Longevity of snowy would outlast batteries by possibly 3 or more times though wouldn’t it?
I wonder what the breakdown of costs would be over time?
Longevity of snowy would outlast batteries by possibly 3 or more times though wouldn’t it?More wind plus storage will be a significantly quicker and less costly fix than the pumped hydro from Snowy.
Are renewables really able to provide Australia with enough energy to give sustainable supply?
In the short term, batteries.The Snowy scheme is storage. How else do you propose to store the wind energy?
Well, to power that battery you need to add more than it gives back, every time you use it.It is in effect a giant battery and a hell of a lot more environmentally friendly than the battery plant in SA which has tiny storage by comparison, uses heaps of rare minerals requiring extensive mining and which will fail in the medium term.
As a general rule with anything hydro you'll get 50 years of operation with regular inspections and basic maintenance as needed.Longevity of snowy would outlast batteries by possibly 3 or more times though wouldn’t it?
I wonder what the breakdown of costs would be over time?
Anything being used for urban deliveries etc is a very obvious use for an EV.
Agreed.I'm quite sure they could - as long as there is a proper distribution network and adequate balancing storage.
All good and well, but every watt produced from Snowy will require more energy to reproduce that same amount each time.As a general rule with anything hydro you'll get 50 years of operation with regular inspections and basic maintenance as needed.
Address any issues with water conveyance infrastructure as they crop up but in most cases there won't be anything much to worry about apart from needing to maintain the corrosion protection.
Then do a proper overhaul to bring the mechanical and electrical parts back to "as new" condition somewhere around the 50 year mark.
At around the 80 - 100 year mark you'll probably need to spend some money on the big stuff but it's very site specific.
Also worth mentioning that usually zero loss of generating capacity and minimal loss of efficiency over the operating lifespan. If capacity is limited then that would be due to a specific problem having occurred not just normal wear and tear.
For major works, the driver in practice is often more about improvement than repairs as such. Eg:
Tumut 3 (Snowy Hydro) major overhaul lifted plant capacity by 20% in generation mode (but not in pumping mode). Similar works at other stations have yielded lesser but still worthwhile gains.
Trevallyn (Hydro Tas) major upgrade of two (out of four) machines added 37.5% to the capacity of those two machines whilst also doing away with oil and grease on those machines which is obviously a significant modification to the original design. There's an R&D aspect to that as well as the benefits achieved.
Shoalhaven (Origin Energy) hasn't been done yet but proposed major additions to the scheme, which make use of the existing civil infrastructure, would lift capacity by either two thirds or by 100% depending on which of two options is pursued. Their preference is for the latter if it stacks up technically and financially.
Etc. So major works aren't always about fixing problems but can also be to improve on the original design.
Well the idea is that there are massive amounts of essentially free renewable energy. Solar and wind.All good and well, but every watt produced from Snowy will require more energy to reproduce that same amount each time.
Unless there are massive amounts of "spare" energy around, topping up the dams will not happen quickly.
I would like to see the modelling for the project because it looks like a good idea for just a few days a year, possibly making it an expensive mistake in the present environment.
Yes, the energy is available, and we need to build capacity.Well the idea is that there are massive amounts of essentially free renewable energy. Solar and wind.
You store the energy and use as required.
If we are to get serious about using renewable energy we need this built.
Brief comment only - have a good look at redox batteries - you might be surprised what you learn.Chemical batteries are not green, are relatively inefficient (all the energy you pump in is not saved)and incapable of supplying large amounts of power such as needed to hold up the grid for days at a time. They also become less efficient over time to recharge and are no good after 10 - 15years.
Thanks, 65% to 70% efficiency which is pretty good, pretty good life, highly toxic though.Yes, the energy is available, and we need to build capacity.
However, infrastructure for diverse renewables is different than for traditional power plants. Additionally, more interconnectors are required so that intermittency is mitigated at a distance, or that excess capacity can be stored at a distance.
Brief comment only - have a good look at redox batteries - you might be surprised what you learn.
There are "safe" alternatives to Redox via vanadium.Thanks, 65% to 70% efficiency which is pretty good, pretty good life, highly toxic though.
I'm not saying there isn't a place for batteries especially in remote communities but to feed Melbourne from renewables we need a serious solution.
Some figures:The battery plant in Adelaide despite the huge costs cannot do anything like that.
can u elaborate any on this ....i assume u mean it went to a load bank ... so i am interested as to why other supplies (assume a GT or three) were not killed in this type of situation ..... were they kept on for 'security' reasons? I assume there is a minimum % of 'base load' always running ....Now, just over a day ago there was too much wind in SA and generation from already built wind farms went to waste. Wind was going really well in Vic at the same time too, all running nicely. Now, if only we had the ability to somehow store the wind so we could use it later.....
However over the last decade or 2 the cost of electricity to the consumer has been going up in real terms across Australia.
The "full" answer would be getting into some serious power engineering (and required some major effort on the part of AEMO to calculate with accuracy by the way) but in simple terms it relates to "system strength".can u elaborate any on this
A smarter solution is to not waste the energy at all. Even in Germany they are adding battery storage to coal plants when extra spinning would otherwise go wasted.The solution to that is to shut down some wind generation. Physically that's just a matter of turning blades into the wind and intentionally losing output - easy as such but it's a total waste of the power that could have been produced.
thanks - you had me at feather - which did not even cross my mind - D'oh.The "full" answer would be getting into some serious power engineering (and required some major effort on the part of AEMO to calculate with accuracy by the way) but in simple terms it relates to "system strength".
Wind generates energy most certainly but the present wind farms don't have the ability to deliver high fault currents (that's a good thing even though it might sound bad) and they also lack inertia (another good thing).
There are moves to address this but right now it's a very real constraint, the workaround to which is to keep a minimum level of conventional (in SA's case that's gas or diesel in practice but it could equally be coal or hydro if they had any) generation running at all times so as to deliver required fault currents, inertia and in the event of a transmission loss Vic - SA, frequency control.
From there it's a simple issue of limitations. Have to keep some gas / or diesel (in practice normally gas since it's cheaper) plant running and it can't run without generating a reasonable amount of power. If the wind's blowing strongly and demand in SA is low or moderate at the time then there's simply nowhere for it to go given the lines between SA and Vic have a limited capacity. Double whammy if the sun is shining brightly at the time.
The solution to that is to shut down some wind generation. Physically that's just a matter of turning blades into the wind and intentionally losing output - easy as such but it's a total waste of the power that could have been produced.
Future workarounds and solutions:
New line SA - NSW directly will enable greater power flow out of the state during high winds to somewhere that can use it (Vic is heading toward having the same problem as SA but for NSW it's much further away in terms of the time until it's an issue).
Building synchronous condensers in SA thus removing some of the reasons for needing conventional synchronous plant (gas, diesel) in operation and reducing the quantity of what's needed.
Any future pumped hydro would also help since that's a great big rotating machine, as is gas or coal, and has the same characteristics electrically.
All of that comes down to technical constraints not anything of a political, economic or environmental nature (though it could be argued that if not for politics and economics the those constraints may have been resolved sooner.....).
WA and Vic both have similar emerging issues which are compounded by minimum output limits on existing (coal, gas) plant below which it can't operate. So you can run between x and y, but below x the only option is to shut down completely. That's not a major drama if you're shutting it down for a month but it's not something that would be good to be doing literally every mild sunny day and then having to re-start for use that same night.
EV's have a lot of potential to help with all this since fundamentally there's a lot of flexibility as to when to charge them. How much of each 24 hours is your car actually in use? For most people it's parked far more than it's being driven so there's a lot of flexibility as to when to put the energy into the battery. The key to making that work is to deploy some intelligence in how it's done - preferably right from the start rather than putting a million on the road and then realising we should have done it differently.
Technically that's very doable, it just needs to actually be done.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?