Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

Another stroke of green genius, page-14

First 14 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
mogga

57,383 Posts.

1322

25/09/22

10:06

Post #: 63865393
Share

Originally posted by chappy58 ↑

@mogga This was the some of the origional story from within your link from 2013, I would say the rate payers will be paying this off now for decades.

Solar farm to be built on land that goes under water

COUNCIL plans to build a $24.2 million solar farm on land that goes almost a metre under water every two years.

SUNSHINE Coast council plans to build a $24.2 million solar farm on land that goes almost a metre under water every two years, and more than two metres under in a maximum flood event.
However, council officers have recommended the site because of its size, closeness to a 33kV power grid, availability and price.
Sunshine Coast councillors have been advised choices that fit the criteria are limited.
According to official records, the land on Yandina-Coolum Rd goes 2.36m under water in a maximum flood event, is affected by flooding to a depth of 0.79m every two years, and is subject to minor flooding every wet season.
Maximum flood levels could rise to 3.02m over time due to sea level rises associated with climate change.
Deputy mayor Chris Thompson confirmed yesterday that an option had been taken up on the site.
The execution of that option would be dependent on the outcome of expressions of interest, to be advertised today, from companies interested in supplying material for the project, building and operating it.
When council officers in 2011 approved what was then a commercial venture for the 50ha property on Yandina-Coolum Rd it was noted that the site was heavily constrained by flooding which would result at times in workers being trapped by floodwaters.
Councillors voted unanimously on June 29, 2011, in favour of Energy Parks Australia Pty Ltd's application for a material change of use on the site despite 54 submissions opposing the project which also received 43 submissions of support.
The heavily conditioned approval required that all structures would have to be built on pads at least 2.5m high to maintain floodwater clearance.
Detailed design work still has to be done as has soil testing to determine the degree and cost of foundations.
Financial analysis done to date suggests savings of $9.4 million can be achieved over 30 years by the council owning a 10kw power source.
However the project would be a draw on council cash reserves for the first 11 years with no significant return before 2033.
An additional $10 million economic benefit has also been factored in.
Despite those estimated benefits it is understood that several councillors were taken by the surprise by Mayor Mark Jamieson's announcement of the council's involvement in the project.
A final vote on whether to go ahead has still to be made.

https://www.couriermail.com.au/news...2V4WkEgLmbquadj2wejsBCXksOv5HwFE9zMwrClGkdL-I

Expand

Maybe if they sent the councillors that voted for this project - despite the warnings - the bill
they would be a bit more careful next time they tear up rate payer money

Political vandalism is the best way to describe this - and it's becoming far too common
21 Upvote

Reply

Top Stories

Week 29 Wrap: ASX hits new all time high of 8,766pts ahead of Aug 1

PSC

Prospect's Mumbezhi Project puts it at the middle of copper's megatrend. And FQM just bought in

Listen: HotCopper Wire Podcast 018 – Potatoes, TACOs, and the $120M helicopter heist

ASX Market Open: Oz traders follow Week 29 highs with Monday pullback | July 21

PTX

This rare type of lymphoma ruins the body – so do existing treatments. Prescient could have a solution

First 14 Last