Solar Power Plant
Discussion
Bare with me on this.
a large-ish solar plant is going to be constructed outside of Nyngan, which is a small town in central NSW. Basically, last town before nothing.
http://www.nynganobserver.com.au/news/local/news/g...
Just wondering what the general consensus on this was? Given it is hardly prime land and cannot really be used for anything else, except as very poor quality grazing land, it strikes me as a pretty sensible use of land.
a large-ish solar plant is going to be constructed outside of Nyngan, which is a small town in central NSW. Basically, last town before nothing.
http://www.nynganobserver.com.au/news/local/news/g...
Just wondering what the general consensus on this was? Given it is hardly prime land and cannot really be used for anything else, except as very poor quality grazing land, it strikes me as a pretty sensible use of land.
The use of vast areas of cheap low grade land relatively close to the equator is surely going to become quite common. Probably using steam generation to power turbines rather than photovoltaics. Alternatively, using biological trickery to bond carbon from CO2 to make molecules that can then be further combined to make heavier molecules. An ideal source of $$$ for equatorial countries that can actually get their act together and not be permanently at war.
Genunie question, how green is the maufacture and set up then disposal of the panels used in things like this? I can see there is a benefit on a local scale of things liek this, ie makes clean energy in the locality, but if there is a price to pay (environmentally) elsewhere, either during manufacture and or disposal, will it be a net help to the environment on a global scale?
Zad said:
The use of vast areas of cheap low grade land relatively close to the equator is surely going to become quite common. Probably using steam generation to power turbines rather than photovoltaics. Alternatively, using biological trickery to bond carbon from CO2 to make molecules that can then be further combined to make heavier molecules. An ideal source of $$$ for equatorial countries that can actually get their act together and not be permanently at war.
If the National Grid loses 40% of the power in the UK in the grid itself, can you imagine the losses from Saharan solar farms to Spain for instance? Let alone the UK.tinman0 said:
Zad said:
The use of vast areas of cheap low grade land relatively close to the equator is surely going to become quite common. Probably using steam generation to power turbines rather than photovoltaics. Alternatively, using biological trickery to bond carbon from CO2 to make molecules that can then be further combined to make heavier molecules. An ideal source of $$$ for equatorial countries that can actually get their act together and not be permanently at war.
If the National Grid loses 40% of the power in the UK in the grid itself, can you imagine the losses from Saharan solar farms to Spain for instance? Let alone the UK.pros, endless fuel, loads of O2 as byproduct.
cons, hydrogen is 'kin dangerous, it's a lowish density fuel, still got to transport it about somehow.
tinman0 said:
Zad said:
The use of vast areas of cheap low grade land relatively close to the equator is surely going to become quite common. Probably using steam generation to power turbines rather than photovoltaics. Alternatively, using biological trickery to bond carbon from CO2 to make molecules that can then be further combined to make heavier molecules. An ideal source of $$$ for equatorial countries that can actually get their act together and not be permanently at war.
If the National Grid loses 40% of the power in the UK in the grid itself, can you imagine the losses from Saharan solar farms to Spain for instance? Let alone the UK.tinman0 said:
Zad said:
The use of vast areas of cheap low grade land relatively close to the equator is surely going to become quite common. Probably using steam generation to power turbines rather than photovoltaics. Alternatively, using biological trickery to bond carbon from CO2 to make molecules that can then be further combined to make heavier molecules. An ideal source of $$$ for equatorial countries that can actually get their act together and not be permanently at war.
If the National Grid loses 40% of the power in the UK in the grid itself, can you imagine the losses from Saharan solar farms to Spain for instance? Let alone the UK.Zad said:
tinman0 said:
Zad said:
The use of vast areas of cheap low grade land relatively close to the equator is surely going to become quite common. Probably using steam generation to power turbines rather than photovoltaics. Alternatively, using biological trickery to bond carbon from CO2 to make molecules that can then be further combined to make heavier molecules. An ideal source of $$$ for equatorial countries that can actually get their act together and not be permanently at war.
If the National Grid loses 40% of the power in the UK in the grid itself, can you imagine the losses from Saharan solar farms to Spain for instance? Let alone the UK.Zad said:
tinman0 said:
Zad said:
The use of vast areas of cheap low grade land relatively close to the equator is surely going to become quite common. Probably using steam generation to power turbines rather than photovoltaics. Alternatively, using biological trickery to bond carbon from CO2 to make molecules that can then be further combined to make heavier molecules. An ideal source of $$$ for equatorial countries that can actually get their act together and not be permanently at war.
If the National Grid loses 40% of the power in the UK in the grid itself, can you imagine the losses from Saharan solar farms to Spain for instance? Let alone the UK.MX7 said:
I think it's shame that they didn't copy the Spanish one. Also, I'd have thought that putting it in Queensland/NT would give it more sun?

Some Eco-todyssey2200 said:
IDGARA as long as I don't end up funding it 
Why would you end up paying for an Australian power station? 

t somewhere will find a way.It depends what you mean by losses, there are both generation losses and transmission losses in all power systems. In the case of hydrocarbons, the transmission losses would purely be the fuel used by the tanker in transporting it to its destination. Generation efficiency for photovoltaics is around 25% and the hardware cost per watt is huge, as is the amount of power needed to fabricate the cells. With thermal troughs, the collecting efficiency is over 90%. Beyond that, it will be similar to any other steam based power station, minus that involved in whatever synthesis process is used. However, the cost of the reflective troughs is cheaper by an order of magnitude (and more).
The real key is direct biological synthesis of hydrocarbons using solar power. This is in the vary early stage compared to conventional power generation but, as it has fewer processing losses, has much more potential.
e.g. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nl803258p?prev...
The real key is direct biological synthesis of hydrocarbons using solar power. This is in the vary early stage compared to conventional power generation but, as it has fewer processing losses, has much more potential.
e.g. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nl803258p?prev...
tinman0 said:
Zad said:
The use of vast areas of cheap low grade land relatively close to the equator is surely going to become quite common. Probably using steam generation to power turbines rather than photovoltaics. Alternatively, using biological trickery to bond carbon from CO2 to make molecules that can then be further combined to make heavier molecules. An ideal source of $$$ for equatorial countries that can actually get their act together and not be permanently at war.
If the National Grid loses 40% of the power in the UK in the grid itself, can you imagine the losses from Saharan solar farms to Spain for instance? Let alone the UK.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff


