The future of energy generation and storage

Smurf1976 said:

This is the ultimate problem.




What the plan ought to involve is debateable but we need to have one ASAP.

Click to expand...

There will be nothing that resembles plan other than not to hve plan till post the next Fuderal election. At that point Australia will have gone with a cross bench at either the Forest,Cannon-Brookes, Zarli Steggle end of the spectrum or the Kelly, Palmer, Malcolm Roberts OneNation dead end of the scale.
Then , as not since our short lived Carbon price, Australia has a chance at a successful Plan for a future: Or it will have a plan/shambles that will fail the many, best described as a continuance....

You've always got a story Rob, just keep to the issue, rather than trying to be a lobbyist.
You should write a book, "How to backfill a hole, I have dug".

You did not check the usable capacity of Tantangara dam before you ran the numbers.

I ran your numbers Rob and the numbers smurf posted, smurfs would have been accurate, yours would have been cherry picked.
Also if you notice I actually understated the amount of batteries required by 30%, so very conservative, but you just wax on fella.

As for telling me about the 2GW is not being enough, do you want me to go back about 3 years where I was telling you that? Talk about making crap up as you go along, you're a real hoot.
Snowy will be used when the batteries can't cut it, as smurf has already posted, when we have several days of poor renewable weather.

You're tripping yourself up at every turn, one minute Snowy 2.0 isn't required, next minute, it is no where big enough.

Then you start making up stories about lithium batteries lasting 20 years, when in reality they last 10, even the car manufacturers only guarantee them for 8 years to 60% capacity. But I forgot when in doubt just say, it will happen, because it helps my story.

Maybe you can post up an article, that supports your claim of 20 year life expectancy of lithium batteries, you know how you are a stickler for FACTS.

Even if the lithium batteries did last 20 years, they still would not stack up against Snowy 2.0 on a cost base Vs capacity basis.

As the old saying goes, you are better off having it and not needing it, than needing it and not having it. But I guess that is foreign to some political thinking.
If Snowy 2.0 doesn't stack up against batteries, why would they go to the massive expense of increasing the capacity of Tasmania's hydro, when by your reasoning it would be much easier just to stick in more batteries, I mean give it a break.
Batteries will be the most widely spread storage, due to their flexibility and ease of placement, however large scale pumped hydro will be required and used where possible due to its long life expectancy and sustainability.

On every metric, your reasoning to not build Snowy 2.0, in favour of equivalent batteries is flawed, about time you moved to the next chestnut.
It will be interesting to see if Labor abandon it, when they get in office.

SirRumpole said:

Don't tell that to Macron, he wants us to drop coal altogether .

Do you think he is after a market for French nuclear reactors maybe ?

"
Tellingly, given the Prime Minister is already on the defensive over his government's climate change commitments, the President says he encouraged Mr Morrison to adopt emission reduction measures "commensurate with the climate challenge" and cease production and consumption of coal.

This is a deliberate strike by the French President at the PM's carbon credentials on the eve of next week's Glasgow climate talks."

Macron delivers precise torpedo strike to Morrison

The French President's fury does not seem to have cooled with the Australian government, writes Andrew Probyn.

www.abc.net.au

Click to expand...

Yes Macron probably hasn't realised the steel they use to manufacture their reactors, is probably made using Australian iron ore and metallurgical coal.

rederob said:

You forgot that Talbingo, which Tantangara it outflows to, has a capacity of only 160GL. So unless you want to lose water to the rest of the system, 160GL is you maximum.

Click to expand...

I've previously noted the ability to run water discharged through Snowy 2.0 through the existing Tumut 3 station, resulting in the practical loss of most of it from the scheme given the limited capacity of Jounama pondage, as an attribute of it.

Note that all figures quoted are nominal values and will vary slightly in practical operation.

239 GL active capacity in Tantangara versus 160 GL in Talbingo.

Starting from full, that enables (in round figures for simplicity) 7 days' constant operation of the new station (2040 MW) and 13 days' constant full load operation of the existing Tumut 3 (1800 MW) assuming that Tumut 1 & 2 (630 MW between them) are also operating.

Versus the present with just over 5 days' constant full load operation of Tumut 3.

So the new power station leverages existing assets and a complete discharge of SH2 and Tumut 3 to empty could be done 3 times a year if needed using the existing water.

A possible future addition would be to add a pump from Blowering to Jounama and to convert all Tumut 3 units to pumping operation (at present 3 of the 6 machines can pump or generate, the other 3 generate only). If that possible future modification were to be done then it becomes possible to pump water from the lowest storage at the Tumut end of the scheme, that is Blowering back up all the way to the top if required.

Blowering > (new pump not presently planned but could be built later) > Jounama > (Tumut 3) > Talbingo > (SH2) > Tantangara.

From Tantangara it can be stored there and run back through SH2 then Tumut 3 and to at least partial extent the Jounama power station in due course or, with a relatively minor energy loss (elevation difference of 64.92m) could be sent via existing infrastructure to Lake Eucumbene, the largest of the Snowy storages (4366.5 GL when full), and held long term for ultimate re-release via Tumut 1 > Tumut 2 > Talbingo storage and from there either run through Tumut 3 or pumped again via SH2.

Blowering storage is 1631 GL when full so it's more than large enough for the purpose.

Present operation for the northern (Tumut) end of the scheme:

Tantangara storage > Lake Eucumbene (no power generated in that step due to limited head and considerable distance horizontally). Then it's Lake Eucumbene > Tumut 1 power station > Tumut 2 power station > Talbingo storage (water) > Tumut 3 power station > Jounama storage (water, limited capacity) > Jounama small hydro station > Blowering storage > Blowering power station > water has left the scheme completely and is in the river.

Worth noting there that the discharge capacity of Tumut 1 & 2 is low (nominally 119 Cumecs) versus that of Tumut 3 (1360 Cumecs) hence the issue of Tumut 3 being limited to a bit over 5 days of constant full load operation before it runs out of water. That hasn't been a major problem historically since it operates as peaking plant in the context of a predominantly thermal (coal) based system but it does become a potential constraint in using it to fill the occasional "droughts" in wind and solar lasting a week or so at a time going forward.

1 Cumec = 1000 litres per second. So discharge from Tumut 1 & 2 is 119,000 litres per second at full load.

All that said, well I'm not going to say SH2 is the best possible project but nor am I going to say it's the worst. To be able to answer that we'd need to have an actual plan that either it fits into or it doesn't.

What I will say though is it's a real project that's actually happening and is the only project offering reasonably long term storage to have actually got off the ground thus far so there's no real alternative in practice. Private investors seem keen on batteries with 1 or 2 hours' storage and at a push they'll look at 4 hours (eg the Energy Australia battery at Jeeralang) but that's about it.

The preference is firmly for fossil fuels as long term "storage" so that's what it really comes down to unless someone actually does propose some other option. It's either Snowy 2.0 and the Tasmanian projects or it's a gas-fired alternative.

From a purely technical perspective, SH2 does beat Kurri Kurri.

First because it can be used to increase minimum system load which is very rapidly becoming a serious problem due to the mass installation of distributed generation decreasing the load on centralised generation to a point where system control becomes problematic. Gas does nothing at all to address that whereas storage, of whatever form, does.

Second because Kurri Kurri is, technically, something that I can only describe as "crippled" operationally. A maximum of ~6 hours at full load on gas per day, capped at a maximum of 876 hours per year, due to the reliance on a limited gas supply and storage of it with any further operation requiring the use of diesel which has been capped at 175 hours per year. As a source of peak power that works but as a means of properly firming VRE it's not at all great.

Bearing in mind that the existing Colongra gas-fired station is similarly constrained, being limited to about 5 hours per day at full load on gas, meanwhile the much smaller Eraring gas turbine (diesel-fired) is limited to operating no more than 200 hours per year by regulations. All up rather a lot of generating capacity that has serious limitations on its operational hours - not really a problem to meet the peaks at present but it's not a lot of use to firm up a week long lull in wind speeds.

The existing Tumut 3 discharging directly into Jounama pondage. Look carefully at the concrete and you can see the "high tide" mark. Photo: Smurf.

Smurf1976 said:

I've previously noted the ability to run water discharged through Snowy 2.0 through the existing Tumut 3 station, resulting in the practical loss of most of it from the scheme given the limited capacity of Jounama pondage, as an attribute of it.
Note that all figures quoted are nominal values and will vary slightly in practical operation.
239 GL active capacity in Tantangara versus 160 GL in Talbingo.

Click to expand...

I am not doubting that Snowy 2 has massive storage potential, but its quoted numbers are pie in the sky. As I pointed out, the real world seldom sees Tantangara above 30% full during the year, so selling Snowy 2 as 75 hours rather than 175 hours capable is at least defensible. On that basis a more realistic cost per generated kilowatt for Snowy 2 is therefore closer to $12000 (or 20 times the VBB equivalent).
In a fashion it really doesn't matter though as the question is about what Snowy 2 is supposed to achieve.

I used the VBB as an example of an alternative (not sure why you used Kurri Kurri - as you noted, it's fundamentally flawed).
Batteries are scalable, so can be added to in order to meet anticipated peak loads that otherwise cause load shedding.
Using Victoria as an example, during peak demand from the grid the average household consumes roughly 3kW/h, and the State has about 3M households. On this basis Snowy 2 could definitely accommodate around 650k households for a long duration, but that's not how demand works. Demand peaks are incremental and time limited.
The VBB adds another 150k household for 45 minutes to meet peak demand (load).
Adding 10 VBB equivalents gives 3GW to 1.5M households for 45 minutes at peak demand and would cost less than $2B. Unfortunately Snowy 2 is capped at 2GW, so could not meet that peak, although clearly could run for days.
I don't know how long the VBB was expected to last before replacement but Tesla warranted Hornsdale for 15 years so @sptrawler's 10 year cap is at least 50% out. Flow batteries have lifecycles from 20 - 30 years with minimal output loss.

I have no problem with pumped hydro to where it's a cost effective solution to intermittency, but Snowy 2 is akin to putting a cricket team on the field comprised of a bowler and 10 wicket keepers. It's a level of backup that has no business case supporting it.

@sptrawler reckons that Snowy 2 will be handy to have when there are days of low generation from renewables. That's true. But when exactly will Snowy 2 be needed to meet any shortfall?

As @Smurf1976 notes, at least Snowy 2 is happening. Given the pace of other market developments I see it becoming a white elephant. But in the absence of a credible energy policy and without a plan, something is better than nothing for the time being.

rederob said:

I am not doubting that Snowy 2 has massive storage potential, but its quoted numbers are pie in the sky. As I pointed out, the real world seldom sees Tantangara above 30% full during the year, so selling Snowy 2 as 75 hours rather than 175 hours capable is at least defensible. On that basis a more realistic cost per generated kilowatt for Snowy 2 is therefore closer to $12000 (or 20 times the VBB equivalent).
In a fashion it really doesn't matter though as the question is about what Snowy 2 is supposed to achieve.

I used the VBB as an example of an alternative (not sure why you used Kurri Kurri - as you noted, it's fundamentally flawed).
Batteries are scalable, so can be added to in order to meet anticipated peak loads that otherwise cause load shedding.
Using Victoria as an example, during peak demand from the grid the average household consumes roughly 3kW/h, and the State has about 3M households. On this basis Snowy 2 could definitely accommodate around 650k households for a long duration, but that's not how demand works. Demand peaks are incremental and time limited.
The VBB adds another 150k household for 45 minutes to meet peak demand (load).
Adding 10 VBB equivalents gives 3GW to 1.5M households for 45 minutes at peak demand and would cost less than $2B. Unfortunately Snowy 2 is capped at 2GW, so could not meet that peak, although clearly could run for days.
I don't know how long the VBB was expected to last before replacement but Tesla warranted Hornsdale for 15 years so @sptrawler's 10 year cap is at least 50% out. Flow batteries have lifecycles from 20 - 30 years with minimal output loss.

I have no problem with pumped hydro to where it's a cost effective solution to intermittency, but Snowy 2 is akin to putting a cricket team on the field comprised of a bowler and 10 wicket keepers. It's a level of backup that has no business case supporting it.

@sptrawler reckons that Snowy 2 will be handy to have when there are days of low generation from renewables. That's true. But when exactly will Snowy 2 be needed to meet any shortfall?

As @Smurf1976 notes, at least Snowy 2 is happening. Given the pace of other market developments I see it becoming a white elephant. But in the absence of a credible energy policy and without a plan, something is better than nothing for the time being.

Click to expand...

Interesting to see the Guardian and Labor commenting on "commercial viability", that's usually the LNP's area..

Without going into the merits of any proposal , the storage options are all "insurance policies" against the risk that intermittent energy sources cannot satisfy demand for short or medium periods of time.

No insurance policies are commercially viable unless you have to use them.

There will be stranded assets and governments will have to own them because private operators won't . If batteries owned by private operators can't supply demand the private operators will just walk away and say 'tough luck' . Governments have to ensure continuity of supply and sometimes spending money for doubtful returns is a risk they have to take.

@Smurf1976 it looks as though you were spot on about W.A having hydro potential, it sounds as though Walpole is looking into a small hydro supply.
Walpole is a small town in the SW forrest area of W.A.
What is being proposed sounds like micro pumped hydro, it will be interesting to see if it is feasible, or just pie in the sky, I wouldn't have thought it was viable when compared with batteries due to size.
From the article:
An energy storage project that has been dubbed the world's smallest version of the Snowy Mountains hydroelectric power plant is taking shape in Western Australia.
Power Research and Development, a WA-based company, wants to build a 1.5-megawatt pumped hydro project capable of powering the town of Walpole on the state's south coast for up to 70 hours.
The proposal, which is backed by state-owned electricity distributor Western Power, would help overcome crippling power cuts that can hit the popular tourist spot for hours at a time.
In PRD's case, it will install solar panels and batteries to provide its own power for pumping.

Colin Stonehouse from PRD said the need for storage was one of the biggest challenges facing the electricity system as ever-increasing amounts of intermittent renewable energy such as wind and solar power came on stream.

Mr Stonehouse said this was because supply from renewable sources was uncontrolled and often did not match demand.

He said being able to store excess output and use that power when it was needed was crucial to the aims of decarbonising the electricity system.
Under PRD's plans, it will build two reservoirs — effectively farm dams — with a difference in elevation of about 100 metres.

The company aims to provide energy storage services to commercial and rural businesses in the area.

But it has also secured a contract with Western Power to supply back-up power to Walpole during periods of disruption to the main transmission line from Albany, 120 kilometres to the east.

Mr Stonehouse said the motivation for the project was Walpole's notoriously unreliable electricity supply, which is the result of its position at the edge of the grid

rederob said:

I am not doubting that Snowy 2 has massive storage potential, but its quoted numbers are pie in the sky. As I pointed out, the real world seldom sees Tantangara above 30% full during the year, so selling Snowy 2 as 75 hours rather than 175 hours capable is at least defensible. On that basis a more realistic cost per generated kilowatt for Snowy 2 is therefore closer to $12000 (or 20 times the VBB equivalent).
In a fashion it really doesn't matter though as the question is about what Snowy 2 is supposed to achieve.

I used the VBB as an example of an alternative (not sure why you used Kurri Kurri - as you noted, it's fundamentally flawed).
Batteries are scalable, so can be added to in order to meet anticipated peak loads that otherwise cause load shedding.
Using Victoria as an example, during peak demand from the grid the average household consumes roughly 3kW/h, and the State has about 3M households. On this basis Snowy 2 could definitely accommodate around 650k households for a long duration, but that's not how demand works. Demand peaks are incremental and time limited.
The VBB adds another 150k household for 45 minutes to meet peak demand (load).
Adding 10 VBB equivalents gives 3GW to 1.5M households for 45 minutes at peak demand and would cost less than $2B. Unfortunately Snowy 2 is capped at 2GW, so could not meet that peak, although clearly could run for days.
I don't know how long the VBB was expected to last before replacement but Tesla warranted Hornsdale for 15 years so @sptrawler's 10 year cap is at least 50% out. Flow batteries have lifecycles from 20 - 30 years with minimal output loss.

I have no problem with pumped hydro to where it's a cost effective solution to intermittency, but Snowy 2 is akin to putting a cricket team on the field comprised of a bowler and 10 wicket keepers. It's a level of backup that has no business case supporting it.

@sptrawler reckons that Snowy 2 will be handy to have when there are days of low generation from renewables. That's true. But when exactly will Snowy 2 be needed to meet any shortfall?

As @Smurf1976 notes, at least Snowy 2 is happening. Given the pace of other market developments I see it becoming a white elephant. But in the absence of a credible energy policy and without a plan, something is better than nothing for the time being.

Click to expand...

As I've said, if Snowy 2.0 isn't viable and or required, Labor will have no issue with stopping the project, it is still in the early stages. So lets just wait and see rather than having circular debates..
As for flow batteries, I'm a big fan and do have RFX shares, with lithium batteries, I have three electric bikes, 4 electric scooters and a shed full of battery powered electric handtools.
Lithium is great, but IMO it has a long way to go before I will call it the saviour, I can post up a picture of a Segway ninebot ES4 battery pack I've stripped to replace dead cells, if you want..

SirRumpole said:

Interesting to see the Guardian and Labor commenting on "commercial viability", that's usually the LNP's area..

Without going into the merits of any proposal , the storage options are all "insurance policies" against the risk that intermittent energy sources cannot satisfy demand for short or medium periods of time.

No insurance policies are commercially viable unless you have to use them.

There will be stranded assets and governments will have to own them because private operators won't . If batteries owned by private operators can't supply demand the private operators will just walk away and say 'tough luck' . Governments have to ensure continuity of supply and sometimes spending money for doubtful returns is a risk they have to take.

Click to expand...

Snowy 2 is only insurance against multiday-duration intermittency. The issue is pretty much isolated to Victoria which has a high winter load and presently can simultaneously experience dual wind and solar capacity shortfalls as @Smurf has separately charted.

Seasonal peaks have mostly declined over the past 10 years and are nowadays relatively stable:

Snowy 2's only saving grace is its storage potential.
What it cannot show is when it will be called on and for how long.
The real rush to hydrogen only became apparent to the great unwashed when the BEV revolution's data on battery materials showed that there was not enough to meet forecast vehicle production.
In the present energy mix the rate of BEV uptake has the potential to supplant the need for Snowy 2, but only if V2G is mandated. On the other hand, the likelihood that green hydrogen production prices could match or better other energy sources by 2030 is very real. Thousands of kilometres of hydrogen gas in our pipeline network more than meets any intermittency issues that would occur in future.

Snowy 2 falls down as an idea because its additional output is capped at 2GW, and this can be purchased for a fraction of the price via chemical battery options.

sptrawler said:

As I've said, if Snowy 2.0 isn't viable and or required, Labor will have no issue with stopping the project, it is still in the early stages. So lets just wait and see rather than having circular debates.

Click to expand...

Maybe. But maybe not if contracts have already been awarded.

Aside from its "insurance" merit or problems with costs, Snowy 2 stands to suppress private sector investment appetite. What preferential treatment will Snowy2 receive in the market, if any, to recover costs? What daily generation will it operate at such that private sector capacity additions are displaced? Without a roadmap for what and when, Snowy 2 is actually a negative factor in energy planning.

rederob said:

Snowy 2 is only insurance against multiday-duration intermittency. The issue is pretty much isolated to Victoria which has a high winter load and presently can simultaneously experience dual wind and solar capacity shortfalls as @Smurf has separately charted.

Click to expand...

At last, can we finally move on now?

sptrawler said:

At last, can we finally move on now?

Click to expand...

I agree.
You could not show it was necessary or viable.
Nevertheless, I am now contacting my insurer to add death from intergalactic invaders... just in case.

rederob said:

I agree.
You could not show it was necessary or viable.
Nevertheless, I am now contacting my insurer to add death from intergalactic invaders... just in case.

Click to expand...

You're tenacity, is only surpassed by your verbosity, I found a photo of you driving by.

sptrawler said:

You're tenacity, is only surpassed by your verbosity,

Click to expand...

You have opinions, but I have answers.
Snowy 2 should be dead in the water:


This is literally what Australia could be shipping to the world in the 2030s.

rederob said:

You have opinions, but I have answers.
Snowy 2 should be dead in the water:
View attachment 132194

This is literally what Australia could be shipping to the world in the 2030s.

Click to expand...

Finally we agree on something.
I'm sure the hydrogen era will arrive, but being 66 years old I don't think I will see it, but I am hopeful.
Until then it will be batteries, backed up by some seriously big pumped hydro.

@rederob what is really exciting is W.A with a small population and a lot of land, resources and money may well be the first Hydrogen State in the World, I think it is possible.
So I'm picking up a PHEV early next year and hoping to live long enough to trade it in on a fuel cell vehicle.

rederob said:

the real world seldom sees Tantangara above 30% full during the year

Click to expand...

Whilst that is factually correct, it's somewhat akin to saying that my savings account generally doesn't have a lot of money in it.

There is, at present, no reason to keep water in Tantangara at all since it's a diversion storage. That is, its purpose is to capture natural inflows which may at times be quite abrupt (that is, heavy rainfall) and to provide buffer storage with that water then being transferred at a slower, steady rate to Lake Eucumbene which is the major actual storage facility.

There's no power station at present drawing directly on Tantangara such that, so long as Eucumbene isn't full, there's no reason to store water in Tantangara.

Since SH2 would change that, it creates a reason to store water in Tantangara, operational procedures would change to reflect that. Shut the outlet and water will build up naturally and that can be run through the SH2 station instead of sending it to Lake Eucumbene and then discharging through Tumut 1 and 2. Or water can be pumped from Talbingo, the storage for Tumut 3, into Tantangara.

As for any alternative, it simply comes down to three things:

1. It needs to be technology that exists and is proven sufficiently to enable a decision to proceed.

2. Costs need to be known sufficiently that someone's willing to base contracts around it.

3. Someone needs to be willing to actually build it.

Personally I have no firm view on what technology ought be used so long as it works and is cost competitive.

What I do have a firm view on however is that "do nothing" is not an option and that would be the case even if, hypothetically, the entire issue of climate change were removed (ignoring any argument for or against that so in a purely hypothetical sense). I say that since, even without that issue being considered at all, there's still the problem of multiple existing coal-fired plants and a few gas ones approaching the end of their technical lifespan and there's still the problem of gas production decline. The energy issue exists with or without the climate issue.

On that note, one area where I will be somewhat critical not so much of Snowy but of the entire industry is in regards to storage management. Here's the current data as a % of full capacity (showing usable capacity only, dead storage has been excluded):

Snowy Hydro = 29.6%
Hydro Tasmania = 52.5%

Moomba underground gas storage (SA) = 20%
Newcastle LNG storage (NSW) = 21%
Iona underground gas storage (Vic) = 52%
Dandenong LNG storage (Vic, in suburban Melbourne) = 37%

Bearing in mind that we do not presently have a drought, gas production is working and coal-fired generation is with one exception operating normally those levels really ought to be higher and from a technical perspective it would be easy to do so.

Therein lies a big dilemma.....

Anyone looking at the technical side will point out that there's a lot that can go wrong and plenty of precedents for exactly that. Given that the workaround to just about any problem with generation or transmission involves running something else harder, it's wise to ensure that there's a good stock of fuel (of whatever sort) on hand so as to be able to do so if required. If a coal plant goes kaboom well then there'll be a need to run considerably more hydro and gas as a result. Etc.

Those looking at the financial side will quickly point out that water in a dam or gas stored underground pays no interest and would much prefer to see money in the bank and on the balance sheet.

Therein lies a problem. It's not just a question of building storage but also of actually using it. There's no point having an abundance of batteries, pumped hydro, gas (of whatever chemical composition) or whatever if it's not going to be filled up when the opportunity to do so exists. It's far too late by the time you know you need it, as with any insurance you have to do it beforehand. Once a drought occurs or there's a need to run gas-fired plant around the clock well that's too late to think about trying to fill up storages then.

The overall approach of intentionally low storage levels, driven by financial incentives, is one that will in my opinion bite society hard at some point but it's impossible to predict exactly when it'll happen until it does. It's an unnecessary risk in my view .

Worth noting there that during the load shedding incidents on 24 January 2019 and a second separate incident on 25 January 2019 in Victoria, batteries were in fact discharged at the time so there's a precedent albeit on a small scale but still, it happened.

By the way @Smurf1976 the oldest son is putting in a 30Kw off grid system in January, so I should be able to give some details as to the pros and cons as time goes by. He is using a heat pump HWS, I suggested a solar with wetback heating from slow combustion oven and wood fire in lounge, but he went with the heat pump.
It will be an interesting project.

Smurf1976 said:

What I do have a firm view on however is that "do nothing" is not an option and that would be the case even if, hypothetically, the entire issue of climate change were removed (ignoring any argument for or against that so in a purely hypothetical sense). I say that since, even without that issue being considered at all, there's still the problem of multiple existing coal-fired plants and a few gas ones approaching the end of their technical lifespan and there's still the problem of gas production decline. The energy issue exists with or without the climate issue.

Click to expand...

That is IMO and only my opinion the major issue, we have moved on since the Industrial Revolution and we are much more technically advanced and indeed much more affluent.
We wouldn't accept a HR Holden anymore, we wouldn't accept not having a mobile phone, we wouldn't accept having to go back to am radio's and no television.
Times move on what is acceptable changes, the planet is surrounded by a cocoon of atmosphere 10km high, we have to accept it has to be looked after, or we don't survive.
We have old power stations burning coal in a similar fashion as they were burning it 100 years ago, there are technologies around that can replace that with a lot less emissions, that's life and it will happen, just the same as ICE engines will be replaced by BEV's, then they in turn will be further improved.
What has to realised IMO, is it has to happen on a global scale, not on an individual country scale IMO. If it doesn't happen by consensus, then some countries will benefit due to their abundance of favourable circumstances and other countries will be put at a massive disadvantage. That issue has to be thrashed out and addressed, how do you make it fair to all?
How do those with no ability to replace their crappy power generation, replace it, if it is coal fired and you stop selling them coal how do they industrialise and find the money to replace their crappy coal generators, when they are having trouble buying it?
I'm all for us shutting down our coal generation and I'm sure it will happen because it just isn't viable anymore anyway, but I'm yet to be convinced on the merits of stopping exporting coal, unless someone comes up with options for countries to reduce their reliance on it.

Smurf1976 said:

On that note, one area where I will be somewhat critical not so much of Snowy but of the entire industry is in regards to storage management.

Click to expand...

Do we need a National Energy Guarantee 2.0 to require by legislation that sufficient storage of any fuel is maintained ?

We had a similar problem with reserves of transport fuel a while ago, and it still exists. We have about 70 days of crude oil in reserves when the minimum should be 90 according to the International Enedrgy Agency.