The future of energy generation and storage

[rederob]

In reality it is the only way you will be able to get sufficient water.

I clearly made the point that there is adequate water in Australia for pumped hydro -and gave several examples - which again is the opposite of your comment. There are documented reports about where tens of thousands of pumped hydro schemes could be put in place, and none involve sea water.
I also clearly said "if people would be silly enough to propose a pumped hydro system where there is no water then you might be in luck."
Of the thousands of regions of Australia which are amenable to pumped hydro, South Australia is the least well placed. So it really begs the question of why anyone would bother, especially as salt intrusion into the landscape is hardly welcome.
The reason is really simple. South Australia is trying every means possible to be energy independent from the eastern seaboard because Australia has no coherent national energy policy.

https://www.fool.com.au/2020/01/14/...est-way-for-you-to-profit-from-the-gold-boom/

 

[rederob]

I would guess Snowy2.0 will end up costing around $4-5 billion, things that big normally end up costing twice what was first suggested, so the pay back time will probably be never. IMO

The contractor already expects over $5billion in costs, and an 8 year time frame. Significant additional costs are involved in grid infrastructure plus the award of "pumping" energy contracts to re-fill the top reservoir.
At best some generation may occur by end-2024, so the shyte will have well and truly hit the fan before then unless massive additional storage ex-Snowy2.0 is in place beforehand.
I am not against pumped hydro, but it suffers from fixed to increasing costs/kWh. Meanwhile some other flow and battery alternatives are declining in costs by over 10% compound annually. So by 2030 these alternatives are likely to be cheaper than pumped hydro.
My view is that it would be smarter and cheaper adding battery capacity alongside grid scale renewables projects as these could be incremental to demand. To me that makes more sense than building and connecting one big battery.
Aside from that I prefer a rapid move to an hydrogen economy predicated on excess wind and solar generation capacity.

 

[SirRumpole]

The contractor already expects over $5billion in costs, and an 8 year time frame. Significant additional costs are involved in grid infrastructure plus the award of "pumping" energy contracts to re-fill the top reservoir.
At best some generation may occur by end-2024, so the shyte will have well and truly hit the fan before then unless massive additional storage ex-Snowy2.0 is in place beforehand.
I am not against pumped hydro, but it suffers from fixed to increasing costs/kWh. Meanwhile some other flow and battery alternatives are declining in costs by over 10% compound annually. So by 2030 these alternatives are likely to be cheaper than pumped hydro.
My view is that it would be smarter and cheaper adding battery capacity alongside grid scale renewables projects as these could be incremental to demand. To me that makes more sense than building and connecting one big battery.
Aside from that I prefer a rapid move to an hydrogen economy predicated on excess wind and solar generation capacity.

How long can a battery supply power for as opposed to pumped hydro ?

 

[sptrawler]

How long can a battery supply power for as opposed to pumped hydro ?

Smurph posted when the current ones will need swapping out, by that time they will also be down to between 60-80% capacity.

 

[sptrawler]

I clearly made the point that there is adequate water in Australia for pumped hydro -and gave several examples - which again is the opposite of your comment. There are documented reports about where tens of thousands of pumped hydro schemes could be put in place, and none involve sea water.
I also clearly said "if people would be silly enough to propose a pumped hydro system where there is no water then you might be in luck."
Of the thousands of regions of Australia which are amenable to pumped hydro, South Australia is the least well placed. So it really begs the question of why anyone would bother, especially as salt intrusion into the landscape is hardly welcome.
The reason is really simple. South Australia is trying every means possible to be energy independent from the eastern seaboard because Australia has no coherent national energy policy.

Just admit it, you hadn't even read up on the subject of using sea water, before becoming the self-professed expert and criticising people as usual.

 

[SirRumpole]

Smurph posted when the current ones will need swapping out, by that time they will also be down to between 60-80% capacity.

That's the lifetime, I was thinking more of continuous output. eg if there are long periods of overcast weather, how long could a battery keep up the supply ?

 

[sptrawler]

That's the lifetime, I was thinking more of continuous output. eg if there are long periods of overcast weather, how long could a battery keep up the supply ?

Good point.

 

[SirRumpole]

Snowy Hydro 2.0 not what it's cracked up to be ?

http://theconversation.com/snowy-2-...s-claimed-we-must-hit-the-pause-button-125017

 

[rederob]

Just admit it, you hadn't even read up on the subject of using sea water, before becoming the self-professed expert and criticising people as usual.

You seem to be a late convert to Reneweconomy.
Good ideas for renewables would not involve unnecessary concerns and also use the best available sites.

 

[sptrawler]

You seem to be a late convert to Reneweconomy.
.

Again, making assumptions about people.

 

[rederob]

Again, making assumptions about people.

Why don't you stick to facts rather than offer your opinions.
How is it sensible for a State to use seawater for pumped hydro when it is one of the poorest available options?

 

[sptrawler]

Why don't you stick to facts rather than offer your opinions.
How is it sensible for a State to use seawater for pumped hydro when it is one of the poorest available options?

Why don't you ask the person who wrote the article, or maybe one of your mates in politics.

 

[rederob]

Why don't you ask the person who wrote the article, or maybe one of your mates in politics.

You are suggesting it's not "silly" but cannot say why.
The idea is a bit like wanting to buy a new car and flying to Alice Springs to purchase it, and then driving it home. Blind Freddy can work out there are hundreds of better options.

 

[SirRumpole]

Why don't you stick to facts rather than offer your opinions.
How is it sensible for a State to use seawater for pumped hydro when it is one of the poorest available options?

Seawater is not subject to droughts.

 

[rederob]

Seawater is not subject to droughts.

That's great... maybe we should fill all our dams with seawater. We can then top up our swimming pools without needing to add salt.
There is also a grass that grows on sea water, so no worries about dead lawns because of water restrictions.
Top marks Rumpy.

 

[sptrawler]

You are suggesting it's not "silly" but cannot say why.
The idea is a bit like wanting to buy a new car and flying to Alice Springs to purchase it, and then driving it home. Blind Freddy can work out there are hundreds of better options.

If you would only listen to yourself, you really are a dick, obviously you have a memory issue.

If you go back to post #4015, when all your silly nonsense started, you will see what you responded to.
My quote:
The big issue is going to be the environmental lobby, they will go nuts when the discussion turns to pumping sea water inland, to fill pumped storage reservoirs. In reality it is the only way you will be able to get sufficient water.

Then came your stupid comment at post #4016:
I guess if people would be silly enough to propose a pumped hydro system where there is no water then you might be in luck.

Which proved, you had no idea the use of sea water was even under consideration.

Then I posted#4017.
Pumped Hydro is the most common and mature form of energy storage which has been traditionally used in rivers, but seawater has the benefit of having no impact on rivers and no need to construct lower reservoirs,

So I have posted exactly why I think sea water will make sense.
The problem is you don't read and don't listen, just constantly rant and make personal attacks.
You are just a self obsessed,supercilious person, with a narcissistic personality disorder. Apart from that you seem o.k
Anyway it is back to ignoring you, yet again.

 

[SirRumpole]

That's great... maybe we should fill all our dams with seawater. We can then top up our swimming pools without needing to add salt.
There is also a grass that grows on sea water, so no worries about dead lawns because of water restrictions.
Top marks Rumpy.

Don't be silly robbie.

One project under consideration.

https://arena.gov.au/blog/can-pumped-hydro-energy-storage-work-lets-sea/

Anyway it's not a simple matter of this vs that. Anything that that works in a particular area should be considered. The more options available, the less the chance of failure.

 

[rederob]

If you would only listen to yourself, you really are a dick, obviously you have a memory issue.

If you go back to post #4015, when all your silly nonsense started, you will see what you responded to.
My quote:
The big issue is going to be the environmental lobby, they will go nuts when the discussion turns to pumping sea water inland, to fill pumped storage reservoirs. In reality it is the only way you will be able to get sufficient water.

Then came your stupid comment at post #4016:
I guess if people would be silly enough to propose a pumped hydro system where there is no water then you might be in luck.

Which proved, you had no idea the use of sea water was even under consideration.

Then I posted#4017.
Pumped Hydro is the most common and mature form of energy storage which has been traditionally used in rivers, but seawater has the benefit of having no impact on rivers and no need to construct lower reservoirs,

So I have posted exactly why I think sea water will make sense.
The problem is you don't read and don't listen, just constantly rant and make personal attacks.
You are just a self obsessed,supercilious person, with a narcissistic personality disorder. Apart from that you seem o.k
Anyway it is back to ignoring you, yet again.

Get over yourself.
The idea of using sea water is not new.
You have not explained why the other 20000 sites in Australia that don't need sea water would be more expensive or have a worse environmental footprint.

 

[SirRumpole]

Something that just occurred to me, maybe an engineer could comment.

For a coastal(sea water) pumped hydro, would it be possible to use wave power to pump the water up ?

Maybe the flow would be small, but it would be happening all the time.

Just a thought.

 

[sptrawler]

Snowy Hydro 2.0 not what it's cracked up to be ?

http://theconversation.com/snowy-2-...s-claimed-we-must-hit-the-pause-button-125017

Which is exactly why the government has to build it, also why most of the really large scale pumped hydro, will have to be funded by Federal or State Governments.
The capital cost, the acquisition of land cost, the public backlash cost and the amount of pumped storage required, will take it way out of the cost base analysis spectrum for private funding IMO.