Re: AS to DAR, financial drain for next 50 years.

["William Miller" <backtran@optusnet.com.au>]

Tell <telljb@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:c4g7gtog4r5g0fcsdberhm2p90pj4i1sdg@4ax.com...
> "William Miller" <backtran@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > Northern Power Station at Pt Augusta would only need it for low load,
> > start-up and upset conditions - the same as almost all large coal fired
> > power plant. At high load there is no need for support energy at all. If
> > they needed oil support more than this the plant would not run at all
due to
> > poor economics.
> >
> > Calorific Value has zip to do with reactivity of the fuel or need for
oil
> > support. Most high CV Coals (older) are very difficult to burn due to
low
> > Volatile contents, conversely low CV (younger) Coals tend to be high
> > reactivity (easy to burn) and Leigh Creek fits into this latter category
> > IIRC - almost being a Lignite. For comparison Leigh Creek would be a
easier
> > fuel to burn than most NSW coals.
> >
> > My guess is that the Lake Phillipson coal should be able to be burnt
> > successfully in a coal fired plant, though I have not seen an analysis.
> > Remember we burn fuel in Vic that is about 66% water at the start of the
> > process - again without support energy at all except start or upset
> > conditions.
>
>
> Northern Power station is base load.!
> I would hardly think, to quote you, "or low load,
> start-up and upset conditions".  Upset conditions I can
> agree with because of major network problem, but your
> other conditions do not apply.
>
You have completely misquoted me.

I did not say Northern was not base load (or anything else)....... only that
it would *only* need support energy for upset and low load conditions. EVERY
plant goes through low load and start conditions once or twice a year at
minimum. I know this because I am familiar with the fuel, the process to
prepare it and the specific equipment installed at Northern to burn it.

I was referring to combustion upset conditions - the real driver behind
having to burn support energy or not. Not system electrical disturbances. A
system electrical disturbance may contribute to a combustion upset but this
is rare.

> Sorry aus.railers this is getting off topic, but for
> you folks who are not aware, "base load" means that the
> generators run at maximum capacity continuously.

Not sure it runs base load all the time these days, since sale and dereg it
probably cycles due to much cheaper power coming from Vic.
>
> Leigh Creek coal is powdered up and blown into the
> boilers, William already knew that, but even that was
> not enough to achieve "ideal" combustion.
>
Having viewed the combustion personally with a trained eye I can say
combustion at Northern is quite good considering the equipment installed to
burn it. Carbon in dust (a measure of combution efficiency) IIRC is quite
low.

> One of my young brothers drove Shell tankers for years,
> *every* day a load of fuel oil was trucked from
> Adelaide to ETSA's Port Augusta power station.

One load? That is not much. The fact is that Northern does not need any
support energy at base load. End of story. As for the shell tanker every
day, it is more than possible this was for the Playford station next door
which is run as a cylcing station (that is on and off all the time thus
requiring fuel oil for starts).
>
> Are you Victorian William.?
> NSW coal is not as good as shit-house polluting brown
> coal.?  Ever been to the Port and seen that filthy haze
> hanging over the town.?
>
No one could possibly be that parochial could they? I am from NSW but have
done investigation and design work on firing systems across Australia in my
line of work.

I did not say NSW coal was "not as good". Different properties affect the
coal combustion in different ways. The fact is that Leigh Creek and Vic
Brown coal fuel is an easier fuel to burn and keep alight (in a power
boiler, not a steam engine) than NSW coal because of the higher volatile
content in brown coal. For the record a NSW fuel will be slightly more
efficient in it's combustion due to the low moisture content when compared
to Vic and Leigh Creek. BUT efficient does not = volatility. Some of the
most difficult fuels to keep alight in a power station furnace are also the
cleanest burning.

I *have* been to Port a few times and visited the Power Station, the haze
you see has everything to do with the type, efficiency and correct sizing of
the ash collection equipment and nothing whatsover to do with the coal or
the combustion properties.

> Keep on guessing about the Lake Phillipson coal because
> it will probably stay where it is, BUT if they do
> decide to mine it, there is already a railway in place.

I won't keep guessing since I have done some research on this deposit. It
seems to be similar to the Leigh Creek deposit and I cannot see any reason
why it could not be burnt in Port Augusta but as you say probably will not
be but not for the reasons you say.
>
> ....Tell