the largest and most devastating on record and all caused by inefficiency and apathy. There is no place for either quality in management, be it business or running a Country. All in the interest of creating a surplus. About time we started getting our priorities right.

Originally Posted by rustynail

All in the interest of creating a surplus. About time we started getting our priorities right.

I'm with you on that one, Rusty.

I haven't looked at Snowy 2.0 in any detail, but have been sceptical about it from day 1. Apologies if I've mentioned this before; pumped hydro requires the water to be kept as far upstream as possible, irrigation and the environment require it to be distributed downstream. I wouldn't like to be the river manager when there is a drought and a heat wave at the same time. Never get between an irrigator and a bucket of water.

Originally Posted by AlexS

Never get between an irrigator and a bucket of water.

Alex

. I am sure that is very good advice. While the original Snowy scheme was primarily intended for irrigators with hydro electricity as a secondary benefit, I think version 2.0 may be the other way around and I don't think the government gives an agricultural toss this time.

Regards
Paul