Re: [roeoz] [PublicPopForum] Pure conjecture - OZ goes Nuclear
Denis Frith
From: "Holman safe...@tpg.com.au [roeoz]" <ro...@yahoogroups.com>
To: ro...@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [roeoz] [PublicPopForum] Pure conjecture - OZ goes Nuclear
The comments especially on the second link are exceptionally useful, IMHO.
Another Public suggestion re. the power line towers, was the cable weight; possibly as a result of replacement and upgrading.
Whatever the tower issue, it looks quite cheap to fix. A retro fit strengthening, including bases, on all towers could easily be done.
On 8/10/2016 7:30 PM, hugh Hu...@austrop.org.au [roeoz] wrote:
Couple of interesting comments here on the SA situation (do read the comments sections..)
https://theconversation.com/sa-blackout-politics-overshadow-the-real-issues-on-power-generation-66333
https://theconversation.com/south-australian-blackout-renewables-arent-a-threat-to-energy-security-theyre-the-future-66405
https://theconversation.com/we-must-keep-the-lights-on-how-a-cyclone-was-used-to-attack-renewables-66371
Don't forget the effects of lightning strikes..
and if I remember one commenter - did mention the steel issue.
H
also ... http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/a-timeline-of-earths-average-temperature-in-comic-form
On 8/10/16 5:30 PM, Dave Kimble dave....@riseup.net [roeoz] wrote:
Yes. It looks like above the initial stage, which is designed to allow good headroom between the legs, the rest is insufficiently braced with diagonals. The biggest triangle would have been just where it buckled.
Of course there's always a trade-off between cost and ability to withstand low-probability high winds.
On 08/10/16 15:17, kika ki...@riseup.net [roeoz] wrote:
a friend of mine remembered talking years ago with one of the engineers who worked on building the transmission towers in S.A. he was concerned about the strength of the towers as they were all built with imported chinese steel. this fact does not seem to have been picked up by the media (as far as i know).
On 08/10/2016 14:32, Dave Kimble dave....@riseup.net [roeoz] wrote:
The trouble with Wind and Solar is that in order to encourage more renewables, they have been given an easy ride on the intermittency issue - getting good prices when they produce, but not having to pay for back-up generation held on standby to cope with when they don't produce.
The FIRST thing that went wrong in the SA event, was NOT that transmission towers fell over, but that wind turbines switched off to protect themselves from the high winds - they instantly went from maximum output to zero, and caused a huge surge in demand from the interlink. THEN the interlink fell over for the same reason (high winds).
SA has been using language carefully chosen to hide this fact - 'it was all due to weather'.
Turnbull was right when he said "we need to ensure reliability", but he was wrong when he implied that it could be done cheaply, it can't. With intermittent technology as a large (30+%) part of the mix, you can't just let market forces sort out who gets the task of standby back-up supply.
Dave
On 08/10/16 13:56, Holman safe...@tpg.com.au [roeoz] wrote:
I am just posting here a copy of something I posted to PUB POP forum today.
I now not that a Liberal MP has now suggested that the answer is Nuclear. (Eric Abetz, I think).
Perhaps we will now have an open discussion of this - this is what is needed IMO; we cannot carry on in a State of Pretend.
This link may be useful:
http://acuns.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/NuclearEnergyFuture.pdf
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (9) |
