Worley Parsons to build 34 250-megawatt power stations

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by Deathridesahorse

You don't buy insurance because you know your house is going to burn down: you insure it because it might!

Apparently the science says enough to be worried but science is a prick of a subject...

...how do you measure all the variables?!?

...what are all the variables?!?

...what is "Chaos theory" again?!?

I'm an electrical engineer. Electrical engineering is an applied science. I suppose climatology is too.
But I don't know the answers to your questions. A few thoughts in no particular order.
Science, like insurance, is about probabilities rather than certainties.
Some of the variables we may know or can measure, some maybe not. Some may be fundamental, while others, although known, are not significant.
If I throw a cricket ball up in the air at, say, 12 m/s I can reasonably predict how far up it will go without having to consider wind resistance or much else.
At 12 km/s it's an entirely different ball game.

[August]

Originally Posted by Deathridesahorse

...what is "Chaos theory" again?!?

complexity

For over twenty years I have been trying to understand what we can learn from the Theory of Chaos and the many elaborate analyses of complexity, turbulence etcetera. It isn’t easy, but it’s intriguing. It’s a matter of understanding that things called “chaos” aren’t chaotic, but follow laws that we can’t easily understand or define; and that complexity is actually simple, but our way of thinking makes it appear complicated.

This is a good read. - I am particularly fond of the illustrations that are being used.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

"Worley Parsons to build 34 250-megawatt power stations" What's to interpret? It is written as a statement of fact, a matter of certainty. For it to be so, it would have to be a done deal.
It isn't. As such, it is misleading. QED. C'est tout.

Even so called "done deals" as you put it, are never done until completed no matter what they may be for. The article headline implies the intention of Worley Parsons. Read the headline however you wish, it makes no difference to the conveyed intent of Worley Parsons. They have made their intention clear and that's what really matters.

It's not rocket science. There are no technical show stoppers. Commercial framework will determine the rate of implementation and that will be partly up to government to create the incentives for them to make them cost effective. All indications are that the commercial environment will become favourable and in fact is becoming favourable for renewables in Australia and the 2020 / 20% mandate makes this necessary. Carbon trading in 2010 another factor that is expected to make renewables more price competitive, as conventional sources of energy increase in price. With the technology now well enough understood, it's now largely a price game. Obviously the government of the day will influence policy, but that's not unique to energy policy.


Renewal Energy Target policy document
Australian Labor Party : Download file - Renewal Energy Target policy document

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Deathridesahorse

As for the validity of Climate Change my Dad works at the Dept of Agriculture(in W.A.) and has told me for about a year that there is far from consensus on the matter but the whole thing is about insuring against the worst as there is some evidence that there could be a big problem.

You don't buy insurance because you know your house is going to burn down: you insure it because it might!

Apparently the science says enough to be worried but science is a prick of a subject...

...how do you measure all the variables?!?

...what are all the variables?!?

...what is "Chaos theory" again?!?

The only thing I know beyond a shadow of a doubt is that National Geographic talked about melting Glacier Parks years ago!

But, [throws hands up in air], I just don't want the non-solution of the Nuclear Genie to set it's foot down under under the guise of being the AGW saviour: that's my caper!

The Solid Silver Spirit Surfer in the Sky tells me that Genie is a pussy!

"Let's get it on!"

Yes Climate Change being a key catalyst for the need for change, but there are plenty of other good reasons also, such risk management as you suggested, reducing global pollution and environmental damage from the fossil fuel industry, combating growing global demand against dwindling supply of fossil fuels at affordable cost, assisting the third world to find sustainable energy sources, helping reduce nuclear proliferation, little doubt more good reasons. Personally I love the smell of clean fresh air. You don't get that where there are cars that pump out CO2 and other noxious pollutants on mass. Quality of life can take on many definitions of course. Even if Climate Change was not a problem, there are plenty of other good reasons why man should embrace renewable energy.

Note other headlines regarding Worley Parsons desired intentions;

http://www.industrysearch.com.au/New...gy_plans-33852

http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/wor...or/2008/08/13/

[LMagic007]

Under the plan, a total of 34 250MW solar power stations would be built by 2020 - capable of producing almost half of Australia's renewable energy target, WorleyParsons' EcoNomics managing director Peter Meurs said.

Rio Tinto, BHP Billiton, Woodside Petroleum, Wesfarmers and others are all funding the study and have all but committed to fund the plants. "I'd be cautious about saying that this would work without their support, but with their support I'm quite confident that we're going to see these sorts of power stations in Australia soon," Meurs told reporters in Sydney on Tuesday.

IndustrySearch.com.au® Australia - Aust's big business support Worley solar energy plans

Advanced Solar-Thermal Presentation
http://www.worleyparsons.com/Investo...sentation.aspx

http://business.theage.com.au/busine...0812-3u3u.html

http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited...fx5311975.html

http://www.environmentalmanagementne...storyid=242999

http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/12082008/323...lar-plant.html

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

IndustrySearch.com.au® Australia - Aust's big business support Worley solar energy plans

Advanced Solar-Thermal Presentation
News | Advanced Solar-Thermal Presentation

Good. New information.
Let's see what we now have.

The original statement - Worley Parsons to build 34 250-megawatt power stations.

Rio Tinto, BHP Billiton, Woodside Petroleum, Wesfarmers and others are all funding the study.

WorleyParsons would not have a role in financing the solar power plants, but would provide professional services to the investing companies.

The study is expected to be completed by the end of the year. Investors must commit financially by early 2009 for the first plant to be built by 2011 as planned.

OK.

We have a study funded by others yet to be completed, investors yet to commit to the first plant. if it is to be built, and Worley Parsons to provide (and get paid for) professional services.

So where are we?

A long way away from that categoric statement::

Worley Parsons to build 34 250-megawatt power stations.

We don't know if even the first will be built.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Good. New information.
Let's see what we now have.

The original statement - Worley Parsons to build 34 250-megawatt power stations.

Rio Tinto, BHP Billiton, Woodside Petroleum, Wesfarmers and others are all funding the study. WorleyParsons would not have a role in financing the solar power plants, but would provide professional services to the investing companies.

The study is expected to be completed by the end of the year. Investors must commit financially by early 2009 for the first plant to be built by 2011 as planned.

OK.

We have a study funded by others yet to be completed, investors yet to commit to the first plant. if it is to be built, and Worley Parsons to provide (and get paid for) professional services.

So where are we?

A long way away from that categoric statement::

Worley Parsons to build 34 250-megawatt power stations.

We don't know if even the first will be built.

Categorical or otherwise largely irrelevant. Worley Parsons have announced their intention. The various article headings vary in nature and to single out one changes nothing. Worley Parsons have made their intention clear and as indicated that's the important aspect rather than nit picking over the single headline of an article. If they don't do it, in all reasonable likelihood, someone else will and I suspect others will build solar thermal power plants anyway. I certainly won't be at all surprised to see them proceed with construction. Australia already has another solar thermal plant under construction already. Australia has developed the technology. There are simply too many good reasons to proceed and few if any reasons to do nothing. Again with a 20% renewable 2020 commitment, the conditions will be favourable to renewable energy like solar thermal in Australia.

Solar is part of Australia's energy future and all our political parties agree with that notion. There is little reason to think solar thermal wont get the green light and I suspect when it does and once the first plant has been built and is operational, it will be successful and they will build more, because by 2020, fossil fuels are expected to be very expensive and solar thermal technology works and will be comparatively cheaper than other forms of energy by that time. There is no convincing argument to think it won't be done, given the prevailing parameters of climate, government policy, technical capability and economics.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Worley Parsons have announced their intention.

Which isn't to build 34 new power stations.
At best, they will act as consultants/project managers and will get their fees paid by others who will take the financial pain if the results of the study (funded by others) are positive, and if investors come on board for the first project and if the project is sufficiently successful to warrant building another 33.

For the avoidance of doubt and further long-winded waffle extolling its merits, I'm not saying it won't happen - just not the way the original article spins it.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Which isn't to build 34 new power stations.
At best, they will act as consultants/project managers and will get their fees paid by others who will take the financial pain if the results of the study (funded by others) are positive, and if investors come on board for the first project and if the project is sufficiently successful to warrant building another 33.

For the avoidance of doubt and further long-winded waffle extolling its merits, I'm not saying it won't happen - just not the way the original article spins it.

It's not unusual for large scale projects to evolve along paths not initially envisaged, especially projects that span many years. Nothing new to us in that revelation. The important point is the announcement has been made that the intention is to build the solar thermal power stations and whatever capacity Worley Parsons take in that process, is incidental to the more important aspect of the power stations being built and power being generated from solar thermal energy in Australia. Of course one might expect you would not say it wont happen because there is clear reason to think that solar thermal power stations will in all reasonable likelihood be built in Australia, where they are well suited and many of them in future I suspect will be built. There are many articles on the matter and really the articles are an aside to the fact that the intention of Worley Parsons has been made clear and their belief that at least 34 could be built by 2020 is a indication of confidence in the capability of the solar thermal technology. Evidence suggests that major players also have a belief that solar thermal energy has a strong future in Australia. Narrowly focusing on a headline serves to distract focus from the core aspect that the solar thermal power stations look to have a firm likelihood of eventuality, all be it in progressive stages up to 2020 and well beyond. I suspect it's less a matter of if and more a matter of when and scheduling in accordance with the 2020 mandate for 20% renewable energy in Australia, combined with creating the economic conditions that make their construction and operation favourable. Tax incentives and carbon trading and other measures are likely to help make the conditions favourable to renewable energy in Australia as in other countries. In fact that is happening already all over the world. There is just no argument or case presented that would suggest solar thermal energy does not have a strong future in Australia. I'm confident the implementation of solar thermal energy in Australia will be successful and could well emerge along the lines that the original article spins it and some.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

It's not unusual for large scale projects to evolve along paths not initially envisaged, especially projects that span many years. Nothing new to us in that revelation.

How many major projects need to fail to materialise before you acknowedge that these things are far from guaranteed to be built?

The important point is the announcement has been made that the intention is to build the solar thermal power stations and whatever capacity Worley Parsons take in that process, is incidental to the more important aspect of the power stations being built and power being generated from solar thermal energy in Australia. Of course one might expect you would not say it wont happen because there is clear reason to think that solar thermal power stations will in all reasonable likelihood be built in Australia, where they are well suited and many of them in future I suspect will be built. There are many articles on the matter and really the articles are an aside to the fact that the intention of Worley Parsons has been made clear and their belief that at least 34 could be built by 2020 is a indication of confidence in the capability of the solar thermal technology. Evidence suggests that major players also have a belief that solar thermal energy has a strong future in Australia. Narrowly focusing on a headline serves to distract focus from the core aspect that the solar thermal power stations look to have a firm likelihood of eventuality, all be it in progressive stages up to 2020 and well beyond. I suspect it's less a matter of if and more a matter of when and scheduling in accordance with the 2020 mandate for 20% renewable energy in Australia, combined with creating the economic conditions that make their construction and operation favourable. Tax incentives and carbon trading and other measures are likely to help make the conditions favourable to renewable energy in Australia as in other countries. In fact that is happening already all over the world.

You suspect. That's good, in that you acknowledge that its not guaranteed. Well done.

Narrowly focussing on the headline does not distract anything. It serves to highlight the misleading nature of such articles.

These things are far from guaranteed to be built in any great capacity. Not impossible, but whether they should be built is another question entirely.

There is just no argument or case presented that would suggest solar thermal energy does not have a strong future in Australia. I'm confident the implementation of solar thermal energy in Australia will be successful and could well emerge along the lines that the original article spins it and some.

You mean other than the fact that its failed to do so in the past? Plans have been announced before and failed to be built.