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

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

Tell <telljb@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
gnbfgt8t5bhv9aat2552nuhbf5p1ncvlh3@4ax.com">news:gnbfgt8t5bhv9aat2552nuhbf5p1ncvlh3@4ax.com...
> "William Miller" <backtran@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
<snip>
> > 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.
>
>
> No the HV feeder from Victoria up through the South
> East of SA is *already* running at maximum capacity.
>
If this were so, it would just prove the point, since the incoming power is
so cheap compared to local power, the line runs at max with the local
stations cycling to meet demand.

Check out the Nemmco site, it is at Max only some of the time. The rest of
the time the pool price in SA follows the Vic price - indicating spare
capacity. The pool price usually only departs when the line is at capacity,
a small but signifigant % of the time. Anyway the fact that it is
occasionally at capacity
>
<snip>
> > > 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).
>
>
> OK, maybe that does not apply to the third and last
> built Power Station.  As I understand the "A" station
> is no longer used, "B" station is used very
> occasionally.  30,000 litres per day "not much".?
>
It isn't much. Support Energy has to be around 10% of Unit heat release
(depending on the plant and the nature of the combustion problem) to be
regarded as having any effect. A single unit at Northern will release, at
full load, about 650 MJ/s. Support energy would need to be about 65MJ/s.
Typical Fuel Oil has a CV of say 31 MJ/l(do not remember the specific one at
Northern). The unit would then require 65/31 = 2.09 l/s of oil or about
181,000 l/day for one unit or 362,000 l /day for 2 units. As I said the
30,000 l would most likely be used at B station for starts - with some going
to Northern to support burner changes to keep the tanks topped off.
>
<snip>
>
> OK wrong for me, but the SEC Victoria before it was so
> comprehensively assassinated, mined coal that had %60
> water content, this was reduced to %15 by drying before
> it was fired, you forget to mention that.!
>
Loy Yang A and B and Yallourn continue to mine and burn coal successfully at
around 66% moisture. I worked for the company that designed and patented the
technology allowing this to happen and was on the R&D team in the later
stages.

I did not forget it - it just had no relevance to this discussion. Moisture
reduction is required for all coals and is dealt with pretty much the same
way in all the stations mentioned (SA and Vic)- through flash drying during
the milling process. The moisture in the coal is fired into the furnace
along with the coal (it is most definitly not dried prior to being
introduced to the boiler), the drying process is integral with the milling
process - the difference with the Vic stations here is the amount of
moisture (now a gas when it is fired) entrained  - 66% vs say 20% for
lignites and how it is dealt with differently on injection to the furnace -
but that is another story. Believe me I have helped design and commission
burner systems for difficul to light off fuel and the Northern (or Loy Yang)
fuel ain't it!
>
> > 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.
>
>
> Yes and ETSA were forced into cleaning up their act
> with precipitators in the stacks, even with that, still
> a dirty power station.
>
>
> > > 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.
>
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, the last brown coal power
> station in Australia was the troubled Lou Yang.
> Victoria will continue with brown coal because their
> power stations are sitting on top of it.
>
> All power stations in South Australia since the third
> and last station at Port Augusta use natural gas.
> New ones planned will also use natural gas with a new
> pipline from Victoria.
>
> ....Tell