06-27-2019, 03:32 AM
After some internal debate, I felt I better put this on this side.
15,000 hectares are equal to 58 square miles. Sounds like a lot, but that's only about 1% of the Northern Territory (which is largely desert).
The largest nuke plant in the US (Palo Verde, AZ) has three reactors producing a total of just under 4 GW. The largest hydro plant is the Grand Coulee dam at 7 GW (although it typically operates at ~30% capacity) The largest coal plant (Georgia) is capable of 3.5 GW.
Ambitious plans have been announced for a 15,000-hectare solar array...in Australia’s Northern Territory. If built, the 10 GW solar farm would be the world’s biggest solar park and be coupled with a massive battery with an unspecified capacity.
The project would export electricity to Darwin and overseas to Singapore...
15,000 hectares are equal to 58 square miles. Sounds like a lot, but that's only about 1% of the Northern Territory (which is largely desert).
The largest nuke plant in the US (Palo Verde, AZ) has three reactors producing a total of just under 4 GW. The largest hydro plant is the Grand Coulee dam at 7 GW (although it typically operates at ~30% capacity) The largest coal plant (Georgia) is capable of 3.5 GW.
...timeline to start construction in 2023 with commercial operations to start in 2027. The project is set to employ Australian businesses and personnel and could create thousands of construction and manufacturing jobs.
The cost is projected at $14B (US). South Carolina Electric and Gas spent over $4B on the VC Sumner nuclear project before it was abandoned; the original cost estimate was ~$10B, but experts estimated the actual final (construction) cost, had it been finished, would have been $23B (for an additional 2 GW production at the plant).
PS- the three largest planned solar projects in the US (in NV) will total 1.2 GW, about a tenth of the Aussie project. Why are we lagging?06-27-2019, 04:34 AMbfd’s got it
Who has the best logo, amirite? Chevron’s is not merely red, white, and blue but literally has chevrons on it!! Duh.06-27-2019, 12:57 PMdeckeda wrote:
bfd’s got it
Who has the best logo, amirite? Chevron’s is not merely red, white, and blue but literally has chevrons on it!! Duh.
Hey! The Shell logo has a shell!
And Gulf Oil has Sauron's all-seeing eye!06-27-2019, 03:16 PMPlease please please put them up on posts to provide shade. You'll see an interesting biome developing under them.06-27-2019, 03:25 PMcbelt3 wrote:
Please please please put them up on posts to provide shade. You'll see an interesting biome developing under them.
Are they usually installed flush to the ground? I thought almost all solar panels on solar farms were angled to maximize solar exposure based on global position.
The biome might be low to the ground, but I suspect these installations work on the assumption that there will be things living under the panels...06-27-2019, 03:54 PMThey'll probably effectively sterilize the site of life to minimize maintenance unless specific provision is made.
06-27-2019, 04:14 PMAcer wrote:
They'll probably effectively sterilize the site of life to minimize maintenance unless specific provision is made.
That is really really hard to do. Ecosystems really want life, and in the outdoors keeping life completely out is almost impossible, You can poison, burn, electrify, salt the earth, and so on - something will figure out a way to live there. Unless the operation of the equipment itself continuously sterilizes the landscape, you're gonna have some kind of critters.....
Not to mention - solar farms usually have to estimate their environmental impact before being built (in the U.S., anyway). It's tough to get something approved if it involves a scorched-landscape policy toward life...06-27-2019, 04:22 PMrjmacs wrote:
[quote=Acer]
They'll probably effectively sterilize the site of life to minimize maintenance unless specific provision is made.
That is really really hard to do. Ecosystems really want life, and in the outdoors keeping life completely out is almost impossible,
Well, they probably wouldn't have to work too hard:
06-27-2019, 04:30 PMpdq wrote:
[quote=rjmacs]
[quote=Acer]
They'll probably effectively sterilize the site of life to minimize maintenance unless specific provision is made.
That is really really hard to do. Ecosystems really want life, and in the outdoors keeping life completely out is almost impossible,
Well, they probably wouldn't have to work too hard:
There's a lot more life out there than you can see in the photo! Desert ecosystems are awesome but less visible than other climatic systems.
