Worley Parsons to build 34 250-megawatt power stations

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

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

Ah the cavalry. Nothing is guaranteed in life except death and if you're unlucky, taxes, so your telling us nothing new there. I expect they will succeed and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. I expect the sun will rise tomorrow also and if it doesn't then nothing will save us.

Originally Posted by Wobs

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

There is no evidence to suggest the headline is misleading. Pure speculation on your part, nothing more and yes it is a distraction from the expressed desire of Worley Parsons to see 34 solar thermal power plants built by 2020. Many different articles make it very clear that is their intention, so it's not the article that is at fault at all and there is no firm reason to think that is not the intention of Worley Parsons.

Originally Posted by Wobs

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.

Nobody has suggested a guarantee to anything. Even guarantees don't assure certainty. Whether anything known to man could or should be built is another question entirely. It's Worley Parsons expressed intent that they be built and whether we see that many by 2020, will only be known at that time, but that does not discount the announced intent that 34 could be built within that time frame, no matter who builds them.

Originally Posted by Wobs

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.

You have put forward no evidence suggesting Australian commercial solar thermal projects have failed and I very much doubt they will fail in this instance. It's quite likely that the economic framework created by the Australian government will allow the technology to succeed commercially.

Away from this peripherally distractive argument being put forward about the element of uncertainty of solar thermal power's future in Australia, as reflected in the uncertainty of life in general, of which concept the whole world is familiar with, we have clear indication of intent to build solar thermal power stations in Australia and a significant number of them by 2020. Whether they build 34 by 2020 more or less, is largely academic. Worley Parsons is a large Engineering Procurement and Construction Management company and has a global presence and are no strangers to large engineering projects. Worley Parsons are the largest EPCM in Australia and EPCM contractor China and are no strangers to the energy industry with involvement in a range of energy technologies including nuclear, coal, gas and renewable energy. Worley Parsons intent is clear and the articles merely reflect that intent. Solar thermal technology is now well accepted as feasible and applicable to a country like Australia. That's is the most important factor. It's technically achievable given the right cost and pricing structures. I've seen no firm argument demonstrating that it's not possible. All indications are that it is possible.

[Besoeker]

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. 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.

A lot of words for nothing much subtantive or new. Obviously you took little heed of my comment in post #18.
Clarity, brevity, and definitive statements might help you get across any point you wish to make.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by Wobs

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

Indeed. The headline isn't just misleading. It's wrong.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Indeed. The headline isn't just misleading. It's wrong.

The headline not misleading and is no more wrong than your statement above which is contrary to the announcement of intent by WorleyParsons. Further more it's very clear that the headline accurately reflects the conveyed intent of WorleyParsons. You may not agree with the conveyed intent but that's another matter, however the article is true to that conveyed intent.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

A lot of words for nothing much subtantive or new. Obviously you took little heed of my comment in post #18. Clarity, brevity, and definitive statements might help you get across any point you wish to make.

I very much doubt any little advice you might toss up from time to time could add value substantively to this. Thus I suspect nothing to take heed of. I'm simply re-iterating my point. I can't help you with your inability or refusal to comprehend. Further more, additional substantiation is not essential, as the conveyed intent of WorleyParsons message is blindingly clear and the articles reflect that intent accurately. Your refusal to see that is not my problem, though as I indicated your sighting of this small element, is not only wrong, but is a distraction from the clearly conveyed intent of WorleyParsons's message.

Significantly, as Australia looks to cap carbon emissions with targets for renewable energy and the introduction of carbon credits, WorleyParsons said it aimed to deliver 40 percent of Australia's renewable energy needs with its 34 solar power plants.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

[font=Arial][size=2]There is no evidence to suggest the headline is misleading.

Other than it is.

[font=Arial][size=2]You have put forward no evidence suggesting Australian commercial solar thermal projects have failed and I very much doubt they will fail in this instance.

We both know that huge solar towers have been proposed in Australia before, and have not gone ahead.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Other than it is.

We both know that huge solar towers have been proposed in Australia before, and have not gone ahead.

Some might quite reasonably think that your remark above seems to demonstrate either a lack of understanding of the solar thermal technologies or a deliberate attempt to mislead, with slur on proven solar thermal CSP technology.

Hello ? This is absolutely not at all about solar updraft towers of the kind that failed to get off the ground in Mildura Victoria, as you alluded to. Is the audience that silly, as to see credibility in those remarks you just made above, in relation to the topic in question of CSP and the WorleyParsons proposal ?

In fact at this stage, this is not even about solar CSP concentrating towers, that do work. Yes different to updraft towers.

This WorleyParsons proposal, is at this stage about parabolic trough collector power stations. Proven technology. There is no question of technical capability here. It's an issue of favourable economic framework that is emerging for renewables that includes 2010 carbon trading, government incentives and rising fossil fuel costs leading toward 2020. All favouring renewable energy projects.

As I indicated, you have just alluded to the issue of failure to proceed of solar updraft tower technology, that is not even being discussed nor being proposed by WorleyParsons. WorleyParsons are referring to proven solar thermal parabolic trough collector systems. This does make one question the motivation for such a remark, if not to mislead.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Some might quite reasonably think that your remark above seems to demonstrate either a lack of understanding of the solar thermal technologies or a deliberate attempt to mislead, with slur on proven solar thermal CSP technology.

Hello ? This is absolutely not at all about solar updraft towers of the kind that failed to get off the ground in Mildura Victoria, as you alluded to. Is the audience that silly, as to see credibility in those remarks you just made above, in relation to the topic in question of CSP and the WorleyParsons proposal ?

In fact at this stage, this is not even about solar CSP concentrating towers, that do work. Yes different to updraft towers.


This WorleyParsons proposal, is at this stage about parabolic trough collector power stations. Proven technology. There is no question of technical capability here. It's an issue of favourable economic framework that is emerging for renewables that includes 2010 carbon trading, government incentives and rising fossil fuel costs leading toward 2020. All favouring renewable energy projects.

As I indicated, you have just alluded to the issue of failure to proceed of solar updraft tower technology, that is not even being discussed nor being proposed by WorleyParsons. WorleyParsons are referring to proven solar thermal parabolic trough collector systems. This does make one question the motivation for such a remark, if not to mislead.

The point is that large solar projects have being porposed and not materialised in the past. Just because different bits of kit are proposed, it somehow is more certain? No.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

The point is that large solar projects have being porposed and not materialised in the past. Just because different bits of kit are proposed, it somehow is more certain? No.

No that is not the point at all and that is a very lame backtracking excuse for lack of accountability of such remarks. The real point is that you are either demonstrating ignorance of the fact that you are confusing proven solar thermal CSP parabolic trough technology, with a less developed and less certain technology of solar updraft towers, or you are deliberately confusing the two technologies to cast a negative light on the WorleyParsons proposal that's to use well proven solar thermal CSP parabolic trough technology.

You specifically alluded to failed solar thermal tower technology in Australia and the only such project is the Solar updraft tower technology that never got off the ground. This is not technology being proposed by WorleyParsons. At the best you are arguing in vagaries and generalities thus demonstrating great uncertainty on what you are talking about, or you are now attempting to mask your misleading remarks.

Let it be very clear that WorleyParsons proposal is not based on failed solar updraft tower technology and is based on established proven solar thermal CSP parabolic trough technology. The type of so called kit as you referred to above, can be critical to the likelihood of success of any technology let alone solar thermal. You best quit while you are still not further behind.

Originally Posted by wobs

Wobs
We both know that huge solar towers have been proposed in Australia before, and have not gone ahead.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

No that is not the point at all and that is a very lame backtracking excuse for lack of accountability of such remarks. The real point is that you are either demonstrating ignorance of the fact that you are confusing proven solar thermal CSP parabolic trough technology, with a less developed and less certain technology of solar updraft towers, or you are deliberately confusing the two technologies to cast a negative light on the WorleyParsons proposal that's to use well proven solar thermal CSP parabolic trough technology.

You specifically alluded to failed solar thermal tower technology in Australia and the only such project is the Solar updraft tower technology that never got off the ground. This is not technology being proposed by WorleyParsons. At the best you are arguing in vagaries and generalities thus demonstrating great uncertainty on what you are talking about, or you are now attempting to mask your misleading remarks.

Let it be very clear that WorleyParsons proposal is not based on failed solar updraft tower technology and is based on established proven solar thermal CSP parabolic trough technology. The type of so called kit as you referred to above, can be critical to the likelihood of success of any technology let alone solar thermal. You best quit while you are still not further behind.

No backtracking, no confusion. You miss the point (sorry if you're confused).

I simply gave an example of past projects that have failed to get built. Solar towers, troughs, etc. have been announced before throughout the world even, and have not necessarily been built. Some are, but when we're talking about large scale headline makers (not just solar projects), the odds tend to drop off.

But you've already agreed that nothing is certain. The point is that the headline in question has been shown to be misleading at best.

The "proven technology" has been proven to be expensive, not without problems which should not be ignored.