Talk:Hazelwood Power Station

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Threatened gum species[edit]

The Age newspaper reported prior to the approval of the 2005 expansion: [1]

An expansion would see the relocation of the Strzelecki Highway, a smaller road, the Morwell River, two creeks, 11 families, a cattery, dog kennels, 155 trees of a nationally threatened gum species and the town of Driffield so that Hazelwood can access 92 million tonnes of brown coal. (emphasis added)

Does anyone know what species is being referred to, or have any further references? —Pengo 02:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tree species in the area include [2]:

Tasmanian blue (Eucalyptus globulus), mountain grey (Eucalyptus cypellocarpa, Eucalyptus goniocalyx) and manna gum (Eucalyptus viminalis, Eucalyptus mannifera), messmate (Eucalyptus obliqua), tree ferns and orchids, including the rare butterfly orchid.

None of the gum species are listed on EPBC Act List of Threatened Flora. Possibly it refers to the subspecies Eucalyptus globulus ssp. pseudoglobulus, which is rare. [3]

With regards to the environmentalists statements about the plant being the worst in the developed world, it there any international perspectives on this? I mean, the organisations being cited are the local, Australia, branches. I'd be willing to bet that each country branch has a similar story of woe about one of the power stations in their own country which they can show is the worst in the world.Frade 12:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV about Kyoto[edit]

"The Australian government is a firm supporter of technology-based solutions to greenhouse gas emissions rather than the punitive regime imposed by Kyoto-style caps and targets"

This sounds like Howard government anti-Kyoto rhetoric and as such is political POV, and no reference is provided. I think this sentence should be removed. Peter Campbell 09:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should be removed. I wouldn't call it POV, but without a reference to give it a context (like who said what when) it's completely meaningless. It would be good if there were replaced with some mention of the government's stance (like that they recently admitted that human-caused climate change exists in a push for nuclear power) or the like. —Pengo 16:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the sentence. It should be replaced with cited Victorian and Federal government positions on Kyoto and climate change. Note that the preceding sentence on "Australia being on target to meet Kyoto targets" is also suspect. --Peter Campbell 23:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Typo?[edit]

Should "further 1.6 tonnes of coals to Energy Brix Australia" actually say "further 1.6 million tonnes of coal to Energy Brix Australia"?

Yes. Nick carson (talk) 11:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second Highest[edit]

Second highest emitter in the Latrobe valley? What is it second to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.182.91.94 (talk) 10:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can probably shed some light here - (apologies if any non disclosure details are violated here)

Contrary to popular Yuppie activists belief, who apparently can't be bothered driving more than an hour from the outskirts of Melbourne to discover this for themself - (or doing a google search it seems) there is in fact FOUR(!) Coal power stations in the latrobe valley, Five if you include the semi secret experimental ceramic thermal transfer plant (if it is even still operational) supposedly built on the site of one of the old briquette factories however i dont think they use any coal.

Hazelwood was previously the highest "emitter" in Gippsland, but not (as so often mistakenly quoted;) the world, (check out china, india and asia in general for that gold medal winner)

All four COAL plants are over 30 years old, hazelwood was built first BUT unlike the other three plants, Hazelwood had the most renovations, refurbishments and refitting of the four plants. That is why it is now NOT the highest. The other three plants other than fitting a Gas turbine (it runs for about a week a year) no major improvements have been made to them. So who is the highest emitter? Depends on the day of the week, some days the Paper Mill; some days any one of the three other plants; other times of the year a bush fire will be the worst.

Might I also point out Hazelwood supplies the "base" load that each station adds power to (think of that as a figurative canal which people add or remove water from) for Victoria; without which many activists will find them self sitting in the dark in their comfortable Melbourne homes.

What refitting?

Hazelwood had their precipitators entirely redesigned, have installed a carbon capture plant, replaced all the turbines and generators.. several times over; redesigned the furnace and fuel feed systems to add the ability to run on (renewable) saw dust and wood; added a fuel drying system which dries out and reduces the polution more; (meaning they can run on damp brown coal, and normal coal cleaner than usual) they also had one of the larger Tree planting programs.

Basically other than perhaps the car park and the tin on the walls, most of Hazelwood internally is under 10 years old. Add to that if they really wanted they also have the largest roof surface area should they feel the need to install solar panels or wind turbines (however they have no current plans i am aware of there)

If you view recent protest photos of Hazelwood you might even notice that although 7 of the smoke stacks were in operation, no visible emissions are actually on any of the photos. (Compare that to the photos taken years ago to see a big difference)

Yet, if you examine any of the other 3 plants, (or even look in their general direction from the other side of the mountains) you will see HEAPS of emissions.

Protestors - great I agree with you; but can you exercise some facts over fiction (or opinion) for a change. Be nice to see some protests around one of the other plants for a change. They are there, really, go for a drive one weekend, just follow the smoke.

Some of the above should probably be added to the wiki article, sources such as the Moe News, the Latrobe Valley Express, and the Warragul gazette should be able to give you some article dates if you call them, also the Hazelwood power website and a few other (hello google) and Hazelwood themself if you contact them should also point you in the right direction for references.

--203.123.90.42 (talk) 03:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon intensity[edit]

The reason for its high carbon intensity isn't really explained in the article. I presume the use of brown coal is one reason and perhaps the fact it's a fairly old (1964) plant however this is just a guess and some discussion of why it has such a high carbon intensity would be interesting given that the controversy surrounding that is extensively discussed. Nil Einne (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Carbon intensity & concern about neutrality[edit]

A lot of talk about sources not being provided for claims about how dirty it is, yet the line about the WWF report being discredited has no source itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IkaInk (talk • contribs) 05:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Plant is old, but only slightly more than the other three; and as stated above, most of the internals are new; the carbon capture plant should probably be mentioned in the same paragraph as that study that rated it as the worse, since the study predates the new capture plant, and should render the WWF study obsolete..
  • Actually the way it reads now is somewhat lacking in neutrality, it reads a bit like a protesters manifesto and recruitment document; and sounds quite biased.
    • The entire article really needs to be restructured and rewritten, its too all over the place.
    • The introduction immediately makes light of a WWF study made obsolete by the carbon capture plant - this line should not even be in the introduction obsolete or not, it should have been in the criticisms section to begin with
    • Many (web) references are for disreputable activists websites
    • Some references refer to web pages having no relation to the comment the reference is for, or having no reputable authority to make such claims, and may well be self published anyway. eg "If Hazelwood had not been sold to private interests, the SEC (State Electricity Commission) would have shut the station down in 2005.[7]" this statment may well be true, but the reference has nothing to do with the statment; so that cannot be safely confirmed. The reference link itself goes to some activist website (www.futureenergy.org) on renewable energy, it may simply be there as a google search engine page rank fiddle to give the site some free promotion.
    • Most of the article consists of a hodge podge of criticisms; yet they are all placed prior to the actual criticisms section
    • Given all the critisisms in the acticle dominate more than the included historical facts; my opinion is perhaps they should deserve a page on their own leaving just the encyclopedic content on the main article, and have it link/refer to the other topics, eg critisisms, protests, etc etc this would give a more neutral article without loosing the good critisism content.
    • Some sections have been upgraded to a higher contents page status without any explanation for the upgrade - eg.
      • "September 2009 rally" this header should be removed, (see next point)
      • "September 13, 2009" this section should be replaced with a more concise summary, and the rest be moved to its own article "September 2009 Rally" or stub with a reference or link from the summary
      • "October 2010 rally" this was created prior to the event, with apparent promotional intent, it should probably have its heading downgraded, and tidied up a bit now the event has become historical fact.

--203.123.90.42 (talk) 04:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I suspect the claim "highest emitter" of CO2 needs to be fixed. There are far larger coal power stations in the world and their total volume of CO2/yr is far larger. Hazelwood is a low temp boiler hence the CO2 *per unit of electricity* will be higher than for anthracite, an a lot lot higher c.f. gas. Australia has a population of 25M and its an outright lie to suggest we make more CO2 than other countries. Green lies need to be stamped on where ever they are found ... Green Peace, the ABC, 4 Corners, etc.61.68.67.58 (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tag and lead[edit]

Two questions:

  • What does the {{Update}} tag relate to? It says see the talk page, but I can't see anything. Also, although it says says it was added in 2009, it was actually added in October 2007.
  • Do we have a source for "The power station is of 1,600 megawatt (1,470 net) capacity, and supplies up to 25% of Victoria's base load electricity and more than 5% of Australia's total energy demand. Hazelwood produces 2.8% of Australia's CO2 emissions and 0.057% of World emissions." The second bit was added recently. For the first bit, we might be better to quote the numbers in ref 1.

Yaris678 (talk) 15:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Simpsons fan 66 (Mriya) about the update tag at the time. Here's the response I got on my talk page:
Since all the expansion and stuff has been going on I thought it might need to be updated. What about the new plant going to be built nearby? Does that have a page yet? by the way, check out this picture I took. Image:Hazelwoodpowerstationatnight.jpg Feel free to put it in the article somewhere --Simpsons fan 66 02:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Needed / Activist[edit]

Too many citations needed, inc. from 2008.

Enough is enough, if it's dribble, it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demonrhys (talk • contribs) 12:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2014 coal fire[edit]

The mine at Hazelwood has been burning since 9 February with a fire now reported to be across a face 6000m long and 1000m wide which is developing into a serious environmental disaster. Premier says no need to relocate Morwell residents as authorities warn of another day of fire danger, Infra-red image of Hazelwood fire. Victorian authorities have so far issued 25,000 masks to residents in the area. Fire fighters and residents have reportedly suffered carbon monoxide poisoning with 20 fire fighters treated. This will most likely develop into a very noteworthy event in the life of this power station. Djapa Owen (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another article discussing the fire and the lack of maintenance leading up to it [4]. Djapa Owen (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.power-technology.com/projects/hazelwood/
    Triggered by \bpower-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Hazelwood Power Station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the timestamp on the photo?[edit]

Hazelwood PS was shut down in 2017, but what's the time stamp of the photo? I think it'd be nice for readers to have more information in front of them.

--Impfireball (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which photo? HiLo48 (talk) 02:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hazelwood_Power_Station&oldid=1205918507"