Keeping the lights on in Japan relies heavily on coal. This populous nation is located on the " ring of fire " where tectonic plates collide and earthquakes are common. The option of using nuclear energy to generate power received a setback when a quake and the tsunami it caused wrecked a nuclear power plant and the released radioactivity poisoned the nearby countryside and caused a town to be evacuated.
Australia is becoming one of the worlds biggest exporters of coal and we are selling it to countries to fuel their power generators. This is the very opposite of our stated need to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the air and keep global warming in check, but coal is a source of Australian jobs and it is a big contributor to our export economy.
Australia's coal reserves are a mixed lot. We have very high grade coal suitable for industry in New South Wales and Queensland while Victorian and Tasmanian coalfields consist of the lesser " brown coal ". This is unwanted overseas but Victorian electricity generators burn it to produce electricity and it was converted into briquettes when home heating used combustion stoves in the southern states.
Wind and solar are on the increase and Victoria's coal fired power generators are closing, and that means job losses in the massive Latrobe Valley. This has resulted in an Australian/Japanese joint venture to turn Victorian brown coal into hydrogen gas for export to Japan as fuel for power generation.
To that end, we have just seen politicians make speeches at the inauguration of a $ 495 million pilot project to extract hydrogen gas from brown coal. If obstacles can be overcome this will result in a whole new industry running in tandem with our natural gas exports and much of the Japanese power industry will be served by this Australian gas.
The sticking point seems to be overcoming " obstacles " - and the big question is whether hydrogen can be produced without also releasing the huge amounts of carbon dioxide contained in coal. This is particularly prevalent in brown coal because it is brown because of an immaturity in its evolution. If it were left untouched for a few more million years it would become high grade steaming or coking black coal like its New South Wales counterparts.
This project embraces that old bogey of carbon " capture and storage ", and the final resting place for the carbon dioxide that will be produced is porous rock strata located under the sea in Bass strait - and that poses many problems, not the least of which is how much gas it is capable of holding. There are a lot of questions remaining. How the C02 will be safely moved from the gas conversion facility to its final resting places under the waters of Bass strait and what - if any - leakage can be expected.
It also raises another interesting question. Our success in gas exports - and we will soon be the worlds biggest gas exporter - have raised prices and resulted in a gas shortage on the Australian east coast. Would it not be wise to quarantine sufficient gas from this new source to ensure that electricity generation in Australia was assured of a reliable base product at a preferable price ? Presently, our power generators have to compete with overseas demand for the gas they need and this has forced up electricity prices to unhealthy levels.
We made mistakes when we established our natural gas industry. We are back at the starting point with this new venture. Let us not make the same mistakes again !
Saturday, 14 April 2018
Friday, 13 April 2018
" Energy " Solutions !
Most country towns welcome both an abattoir and a meat processing plant for the jobs they create but are less enthusiastic about the bad smells and disposal methods from the inevitable waste they generate, and a lot of this ends up in the local landfill.
The New South Wales city of Goulburn has such plants and they will soon be self sufficient in electricity and able to contribute energy to the state power grid. The abattoir and the meat processing factory have partnered with a power generating company to create a biogas facility to use waste generated in the meat trade.
They are spending $5.75 million to build a biogas facility that will use as fuel the waste generated by the food source. Liquid run-off, fats and other waste from the abattoir and trim discarded by the meat factory will be biologically broken down and putrefied in a covered dam using bacteria. There is a high degree of flexibility as the liquid containing the biogas can expand when energy demand is low, saving this fuel to supplement the system when demand is high.
Basically, this simply replicates the human digestive process. When we have a meal the meat and vegetable matter is digested by the bacteria in our stomach as the nutriments are extracted and the waste passed on to the bowel and it is here that methane is produced, and that is a burnable gas.
In this commercial duplication of the human stomach it will pass that methane to two 800 kilowatt generators that supply the meat plants need and feed the excess into the state power grid. These generators can also use natural gas for fuel so they can keep producing electricity when the meat plant is shut down for annual maintenance.
That is a substantial saving. The Goulburn facility consumes about 20,000 kilowatt hours of electricity every working day as it processes sheep and lambs for meat and skins. This biogas generation replaces the method used by most abattoirs and meat processors in which waste is stored and treated in a series of ponds, often producing offensive smells until it can be used to irrigate pasture or transferred to a sewer.
We have an ever expanding need for more electricity and global warming is causing us to turn away from coal as the means of generating our electricity needs. The impetus is on " renewable " sources such as wind and solar, but turning an inevitable waste product into an electricity source is a creative way of harnessing what otherwise goes free to contribute to global warming.
We have a lot of abattoirs and meat plants scattered across Australia. Methane if an inevitable by-product of the waste they generate. It makes a lot more sense to turn it into electricity than allow it to putrefy in landfills or in evaporative ponds where in contributes to global warming.
The New South Wales city of Goulburn has such plants and they will soon be self sufficient in electricity and able to contribute energy to the state power grid. The abattoir and the meat processing factory have partnered with a power generating company to create a biogas facility to use waste generated in the meat trade.
They are spending $5.75 million to build a biogas facility that will use as fuel the waste generated by the food source. Liquid run-off, fats and other waste from the abattoir and trim discarded by the meat factory will be biologically broken down and putrefied in a covered dam using bacteria. There is a high degree of flexibility as the liquid containing the biogas can expand when energy demand is low, saving this fuel to supplement the system when demand is high.
Basically, this simply replicates the human digestive process. When we have a meal the meat and vegetable matter is digested by the bacteria in our stomach as the nutriments are extracted and the waste passed on to the bowel and it is here that methane is produced, and that is a burnable gas.
In this commercial duplication of the human stomach it will pass that methane to two 800 kilowatt generators that supply the meat plants need and feed the excess into the state power grid. These generators can also use natural gas for fuel so they can keep producing electricity when the meat plant is shut down for annual maintenance.
That is a substantial saving. The Goulburn facility consumes about 20,000 kilowatt hours of electricity every working day as it processes sheep and lambs for meat and skins. This biogas generation replaces the method used by most abattoirs and meat processors in which waste is stored and treated in a series of ponds, often producing offensive smells until it can be used to irrigate pasture or transferred to a sewer.
We have an ever expanding need for more electricity and global warming is causing us to turn away from coal as the means of generating our electricity needs. The impetus is on " renewable " sources such as wind and solar, but turning an inevitable waste product into an electricity source is a creative way of harnessing what otherwise goes free to contribute to global warming.
We have a lot of abattoirs and meat plants scattered across Australia. Methane if an inevitable by-product of the waste they generate. It makes a lot more sense to turn it into electricity than allow it to putrefy in landfills or in evaporative ponds where in contributes to global warming.
Thursday, 12 April 2018
Animal Welfare !
Most Australians would have been repulsed by television news footage of dead and dieing sheep rammed together in sweltering conditions on ships taking them to the Middle East. It is reported that two thousand four hundred bodies were progressively dropped overboard for the sharks on a recent voyage.
There are calls for live export of sheep and cattle from Australia to be banned. Much of the meat we export is destined for the supermarket trade in Europe and the United States and that is a very different proposition. The animals are slaughtered in an Australian abattoir and the meat processed in air conditioned packing houses before being shipped overseas in refrigerated containers.
The needs of the third world are very different. Even when homes have refrigerators the power supply is sporadic and so local custom decrees that meat is slaughtered, cooked and eaten within twenty-four hours. It is customary for families to buy a live sheep at the market, transport it home in the boot of their car and slaughter it in the backyard. This looks horrific to Australian viewers, but it is common practice in much of the world.
Those scenes on television were probably a worst case scenario. The shipment in question probably arrived in the Middle East in July or August, the hottest part of the northern hemispheres summer and if the ship encountered rough seas the distress would have been enhanced. Live export ships are specially constructed vessels designed for profit rather than comfort. The animals are supposed to be able to access food and water, but the crowding makes this impossible for many. A ratio of transport deaths is considered part of the economic rationale.
We could enact transport laws to ease the crowding, but that may increase the problem. Grazing animals are accustomed to a firm surface underfoot. That is not possible on a ship at sea and closer proximity to others prevents them falling - and being trampled. Being penned in smaller numbers and with better access to food and water would certainly improve the survival rate.
We could impose loading laws that apply to ships carrying sheep and cattle from Australian ports but the likely outcome would be the trade diverted to the many other countries supplying overseas markets. Probably the only practical change we can reasonably ensure is improved conditions applying to food and water and restrictions on travel schedules to avoid arrivals in the hottest months.
It would be unreasonable to ban all forms of live export. This is a legitimate form of Australian trade and with care animals can travel by ship in relative safety. The exporters have a valid reason for improving the conditions that apply because the more animals that arrive at their destination in good health the better their profit margin.
The answer to this problem is to have sensible laws in place, and for the news media to be watchful in bringing this trade to public attention.
There are calls for live export of sheep and cattle from Australia to be banned. Much of the meat we export is destined for the supermarket trade in Europe and the United States and that is a very different proposition. The animals are slaughtered in an Australian abattoir and the meat processed in air conditioned packing houses before being shipped overseas in refrigerated containers.
The needs of the third world are very different. Even when homes have refrigerators the power supply is sporadic and so local custom decrees that meat is slaughtered, cooked and eaten within twenty-four hours. It is customary for families to buy a live sheep at the market, transport it home in the boot of their car and slaughter it in the backyard. This looks horrific to Australian viewers, but it is common practice in much of the world.
Those scenes on television were probably a worst case scenario. The shipment in question probably arrived in the Middle East in July or August, the hottest part of the northern hemispheres summer and if the ship encountered rough seas the distress would have been enhanced. Live export ships are specially constructed vessels designed for profit rather than comfort. The animals are supposed to be able to access food and water, but the crowding makes this impossible for many. A ratio of transport deaths is considered part of the economic rationale.
We could enact transport laws to ease the crowding, but that may increase the problem. Grazing animals are accustomed to a firm surface underfoot. That is not possible on a ship at sea and closer proximity to others prevents them falling - and being trampled. Being penned in smaller numbers and with better access to food and water would certainly improve the survival rate.
We could impose loading laws that apply to ships carrying sheep and cattle from Australian ports but the likely outcome would be the trade diverted to the many other countries supplying overseas markets. Probably the only practical change we can reasonably ensure is improved conditions applying to food and water and restrictions on travel schedules to avoid arrivals in the hottest months.
It would be unreasonable to ban all forms of live export. This is a legitimate form of Australian trade and with care animals can travel by ship in relative safety. The exporters have a valid reason for improving the conditions that apply because the more animals that arrive at their destination in good health the better their profit margin.
The answer to this problem is to have sensible laws in place, and for the news media to be watchful in bringing this trade to public attention.
Wednesday, 11 April 2018
A Growing Threat !
Xi Jinping now has supreme power to direct how China evolves its relationship with the rest of the world. His " thoughts " are the directives for the Chinese Communist party and yet his plans for China's future are completely inscrutable.
The nations of the South Pacific will have misgivings to learn that China is seeking to establish a military base in Vanuatu. Chinese development money is being lavished on this island chain of just 270,000 people and this proposal would probably proceed in stages. Firstly, a port where Chinese warships may call to refuel and be resupplied, then perhaps later an airfield. A Chinese base on a Pacific island would certainly project military power over what is presently very much the preserve of the United States navy.
What is happening in the South China sea delivers a warning. The Communist party no longer seeks to impose its doctrine on how other countries are governed but it does seek to protect its trading empire with military might. It is clearly in a race to duplicate the naval and air power of America. That parity is likely to be achieved in a very few short years.
A Chinese intrusion by way of a South Pacific base poses a critical defence question for the smaller Pacific nations. Most will adopt the stance taken by New Zealand. They accept that their economy is incapable of financing the huge cost of competitive jet fighter aircraft, submarines and navy ships to form a credible defence force. New Zealand will therefore be an undefended country, with military forces just capable of undertaking United Nations duties and responding to local emergencies.
Australia - with a population of twenty-four million - is small by world standards but fields the major defence establishment of this area but with a degree of integration with our United States ally. It seems inevitable that this Chinese intrusion will see an increased United States presence on our soil to counter balance this growing threat.
The danger is that we may not be able to maintain our " arms length " alliance with the US and be driven into a closer military embrace. The backbone of our defence needs has been the ANZUS treaty which has served us well when world tensions have been growing in other parts of the world, but now we have a military threat on our doorstep.
If China does not succeed with this Vanuatu proposal it seems inevitable that it will establish a base elsewhere. There are many impoverished little island nations with docking potential and the land for an airstrip. Chinese largesse to build island infrastructure and improve the way of life of their citizenry make acceptance inevitable.
The imponderable question is knowing just where Xi Jinping intends to take China. That will not become clear until China achieves parity in military power with its American nemesis, but a military base in our neighbourhood is not good news !
The nations of the South Pacific will have misgivings to learn that China is seeking to establish a military base in Vanuatu. Chinese development money is being lavished on this island chain of just 270,000 people and this proposal would probably proceed in stages. Firstly, a port where Chinese warships may call to refuel and be resupplied, then perhaps later an airfield. A Chinese base on a Pacific island would certainly project military power over what is presently very much the preserve of the United States navy.
What is happening in the South China sea delivers a warning. The Communist party no longer seeks to impose its doctrine on how other countries are governed but it does seek to protect its trading empire with military might. It is clearly in a race to duplicate the naval and air power of America. That parity is likely to be achieved in a very few short years.
A Chinese intrusion by way of a South Pacific base poses a critical defence question for the smaller Pacific nations. Most will adopt the stance taken by New Zealand. They accept that their economy is incapable of financing the huge cost of competitive jet fighter aircraft, submarines and navy ships to form a credible defence force. New Zealand will therefore be an undefended country, with military forces just capable of undertaking United Nations duties and responding to local emergencies.
Australia - with a population of twenty-four million - is small by world standards but fields the major defence establishment of this area but with a degree of integration with our United States ally. It seems inevitable that this Chinese intrusion will see an increased United States presence on our soil to counter balance this growing threat.
The danger is that we may not be able to maintain our " arms length " alliance with the US and be driven into a closer military embrace. The backbone of our defence needs has been the ANZUS treaty which has served us well when world tensions have been growing in other parts of the world, but now we have a military threat on our doorstep.
If China does not succeed with this Vanuatu proposal it seems inevitable that it will establish a base elsewhere. There are many impoverished little island nations with docking potential and the land for an airstrip. Chinese largesse to build island infrastructure and improve the way of life of their citizenry make acceptance inevitable.
The imponderable question is knowing just where Xi Jinping intends to take China. That will not become clear until China achieves parity in military power with its American nemesis, but a military base in our neighbourhood is not good news !
Tuesday, 10 April 2018
World War Three !
The fear of a nuclear war that may end human life on this planet has not eventuated and for a long time we felt safe sheltering behind the MAD stalemate. The United States of America and the Soviet Union faced off with huge nuclear arsenals - and the certainty that there would not be a winner because in a nuclear war they were both " Mutually Assured of Destruction ".
That concept still virtually stands as far as the original nuclear powers are concerned, but the nuclear club has widened to include India and Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. These are unstable parts of the world but acquiring nuclear weapons was probably more a matter of defence than plans for territorial conquest. We have learned to live in a nuclear armed world.
What should be concerning us is the increasing use of chemical weapons and this is happening in civil wars. Countries are quite prepared to use this type of warfare against their own citizens, as we have seen in Iraq and more recently - Syria. All the major powers have researched chemical and biological weapons and if we ever manage to stumble into a third world war there is every probability that they will be used.
Perhaps the greater danger is coming from the intolerance to refugees and the coming dangers the experts are warning us about. It looks unlikely we will manage to contain global warming and the world will face increasing sea levels, and there is a doubt that as we head to a world population of ten billion that food supplies will be sufficient. Hunger and privation could send new waves of people swarming across borders in search of relief.
We have seen how quickly compassion turns to anger, and anger into creating obstacles to halt the flow. Self preservation is a powerful motive and in a world of dwindling living space the tribal instinct for preservation comes to the fore. Once we are convinced that our way of life is threatened we embrace methods that go against our normal conscience.
Of course all this could be prevented if we managed to bring global warming under control and bring progeny numbers within the range we could afford to feed and educate, but everything from religion to poverty and ignorance is making that impossible. The survivors are the countries that can feed themselves, and those that can't seem destined to become the homeless.
The use of chemical and biological weapons in civil wars seems to be a warning of what is coming in the future. Perhaps that nuclear bogey is the threat that never eventuated !
That concept still virtually stands as far as the original nuclear powers are concerned, but the nuclear club has widened to include India and Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. These are unstable parts of the world but acquiring nuclear weapons was probably more a matter of defence than plans for territorial conquest. We have learned to live in a nuclear armed world.
What should be concerning us is the increasing use of chemical weapons and this is happening in civil wars. Countries are quite prepared to use this type of warfare against their own citizens, as we have seen in Iraq and more recently - Syria. All the major powers have researched chemical and biological weapons and if we ever manage to stumble into a third world war there is every probability that they will be used.
Perhaps the greater danger is coming from the intolerance to refugees and the coming dangers the experts are warning us about. It looks unlikely we will manage to contain global warming and the world will face increasing sea levels, and there is a doubt that as we head to a world population of ten billion that food supplies will be sufficient. Hunger and privation could send new waves of people swarming across borders in search of relief.
We have seen how quickly compassion turns to anger, and anger into creating obstacles to halt the flow. Self preservation is a powerful motive and in a world of dwindling living space the tribal instinct for preservation comes to the fore. Once we are convinced that our way of life is threatened we embrace methods that go against our normal conscience.
Of course all this could be prevented if we managed to bring global warming under control and bring progeny numbers within the range we could afford to feed and educate, but everything from religion to poverty and ignorance is making that impossible. The survivors are the countries that can feed themselves, and those that can't seem destined to become the homeless.
The use of chemical and biological weapons in civil wars seems to be a warning of what is coming in the future. Perhaps that nuclear bogey is the threat that never eventuated !
Monday, 9 April 2018
The " Crap " Exchange !
The ancient Chinese world of medicine had some very brutal remedies for some ailments. They understood that the human gut contained a vast mix of different strains of bacteria and if a bad strain predominated the answer was to introduce a good strain from someone elses gut. That dreaded diagnosis was followed by the even more dreaded " yellow soup " treatment.
The world of medicine today knows that this tribal mix of gut bacteria can be disrupted when we take antibiotics for other medical reasons. The whole point of antibiotics is to kill the bad bugs, but in reality it cuts a swathe through whatever bacteria lives in the gut, both good and bad. The problem is that we often end up with a completely different tribal mix from whatever survives.
Often this includes a rather nasty species called Clostridium difficile ( C.difficle ) which causes gut inflammation and is thought to be responsible for ulcerative colitis, Crohn's disease, and irritable bowel syndrome. It also effects the brain and has been included in research into depression, anxiety, autism, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis and obesity.
The treatment available in the past involved a procedure most people found repulsive. It involved churning the faeces of a volunteer with good gut bacteria into a slurry and inserting this into the bowel of the person needing treatment by way of a colonoscope or an enema.
Fortunately, this line of medicine has now developed into a very civilized procedure known as a faecal microbiota transplant ( FMT ) which is now practised in a laboratory in Adelaide. The laboratory needs volunteers to donate a faecal sample - for which they are paid - and from which the good bacteria is extracted and hygienically transferred freeze dried into a soluble capsule. This is swallowed by the person needing treatment and the bacteria is liberated when the capsule dissolves and thus provides renewal for the many suffering the wrong mix of gut bacteria.
It seems that this Clostridium difficile is a very common case of gut problems in Australia and we believe that it kills up to one in ten of its victims. In 2013 the result of a study into this FMT procedure was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which reported that the study was stopped because the results were found to be dramatic. It was thought that the transplant was so effective that it was ruled unethical to withhold it from other participants in the study.
Despite the inevitability of toilet humour being attached to this form of treatment, the answer to an unfortunate mix of gut bacteria causing problems for many Australians now has a palatable solution by popping a pill. The wise will not ponder the content of that pill.
The world of medicine today knows that this tribal mix of gut bacteria can be disrupted when we take antibiotics for other medical reasons. The whole point of antibiotics is to kill the bad bugs, but in reality it cuts a swathe through whatever bacteria lives in the gut, both good and bad. The problem is that we often end up with a completely different tribal mix from whatever survives.
Often this includes a rather nasty species called Clostridium difficile ( C.difficle ) which causes gut inflammation and is thought to be responsible for ulcerative colitis, Crohn's disease, and irritable bowel syndrome. It also effects the brain and has been included in research into depression, anxiety, autism, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis and obesity.
The treatment available in the past involved a procedure most people found repulsive. It involved churning the faeces of a volunteer with good gut bacteria into a slurry and inserting this into the bowel of the person needing treatment by way of a colonoscope or an enema.
Fortunately, this line of medicine has now developed into a very civilized procedure known as a faecal microbiota transplant ( FMT ) which is now practised in a laboratory in Adelaide. The laboratory needs volunteers to donate a faecal sample - for which they are paid - and from which the good bacteria is extracted and hygienically transferred freeze dried into a soluble capsule. This is swallowed by the person needing treatment and the bacteria is liberated when the capsule dissolves and thus provides renewal for the many suffering the wrong mix of gut bacteria.
It seems that this Clostridium difficile is a very common case of gut problems in Australia and we believe that it kills up to one in ten of its victims. In 2013 the result of a study into this FMT procedure was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which reported that the study was stopped because the results were found to be dramatic. It was thought that the transplant was so effective that it was ruled unethical to withhold it from other participants in the study.
Despite the inevitability of toilet humour being attached to this form of treatment, the answer to an unfortunate mix of gut bacteria causing problems for many Australians now has a palatable solution by popping a pill. The wise will not ponder the content of that pill.
Sunday, 8 April 2018
The " Liddell " Question !
The one inescapable fact about the reliability of our power supply during the summer peaks is the necessity of Liddell power station in its present form - or a replacement - to contribute electricity to the grid. Without that, blackouts are a high probability.
Liddell is one of the last old coal fired power stations and its owners - AGL - intend to close it in 2022 and replace that power output with a new form of generation. Just what form that will take has not been decided, but pumped hydro is certainly one option. AGL believe that for corporate credibility they need to withdraw from burning coal to generate electricity.
It seems that the Federal government doubts that AGL can get a replacement for Liddell up and running by 2020 and want this plant to continue beyond that date. There have been threats and the suggestion that AGL sell the plant to a competitor. AGL is standing firm and can not be legally forced to either sell or keep Liddell open.
This is developing into a dangerous game of brinkmanship. Apart from domestic nuisance, power interruptions would play havoc with New South Wales industry and the state economics. Power interruptions are something we associate with third world economies. Any government that allowed that to happen would be punished at the ballot box.
The logical resolution to this problem would be for AGL to agree to keep Liddell running until its new form of generation comes on line, but even that has a danger factor. There is a doubt about Liddell's present reliability. It is creaking old technology and its output falls far below capacity. Should the plant fail during peak load the outcome would be catastrophic.
Power certainty will cost the government money. As an interim measure it would be necessary to buy and install individual generators powered by jet engines. They are relatively cheap but costly to run and would be an expensive - but necessary - way of ensuring that peak summer loads could be met.
That is probably the only realistic option until this AGL imbroglio sorts itself out. The government is being realistic in doubting that AGL can draw up plans and get them approved, let tenders and actually achieve construction of new technology to replace Liddell in just four short years. If failure to achieve consensus is just a clash of egos the public will not be in a mood for forgiveness.
The government is the only authority with the ability to make the decisions and spend the money to keep the lights on !
Liddell is one of the last old coal fired power stations and its owners - AGL - intend to close it in 2022 and replace that power output with a new form of generation. Just what form that will take has not been decided, but pumped hydro is certainly one option. AGL believe that for corporate credibility they need to withdraw from burning coal to generate electricity.
It seems that the Federal government doubts that AGL can get a replacement for Liddell up and running by 2020 and want this plant to continue beyond that date. There have been threats and the suggestion that AGL sell the plant to a competitor. AGL is standing firm and can not be legally forced to either sell or keep Liddell open.
This is developing into a dangerous game of brinkmanship. Apart from domestic nuisance, power interruptions would play havoc with New South Wales industry and the state economics. Power interruptions are something we associate with third world economies. Any government that allowed that to happen would be punished at the ballot box.
The logical resolution to this problem would be for AGL to agree to keep Liddell running until its new form of generation comes on line, but even that has a danger factor. There is a doubt about Liddell's present reliability. It is creaking old technology and its output falls far below capacity. Should the plant fail during peak load the outcome would be catastrophic.
Power certainty will cost the government money. As an interim measure it would be necessary to buy and install individual generators powered by jet engines. They are relatively cheap but costly to run and would be an expensive - but necessary - way of ensuring that peak summer loads could be met.
That is probably the only realistic option until this AGL imbroglio sorts itself out. The government is being realistic in doubting that AGL can draw up plans and get them approved, let tenders and actually achieve construction of new technology to replace Liddell in just four short years. If failure to achieve consensus is just a clash of egos the public will not be in a mood for forgiveness.
The government is the only authority with the ability to make the decisions and spend the money to keep the lights on !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)