Friday February 10, 2012 5:17 PM AEST

Atomic MPC > News > Geek > Science > Australia building the world's biggest solar power plant

Science

Australia building the world's biggest solar power plant

New power designs by the Australian government promise cleaner, greener power.

Australia is one of the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases per capita in the world, with 525.4 million tonnes of CO2 alone released per person in 2005 - a vast percentage of this is released in coal-burning power plants.

Thanks to our Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, we're ordering one of the biggest power installations in the whole country; and the largest solar power plant in the entire world.

Weighing in at a cost of $1.4 billion Aussie bucks, it will have a power output of 1,000MW that is roughly equivalent to a single coal-based plant.

Designs for the plant are being worked on right now, with bidders being arranged in six months, and final completion scheduled for 2015.

It's an impressive move by the government, but as for whether or not it'll be worth the effort and giant expense remains to be seen - typically we can only extract 10-30% of the available energy from the sunlight that hits the ground.

Head over to TG Daily to check out a little more, as we wait the next six years for this project to be completed.

Behind the scenes with Mass Effect 3! GTX 560 VGA round-up! Essential Skyrim tweaks to improve your game! Plus reviews, news, hardware, more games, and easy to following modding guides for PC builders. ON SALE NOW!

Ads by Google

22 Comments

fliptopia May 19, 2009 12:45 PM	It may not be that efficient yet but the more investment in solar that there is the more money will go into research in the private sector to make it better.
antifunker May 19, 2009 12:52 PM	Yep. Thumbs up to K-Rudd. It may not be the best move if you only look at the finance side, but these things have to be done at some stage.
iamthemaxx May 19, 2009 1:01 PM	This is great news!
Juicey May 19, 2009 4:48 PM	Say NO to solar and YES to nuclear/coal! These technologies are 100% more efficient, cost much less, and can provide base load power, something that solar never can. Hello people? No sun during the night, and thats when we need the most power, during winter at night for the heaters next to our feet while we post on forums like this.
TheFrunj May 19, 2009 5:03 PM	Juicey...that'd make it about 110-130% efficient. That's making more power than there is mass! D: Solar power has it's uses, as does nuclear power. At least once solar is up and running there are no waste products (save for the maintenance costs, repairing panels etc). -JR
Trekker May 19, 2009 5:27 PM	nuclear is the only long term little co base load power there is , the son the aussie government relise this the best.. btw china is biulding a nuclear power station every 1 for the next few years.. and 1 coal power every week.. france runs on 85 per cent nuke power too.. ( all facts from national geographic :)
Trekker May 19, 2009 5:29 PM	shit there were alot of typo' there.. sooner.. and nuke power station every month ( coming online)
Mordecai May 19, 2009 6:02 PM	And what are China doing with the nuclear waste that those power stations are going to be producing? 'Cause you know that stuff just doesn't go away when its "used up" ...
hazarama May 19, 2009 9:40 PM	That's great news. The more investment into renewable energy the better as finite resources will funnily enough run out.
Elfarch May 20, 2009 12:48 AM	Solar power can be stored by a variety of methods for use at night. Besides it will never be the Only method of power generation.
bonox May 20, 2009 10:24 AM	we need to start with wolfram - those numbers are complete crap!
gorlaz May 20, 2009 4:22 PM	-1 to the nuclear 'necessity'. Bollocks. If we actually invested some $$ in tidal power that's our base load. Given we have ample coastline and ample sun I'd suggest that's a lot better than nuclear regardless of it's supposed 'efficiency' - who ants to live with spent nuclear rods! Nuclear fusion is a whole nother matter.
tantryl May 20, 2009 4:38 PM	I've been waiting for the [url="http://www.enviromission.com.au/IRM/content/home.html"]Solar Power Tower[/url] to get off the ground for about a decade. It looked hopeful around 5 years ago, but it's been getting less and less likely it'll be built. I hope something good gets pushed through here though.
Juicey May 20, 2009 8:21 PM	Gladly live with spent nuclear rods. Nuclear industry is the ONLY industry that actually takes care of its waste. Buried underground in a craton (very old stable crust for non geologists) encased in lead and concrete. Won't ever harm anyone. And the amount of waste thats produced is very very very small. Tidal power is a joke. The tide is not going to power the crushing plants used at Cadia Gold Mine in central NSW EVER.
Argotha May 21, 2009 2:40 AM	This is a good first step, however it may be a case of not enough, too late. Though it may also be a case of better late than never. Personally, I believe that we should have adopted a model similar to sweden(?), that is we set a definitive timeline for when we will shut down existing nuke-power plants. (and i also believe that we should have gone nuke, 15 years ago). The advantages of a model such as this is that for the 20-30 yhears they are running there is not co2, co, so2 etc being pumped into the atmosphere. IT also then places (directly, the reason they are shut down is to be replaced) pressure on renewable technologies to be develpoed as they have a definate date that tehy need to be ready to take over by.
Beady May 21, 2009 11:41 AM	'Juicey' it's that kind of stupidity that's getting us into trouble! Your point is that coal / nuclear is better? ok, couple of facts for you I'm going to spell out for the simple minded: 1. Coal in finite, therefore we will run out of it one day. 2. Solar is unlimited. 3. No, the sun doesn't come up at night, but it CAN charge the solar generators through the day and be stored ... this can then be used at night as well as the day. 4. Solar is environmentally friendly emitting no greenhouse gases ... whereas Coal does. 5. Australia has a LOT of sun. 6. What would you like to do with the Nuclear waste you seem so keen on using? Perhaps dump it in the sea? That'd be a good idea? Mupets shouldn't be allowed a voice!
Trekker May 21, 2009 11:47 AM	according to n.g mag we have 300 years to go in full coal production. (USA has shtiloads) and only 25 years of oil.
Millsy_666 May 21, 2009 11:50 AM	I saw some documentary that said if the entire world switched to nuclear we would only have enough uranium to power it for 50 years with current known deposits dunno how accurate this doco was but maybe nuclear isn’t so gr8.
Argotha May 21, 2009 6:28 PM	At least 50 years gives the world a chance to produce relaible and useable renewable power. Opposed to spending the next 50 years burnign coal, while everyone is beign apethetic becuase renweable is too expensive. Renewable is the answer, however not in the present. Many technologies are not mature enough and cheap enough to use at this moment to power a country.
Juicey May 21, 2009 8:14 PM	Beady, please link me a solar generator that is currently in use or even economically viable. As I said in my second post, dump the waste underground in a 'craton' a craton is a very old geologically stable part of the earths crust, which is most of North Western WA. As for uranium running out, thats bullocks because theres a kinda big mine in SA called Olympic Dam, the LARGEST URANIUM DEPOSIT in the world, they mine 4700t of Uranium a year,and have a mine life of 200+ years currently. Thats just 1 Deposit. Remember 1 Nuclear Power station, 27tons of Uranium a year. Do the math. As for muppets, they shouldn't have a voice. Mining Engineers however do. I am a Mining Engineer with a PhD and work at a coal mine. I am not a mis informed member of the public who has been brainwashed into thinking CO2 is a pollutant.
Juicey May 21, 2009 8:48 PM	Oh and a little bit of research for those interested, look up what the minimum concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere needs to be for plant life to survive. Then compare it to the current CO2 concentration is. Then look up what the CO2 concentration was before and during the last Ice Age. Might make you feel better about coal.
Nyobium Jan 14, 2010 2:15 AM	Juicey is right. Nuclear is the only way. The new Class 4-5 Thorium-Uranium reactors reduce waste half life to under 600 years verses the previous Class 1-3 reactor wastes of 10000+ years (this is what you are being force fed by the media). Watse containment will not be that bigger issue. If we dont play with Nuclear we will not grow better in its use. The carbon footprint solar requires per giga watt to produce is higher than a giga watt nuclear reactor... But how you say? Glad you asked. The materials used to manufacture the materials in solar consume far more materials and carbon than what nuclear does. Both nuclear and solar are carbon neutral once constuction is complete on both. Now the storage of energy for solar currently is inefficent batteries or hydrogen. It will not be until ultracapacitors or magnetic spin batteries are produced that solar will come into its own and this technology is 3 years off for the capacitor and 20 yrs for the spin storage structure. The area covered by a 1 GW reactor is a fraction the area of a solar array of the same capacity. This means nuclear ends up having a smaller environmental impact. Very counter to popular belief. But lets face it - its easier to stick a solar pannel on your roof verses a nuclear reactor. If we are to survive as a species we all need to get smarter and understand that it is not commerce that will save us but science. Unfortunately it is commerce that drives our life and the unfortunate trend we are following. The media can make us ignorant or they can bolster our awareness. Unfortunately unless you do some research you will not uncover the truth but the more paleateable media statements. I am not saying solar is a waste of time either. It is suitable for small applications like remote comunities or farmsteads. Nuclear is for the masses. The evidence supporting humans are causing the planet to warm up it is the rate of warming. It is higher than past heat waves which took centries to develop. Also food for thought, Green houses on earth typically lasted for a few hundred to few thousand years (when they occurred in the last 1,000,000 yr period, but the Ice ages that followed lasted for 10's of thousand of years. Plants dont grow in the cold and humanity will starve as a result. It is hard to imagine snow in central Oz but it will come to pass. I hope we are ready for it as a species...

Comments have been disabled on this article.

Latest Competitions

Thermaltake kicks off your gaming year with a BANG
Thermaltake has started off the new year with a bang by giving away a Tt eSport Theron Laser mouse to not one or two, but TWENTY lucky Atomicans!

Atomic Magazine

Issue: 133 | February, 2012

Atomic is a magazine aimed squarely at computer enthusiasts, gamers, and serious PC upgraders.

Every month we bring you the latest reviews of new technology and PC components, in depth features on everything from overclocking to console hacking, and gaming previews and interviews.

What's in this issue?