rss
33

West Australia copper mine to be powered by solar plus storage

Print Friendly

A copper mine in Western Australia has announced it will build a 10.6MW solar PV array, with “6MW” of battery storage, to power an existing off-grid copper mine 900kms north east of Perth.

degrussa mapListed company Sandfire Resources says it has signed a contract with German-based juwi Renewable Energy to build the $40 million facility at the underground DeGrussa Copper Mine in Western Australia, and help power the copper treatment plant.

It says it will involve the largest integrated off-grid solar array in Australia, has the potential to establish DeGrussa as an “industry leader in the use of renewable power for mining and processing operations.”

Funding is being coordinated by juwi, which will own and operate the facility. Sandfire’s cash contribution to the project will be less than $1 million.

juwi says that the 10.6MW solar array will incorporate 34,080 solar PV panel with single axis tracking of the sun. The solar energy produced will be used to reduce the consumption of more expensive diesel at the 20MW plant that currently exists at the mine. The plant is expected to be commissioned early next year.

cab84f4e-def4-11e1-b8e2-67a90e72625e_Copy of DSC03641crop--646x363 copy

The battery storage will be built to deal with intermittency, such as clouds passing over. The lithium-ion battery array will have peak capacity of 6MW, with 1.5MWh storage, essentially designed to give diesel generators time to power up to respond to changes in output. During the day, the solar array will most of the plant’s energy needs.

Andrew Drager, managing director of juwi Australia, said there were at least 10 other mines in Australia looking at a solar and storage option to help deflect high diesel prices.

Because of this, Degrussa would be a flagship project. “For mining companies risk is the key point,” Drager told RenewEconomy in an interview. “One 10-second down time can have a large cost impact. This will show other mines that those risks can be managed, and are not big technical risks.”

He said : “The system is at the forefront of transforming the remote power generation sector and the resource industry into one with a sustainable future.”

Juwi will finance, build and operate the plant, which will only get a 6-year power purchase agreement, typical of the mining industry. That has meant some gymnastics with the financing model, although Drager would not go into details.

Sandfire managing director Karl Simich said the company has been looking at solar for the last two years. He described it as a “low-risk renewable energy initiative” with a minimal capital requirement.

“The scale of this project will be an Australian and world first – a unique combination of an off-grid, high capacity solar power array which will be fully integrated with an existing diesel power station,” he said in a statement.

“It is a very manageable project which, importantly, will not impact on the efficiency or safety of our existing operations, while allowing Sandfire to make a solid contribution to the broader challenge of reducing CO2 emissions and potentially reducing our operating costs in the long run,” Simich said.

And it could be expanded. “It has the capacity to significantly reduce our medium and long-term power costs, especially with further extensions of the mine life of the DeGrussa Project.”

  

RenewEconomy Free Daily Newsletter

Share this:

  • juxx0r

    That’s good going for a 6 year PPA. Now that we’ve got it down to 6 years, that will open the door for a lot of other companies. Mining companies never want to be the first at anything, but happy to be the second.

    • wideEyedPupil

      If they are loss leading on this project in the hope their contract is renewed twice that doesn’t mean that everyone else or they themselves will want to match it again. But with the costs of storage and still solar in relative free fall then it does seem like a tipping point may have been witnessed here.

  • Chris Drongers

    The name on the box is not Australian. While it is good to get foreign expertise into Australia, and this will leave a more skilled management and technical workforce in years to come, it is inferior to developing the management skills at home in Australia.
    Buying de-risked expertise from overseas is a lazy, low profit way of developing Australian resources.
    Without a federal government that cannot see beyond coal and iron ore this is what we are stuck with.

  • juxx0r

    If miners can do it competing with a diesel cost of power of 18-20c/kWh, then you’d think the small country towns on micro grids would be all over this like a rash when they could sign 20 year PPAs. You know, if the government wasn’t too busy subsidising diesel gensets everywhere.

    • Chris Drongers

      http://www.galaxyresources.com.au/documents/290311-MediaClips-SolarPoweredLithiumMine.pdf

      solar is good, but it is only a side issue to having a viable business. If your product is not wanted your solar won’t save you.
      Mt Cattlin mine had solar 4 years ago to supplement mains power.

      • juxx0r

        Chris, they’re talking about solar and storage, and i’m talking about 6 years compared to 20+ years. There’s plenty of small country towns in WA running micro grids from diesel that will still be around in 20 years all paying more for power than this deal obviously is but without a 6 year capital payback. And there’s no country town that would draw 6MW suddenly to require such a battery.

  • David McKay

    This just does not seem to add up. If they are receiving 20c/KWh on a 6 year PPA they need a high capacity factor (37%) to recover their CAPEX & OPEX. The storage component is not really enough for this. At $40m for 10.6MW + 1.5MW of storage, this is an expensive project.
    JUWI have a market entry point & Sandfire may have won lotto, so good luck to them.
    I agree with the diesel subsidy comment. Australian tax payers continue to be asked to provide gifts to highly profitable miners. Wheres that pesky budget emergency?

    • juxx0r

      I was referring to the subsidy on the electricity price for small country towns on micro grids, when this clearly doesn’t need such a subsidy especially when you can drag out the capital payback for much longer than 6 years. The government needs to take a long hard look at this deal and wonder why they are paying so much to subsidise small towns.

      Now i know of a town that could be using gas fired power, but chose diesel instead because of all the subsidies. If they’d been using solar instead they’d be well in front.

      • juxx0r

        Further more, i’m talking power stations all day in off grid remote applications, when i say 18-20 cents for diesel power, that’s the price. Gas comes in some 20% lower. That’s including capital payback. But gas is not transferrable, so you end up paying more unless you want it long term. The batteries can be used to optimise the diesel (or gas), so its not just about the solar production, see here:

        http://www.mininginnovationnews.com/2015/01/30/glencore-utilises-lithium-ion-battery-tech/

    • David

      I’m not so sure, care to share your math?

    • nakedChimp

      there is no mentioning of any c/kWh in the article.. where do you get that number from?

      The system delivers ~10 MW when the sun is shining.. on single axis trackers this means ~6 hours or more a day. Once the PV power goes below X they start the genny set (that they obviously already own and which has probably amortized itself already) and bridge the gap with the 6 MW from the batteries for a maximum of 15 minutes (6 MW by 1.5 MWh) which also points to their maximum expected load ~6 MW.
      This also means the PV array won’t need to deliver the 10 MW nameplate, but just 60% of it for most of the time will be good enough.

    • Mike Shurtleff

      You have a good point here… but…

      Residential Solar PV is installed in Germany (looks like JUWI is a German company) and in Australia for around $2/W. A Utility scale installation should cost less. Low cost bids for Utility scale Solar PV (Dubai and US) are now close to 6c/kWh.
      $2/W (high) x 10.6MW = $21.6million

      Lithium Ferrite cells have been between $300/kWh and $400/kWh for several years now. Let’s say $400/kWh and add 50% for BMS/BOS. That would be $600/kWh. That’s what GM paid for the battery in the Volt several years ago and we don’t need that level of packaging for a stationary storage application. JUWI claims to be using a 6MWh battery (energy) with 1.5MW max output (power).
      $600/kWh (high) x 6,000kWh = $3,600,000 = $3.6million

      $21.6m + $3.6m = $25.2 million
      …and that is an unreasonably high estimate.
      There is no way JUWI is paying $40m to build that system.

  • David McKay

    This is a PPA, so income is based upon how many KWh can be sold. I used the 18-20c/KWh provided by juxx0r. Lets be generous & assume a capacity factor of 25%. KWh per year would be 23,214,000. At 20c/KWh, an income stream of $4,642,800 per year.
    Over 6 year term of PPA, $27,852,000 for a reported $40m investment. You need to cover some O&M out of that as well.
    On this basis, if it is now being indicated that the requirement is actually 6MW, under a PPA the economics just got worse.
    This is a commercial arrangement between JUWI & Sandfire, with no apparent Government subsidies. The parties are free to do what they see as best fitting their long term business goals.
    I am a strong supporter of renewables & have been executing real projects for the last 10 years. This is obviously a good news story, however, on the information available leaves solar open to the on-going high cost spin.

    • juxx0r

      You know where this is located they get 6kWh/m2/day up there and few clouds. That would translate into 25% capacity factor with fixed panels and these are tracking, so maybe 30% more. That’s 30% of 25% so 32.5% overall.

      I agree that just the solar comes to less than the cost of the system, however there is no allowance made in your calculations for the performance of the battery. In this link, Glencore are claiming “the battery component to diesel generators used at the operation and is expected to reduce fuel consumption between 35-50%, which would significantly mitigate energy costs and environmental impacts.”
      http://www.mininginnovationnews.com/2015/01/30/glencore-utilises-lithium-ion-battery-tech/

      Now those sorts of savings could be $10k a day and then you’re on a winner.

      • Mike Shurtleff

        Interesting point.
        If the batteries are already paying for themselves via load-leveling and/or compensation for diesel generator failure+change over, for the 75% of the day when the sun isn’t shining, then Solar PV by itself can certainly under cut got cost of diesel for the other 25% when the sun IS shining.

        PPA bids for utility scale Solar PV are now coming as low as 6c/kWh. JUWI should easily be able to deliver Solar PV power South of 10c/kWh and cut daytime power costs in half relative to 20c/kWh subsidized diesel electricity costs. That is the cost amortized over 20 or 25 years, BUT there is nothing saying you can’t move those assets (PV panels & Batteries) to a new location after 6 years …and come out way ahead.

        I don’t think the $40m cost of the system can be correct. There is a reason remote mines in Australia and Chile are now installing Solar PV + Batteries. They are much lower cost than diesel electricity.

        There is another factor, mentioned in the article, that you and David McKay are skipping over. Risk. Clearly the installation of Solar PV + Storage will help to reduce the risk of increased fuel costs due to:
        (a) Likely cancellation of the Australian gov subsidy for diesel electricity.
        (b) Likely return of high oil prices.

    • Mike Shurtleff

      I’ve been reading electricity prices from diesel generation have been between 30c/kWh and 50c/kWh. This was clearly evident in Hawaii in September 2011 when electricity prices (mostly from imported diesel) jumped to between 33c/kWh to 45c/kWh, depending on which island (and maybe where on that island). Oil has now dropped from $100/barrel to $50/barrel. There is a glut in supply, but this will pass, and not enough is being invested in new supply right now. The cost will go up again …and soon because fracked wells lose close to 50% of their yield rate per year. I’m reading fracked oil needs to have prices of $60/barrel to $80/barrel to be profitable. Let’s split the difference and say $70/barrel. Prices should fluctuate unstably around that price.

      This means the cost of diesel generated electricity should be very roughly in the neighborhood of ($70/$100) x 30c/kWh to 50c/kWh = 21c/kWh to 35c/kWh. Australia will need to keep subsidizing diesel generated electricity to keep the costs down to to 18c/kWh to 20c/kWh.

      Meanwhile Tony Abbott and his party have made a mess by corruptly supporting big coal and big utilities …at the expense of most Australian citizens. Most Australians understand this and are not happy about it. The next administration probably won’t support this diesel subsidy. If I were running a Copper mine, then I would be planning for that eventuality. I think that is what they are doing.

      • Mike Shurtleff

        Further, in 6 years time we will be seeing greater impact from Solar PV, Wind, Storage, EVs, and EREVs. At some point liquid fossil fuels will be losing their ability to invest so much in the harder to reach supplies of oil. The cost of oil will go up. The transition will speed up.

  • David McKay

    I did just base it on fixed panels, however, I was generous with the CP. There are other factors in play that affect efficiency, like rate of dirtying, very high temp effect, etc. I did not include the battery storage as the article states it is mainly to “smooth” the transitions between PV & diesel. I agree it will contribute some.
    Saving $10,000 a day is a winner for Sandfire, although they are still needing to buy the power from JUWI, to make that saving on diesel. The $40m seems very high for CAPEX. There would obviously be some exchange rate downside at present.
    I guess the question would be, if this was a purely commercial deal, would Sandfire invest $40m to save $10,000/day? I think not.
    As I said previously, both companies would have goals which this deal must satisfy.
    My point is I don’t see this a a purely commercial arrangement. JUWI may see an enormous opportunity value in this & only they could put a $ figure on that.
    I’m done.

    • Raahul Kumar

      10 000 per day * 365 * 15 = $54, 750 ,000. It makes a great deal of sense to invest $40 million to save 14.75 million. Rest assured, they have done extensive economic modelling, and this would have been their lowest cost option.

      • David McKay

        Not sure why you use 15 in your calcs. This is a 6 year PPA, so 10,000 X 365 X 6 = $21,900,000. Sure, they will no doubt get further extensions, however, 6 years is the only certainty.
        I would be really interested in a breakdown of the CAPEX.

        • Raahul Kumar

          The article itself mentions

          And it could be expanded. “It has the capacity to significantly reduce
          our medium and long-term power costs, especially with further extensions
          of the mine life of the DeGrussa Project.”

          So they must be expecting further extensions. And it would be senseless for a mining company to pack up operations in only 6 years, they would know approximately how long that ore is supposed to last.

          I used 15 because it shows a profit in that time frame. Of course, it also shows in a profit in 12 years, just demonstrating how they could be expecting to make money.

  • Raahul Kumar

    It sounds like diesel backup will still be part of this project, so why not hydrogen fuel cells instead of batteries? A solar panel/fuel cell hybrid might meet requirements better than a solar/battery hybrid.

    • Mike Shurtleff

      60% to 70% efficiency of conversion going from Solar electricity to H2 (electrolysis).
      Another 10% to 20% loss to pressurize for storage in reasonable size container.
      Some additional loss when converting H2 back to electricity in the fuel cell.
      Bottom line: usually about 50% efficient
      50% loss of power makes fuel cells a more expensive proposition than batteries.

      Low-cost batteries from Aquion, EOS, and Ambri will make this a closed case. Much lower cost and no H2 explosion or fire risk. Do some research on those. I can supply some links if you like.

      Economies of scale reduction in Lithium Ion battery costs will also improve their cost effectiveness for grid or home power storage. Elon Musk claims Tesla’s Giga-factory will get the cost down to $150/kWh by 2018.

      • Raahul Kumar

        Real world empirical experience proves that battery backup doesn’t work well. Whether in Australia, or in Bharat, batteries are toxic, expensive, and underperforming.

        Toxicity

        http://www.ecomena.org/managing-lead-acid-batteries/

        Underperformance

        “Telstra will deploy fuel cells as an alternative to back-up battery
        arrays at mobile base stations and small telephone exchanges.

        The carrier’s director of asset and facilities management, John Romano, said today Telstra has included fuel cell technology as the standard back-up power source for sites that consume less than 5 kiloWatts an hour.

        The telco has spent the past several months testing the efficacy of
        fuel cells at several base stations, including one in Tasmania where
        mains power to the site was recently cut off by a lightning strike.

        “[The fuel cell] meant that we were able to keep the base station
        running for over two days – more than six times longer than a
        battery-based back-up system [would have allowed],” Romano said.””

        http://www.itnews.com.au/News/362573,telstra-to-back-up-base-stations-with-fuel-cells.aspx

        Expensive

        Ballard finds that hydrogen fuel cells outperform both battery backup and diesel. In Bharat, as well, fuel cells have outperformed both batteries and diesel. Why pick the more expensive, toxic, and worse performing technology when an alternative exists?

        http://www.ballard.com/files/PDF/Backup_Power/BUP_EmrgncyEcon_EGen_091712-01.pdf

        http://www.altenergymag.com/news/2015/02/06/fuel-cells-help-india-improve-telecom-reliability-and-meet-climate-goals/36100

        • Mike Shurtleff

          Sorry, for a minute there I thought you were actually asking a question. I should have known it was rhetorical question.

          You’re right H2 is the answer to all of the world’s problems. Nice to see H2 has actually found a niche in telecom.

          • Raahul Kumar

            Hydrogen actually is the answer to energy storage problems, and that’s been the case for Telstra, who faces the same problem as this West Austalian company. They also considered battery backup and diesel, and neither solution worked.

            How to keep the lights running over the huge landmass of Oz? Lithium ion has only a 6 year life time, so there are cost and environmental reasons to prefer hydrogen over batteries/diesel.

          • Mike Shurtleff

            I don’t really want to debate H2. I you can make it work great!

            However, if you are going to argue a point, don’t use blatantly false information. I just did a quick search. Tesla, Nissan, and GM all warranty their batteries for 8 years. This means those lithium batteries will last significantly long than 8 years, depending on use patterns, probably at least double the eight years maybe more. You are talking about a very heavy use application in cars.

            How long do fuel cells last?
            How long do the other battery chemistries last (Aquion, EOS, Ambri, etc.)? The Ambri LMB team thinks their battery may be able to last 300 years. They may well be correct since their liquid metal electrode interfaces will be self healing. They aren’t all that efficient for energy turn around, ~75%, but better than H2, ~50%. You do the comparison and tell me.

            Don’t help the fossil fuels by printing FUD!

          • Mike Shurtleff

            I don’t really want to debate H2. If you can make it work great!

            However, if you are going to argue a point, don’t use blatantly false information. I just did a quick search. Tesla, Nissan, and GM all warranty their batteries for 8 years. This means those lithium batteries will last significantly long than 8 years, depending on use patterns, probably at least double the eight years maybe more. You are talking about a very heavy use application in cars.

            How long do fuel cells last?
            How long do the other battery chemistries last (Aquion, EOS, Ambri, etc.)? The Ambri LMB team thinks their battery may be able to last 300 years. They may well be correct since their liquid metal electrode interfaces will be self healing. They aren’t all that efficient for energy turn around, ~75%, but better than H2, ~50%. You do the comparison and tell me.

            Don’t help the fossil fuels by printing FUD!

          • Raahul Kumar

            Australia is a hot country, and batteries are rated in terms of discharge cycles, not years. That manufacturer’s warranty is for batteries kept at 25 °C.

            “Poor ventilation may increase temperatures, further shortening battery life. Loss rates vary by temperature: 6% loss at 0 °C (32 °F), 20% at 25°C (77 °F), and 35% at 40 °C (104 °F)”

            So if it lasts 10 years as claimed, which is dubious in and of itself, it would only last about 5 years at 40 °C.

            Quoting Wikipedia

            “Battery life

            Rechargeable battery life is almost always defined as number of full charge-discharge cycles by manufacturers and testers. In addition to cycling, storing also degrades batteries. The reason for battery degradation are chemical changes of the electrodes. For cycled cells, the ageing mechanism is dependent on the ambient temperature during charging.[94]

            Manufacturers’ information implies that the life of a battery that is not abused depends upon the number of charge cycles it undergoes, specifying typical battery capacity in terms of number of cycles (e.g., capacity dropping linearly to 80% over 500 cycles), with no mention of age of the battery.

            Research by Professor Jeff Dahn of Dalhousie University suggests this common industry practice of merely counting cycles, ignoring the effect of age, is a poor predictor of real-world battery life.On average, its lifetime consists of 1000 cycles.

            Battery performance is rarely specified over more than 500 cycles. This means that batteries of mobile phones, or other hand-held devices in daily use, are not expected to last longer than three years. But it is also quite possible to obtain lithium-ion batteries based on carbon anodes with more than 10.000 cycles.

            Batteries may last longer if not stored fully discharged. As the
            battery self-discharges over time, its voltage gradually diminishes.

            When depleted below the low-voltage threshold of the protection circuit (2.4 to 2.9 V/cell, depending on chemistry) it will be disconnected and cannot be further discharged until recharged if a protection circuit is present.

            This is because as the discharge progresses, the metallic contents of the cell are plated onto its internal structure creating an unwanted discharge path.

            The rate of degradation of lithium-ion batteries is strongly
            temperature-dependent; they degrade much faster if stored or used at higher temperatures. The carbon negative electrode of the cell also generates heat. High charge levels and elevated temperatures (whether from charging or ambient air) hasten capacity loss.

            Poor ventilation may increase temperatures, further shortening battery life. Loss rates vary by temperature: 6% loss at 0 °C (32 °F), 20% at 25 °C (77 °F), and 35% at 40 °C (104 °F). In contrast, the calendar life of LiFePO4 cells is not affected by high charge states.[98] They may be stored in a refrigerator.[99][100]

            Charging forms deposits inside the electrolyte that inhibit ion transport.The increase in internal resistance reduces the cell’s ability to deliver current. This problem is more pronounced in high-current applications.”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery#Battery_life

            Fuel cells have a lifetime of 15 years according to Ballard, used in the backup power application. Batteries tend to only last 4 years in that same application.

            http://www.ballard.com/files/PDF/Backup_Power/BUP_EmrgncyEcon_EGen_091712-01.pdf

          • Mike Shurtleff

            Seriously Kumar? What a mish-mash.
            ok

            “Australia is a hot country, and batteries are rated in terms of discharge cycles, not years.”
            Insulation and AC. You have tons of sun power. Use some of it.

            “(e.g., capacity dropping linearly to 80% over 500 cycles)”
            What chemistry??? Most lead acid batteries are 10s of cycles. (Some newer AGM lead acid batteries can be over 1,000 cycles …at something like 20% or 40% discharge levels. NiMH batteries are 100s of cycles. Lithium batteries are 1,000s of cycles. LiFePO4 batteries are usually about 3,000 DEEP-cycles with something like 70% or 80% capacity left by then. LiTiO2 batteries can handle 10,000 DEEP-cycles.

            “This is because as the discharge progresses, the metallic contents of the cell are plated onto its internal structure creating an unwanted discharge path.”
            OK this is highly dependent on rate of charge, probably temperature too, and THE PARTICULAR LITHIUM CHEMISTRY. THEY ARE NOT ALL THE SAME.
            Spicule formation bridging between plate, that you’re talking about is a common and serious problem for Li-Co batteries, like Tesla uses.

            “Poor ventilation may increase temperatures”
            Right, ventilate, insulate, and add AC as needed.

            “Charging forms deposits inside the electrolyte that inhibit ion transport.The increase in internal resistance reduces the cell’s ability to deliver current.”
            OK, you were effectively talking about electrical shorts from spicule formation before. Now you’re saying heavy charging forms deposit that increase battery resistance. Which is it man? Let me guess. You’re mixing battery chemistrys again. You can’t do that. Keep clear on what your talking about.

            “Batteries tend to only last 4 years in that same application.”

            I’m shocked! Thanks for clearing that up. …and Ballard is an unbiased source for battery cycle-life information because they are not trying to compete in the same market, right? AGAIN, WHAT BATTERY CHEMISTRY??? It’s kinda important to be clear about that …unless you’re just trying to muddle the issue …maybe you’re just muddled.

            You are not addressing other newer low-cost battery alternatives like: Aquion, EOS, Ambri. What about those? It’s almost as if you made up your mind about H2 twenty years ago and haven’t updated your thinking with any new information since then.

            H2 may well have a place for seasonal storage. I don’t see the economics to make it competitive in cars or home energy storage markets.

  • Mike Shurtleff

    Interesting article, thanks. Does need some of the hard numbers that David McKay and juxx0r have put in their comments below.

  • Mike Shurtleff

    1.5MWh battery at $500/kWh (reasonable) = $0.75 million
    This is probably not a large part of the system cost. If you assume it is already paying for itself as juxx0r mentions below, then we can ignore the battery and concentrate on the Solar PV. (juxx0r also includes a link to info on another mine where they are using just the battery to save cost.)

    Using a reasonable utility scale installation cost of $1.5/W:
    10.6MW x $1.5/W = $15.9 million installed

    If we have sun for 6 hrs a day
    …and assume a 6 MW power use rate (from the battery size).
    then we can calculate a delivery of Solar PV power delivery of:
    6MW x 7.2 hrs x 365 days = 15.768 MWh/year
    at $0.20/kWh this would be:
    15,768,000 kWh/year x $0.20/kWh = $3.154 million per year revenue
    $3.154m/year x 6 years = $18.922 million total revenue
    That’s a small profit on a $15.9 million dollar installed utility scale PV system.
    (Note: I am using a 30% capacity factor to get 7.2 hours/day of Solar PV. This is based on their using tracking PV panels, as juxx0r says below.)
    Maybe worth the money as minimum gain leader for JUWI.
    Definitely worth it for some protection from the diesel cost risk for the mining company.

    If I assume 25% capacity factor (6 hrs per day) and the mine is able to use all 10.6MW from the Solar PV panels while the sun shines, then I get the same numbers as David McKay below:
    $4.643 million per year
    $27.855 million total over 6 years
    A very nice profit on a $15.9 million dollar install.
    (If I use the juxx0r capacity factor of 30%, 7.2 hrs per day, then this could be even more profitable.)

    I don’t think the numbers in the article are correct. I think JUWI is going to make money on this project, within the 6 years. I think the mining company is going to get the cost insurance they need and end up buying more in 6 years.

    “Something is coming. Something wonderful.” 2001 – A Space Odyssey.

    The low-cost Ambri LMB will make 24/7 Solar PV for remote mines the “go to” solution – at huge cost savings over diesel – with that solar fuel being available forever …on site. …or Aquion …or EOS …or other. This is bupkis compared to what is coming.

  • AUSTRALIA

    head line should say mining company spends $4.1 million on solar power station and Australian government wastes $35.9million which it will never get a return from and the mining company will probably get tax deductions for the other $4.1million when is the Australian government going to stop wasting tax payers money on uneconomical waste (remember we pay tax)it,s not a bottomles pit