Posted on2:30 pm, January 15, 2018byGuest Author David Bidstrup 15/1 On 10 January “The Advertiser” reported that the solar-thermal plant to replace the now demolished coal plant at Port Augusta has been given development approval. The proponents still need to organise finance and get their hands on the federal government $100 million “concessional equity loan” otherwise known as free money from us. I thought I would do some numbers to see whether the project is worth the hype, even though it is probably inevitable. The promotional blurb for the “Aurora” project states a generating capacity of 150 MW and output of 500 GWh per year. If “Aurora” was a conventional generator its theoretical annual output would be 1,314 GWh so the capacity factor for the project is 38%. This is not much better than wind farms which average capacity factors of 30-35%. As a comparison, the now demolished Port Augusta power station had a capacity of 520MW and a capacity factor of around 90% so could produce about 4,100 GWh annually. This is around 8 times more than the solar-thermal project will provide. The solar-thermal plant is quoted at $650 million, with $100 million coming directly from our pockets. The construction time is 2 ½ years from whenever they get the money finalised. Over a proposed life span of 40 years it will produce 20,000 GWh – about 5 years’ worth of Port Augusta output – and will have a capital cost per MWh produced of $32.50 plus financing and operating costs. There is much hype about the “storage” capacity and how this will make the plant “dispatchable”, (a term the famous “pet shop parrot” now uses whenever electricity is being discussed). Looking at data from plants already in existence in Nevada, the solar-thermal plants suffer the same issue as ordinary solar PV in that their output drops off in winter months. Plots show capacity factors dropping to 10% so output is around one quarter of summer output. There might not be sufficient “excess” power to store in winter months. The coal fired station provided employment for 500 or so people in the Leigh Creek mine and Port Augusta power station and many others who made their livings supporting the power station or providing services for the families of these people. Leigh Creek is now a ghost town and Port Augusta has businesses closed and people out of work. They are also facing pollution from the overenthusiastic explosive demolition of the power station and the dust from the drying flyash lagoon. The solar-thermal project is touted as employing 650 people over 2 ½ years for construction – most of whom will come from places other than Port Augusta – and an ongoing workforce of 50 people to operate it. Not much of a deal for those who now see no future.
Alinta were going broke because they had to get off the grid every time the wind blew but be ready to pick up the slack when it did not. This meant they continued to burn coal and employ people but their revenue base was severely reduced. They offered a deal to keep the plant going for $8 million per year but this was turned down by a government that has a fanatical fixation about “climate change” and “emissions reductions”. As a consequence the plant was blown up and sent to China as scrap metal. 4,100,000 MWh for $8 million is $1.95 per MWh, slightly less than a capital cost of $32.50 plus $80 for the RET subsidy, (it is “renewable” after all), and probably $20 for operations and maintenance giving $132.50 per MWh, without financing costs. This is 68 times the incremental cost for keeping Port Augusta open and produces 5 years’ worth of “equivalent” power over a 40 year life span. The Wetherill government has a history of hiding the real costs of a rush to expensive and intermittent renewables. What can`t be hidden is SA has gone from cheap electricity to the dearest in the world and this will continue until renewables become technologically efficient
