The future of energy generation and storage

[sptrawler]

I'll put this here ....

Five years on, Snowy 2.0 emerges as a $10 billion white elephant

There is no cause for celebration with this birthday. Snowy 2.0, having blown out to $10 billion-plus from the original $2 billion estimate, will be a burden on taxpayers, cost households more in electricity charges and damage the Kosciuszko National Park.

www.smh.com.au

$8000 000 000.00 over estimates and counting

Oh well, Albo will be able to cancel it, they are still on the earthworks, same as Kurri Kurri is a white elephant and Albo was canning that when it was first announced. So Albo just cancels both projects and we save probably $7b, we can look forward to the announcement, on the run up to the election.
People painting themselves into corners, isn't a good look.
The Kalgoorlie water pipe was a white elephant, the dude who designed it necked himself.
The Karratha to Perth LNG pipe, was a white elephant, Court had to sign contracts for gas they couldn't even use and had to convert a power station to run on gas .
The only great projects are those that Labor do , yes we know already Humid.
Obviously costs are going to blow out, they are paying people the money your on mate, what major contract wouldn't blow out.

Actually it is funny, I bet the original Snowy scheme was criticised, now both parties are trying to claim ownership of the original idea. ?

Is the Snowy Mountains Scheme the achievement of the Coalition or Labor?

Energy Minister Angus Taylor and Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese have engaged in a back an forth over which party can claim credit for the original Snowy Mountains Scheme. RMIT ABC Fact Check investigates.

www.abc.net.au

The 70th anniversary of the Snowy Mountains Scheme prompted a debate recently in Parliament over which side of politics was responsible for the project — the biggest engineering feat in Australia's history.

Energy Minister Angus Taylor gave credit for the scheme to the Liberal Party.

"t is important to note that the Snowy Scheme is just another incredible achievement of Liberal government," he said during Question Time in the House of Representatives.

But Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese interjected, dismissing the claim.

"Ben Chifley was no Tory," he said, referring to former prime minister Joseph Benedict Chifley. "Your lot opposed it."

The verdict​

Claims that one or other political party alone deserves credit for the Snowy Mountains Scheme are exaggerated.

The complex, nation-building project materialised after numerous reports, years of discussion and decades of construction.

 

[Smurf1976]

I bet the original Snowy scheme was criticised

At the time it was actually the Victorian SECV, and indirectly Tasmania, that gave the big push to get it built in its as built form.

Various agricultural interests and their political representatives were for obvious reasons interested in water diversion and irrigation. Likewise the SA state government was of course keen on anything that put more water into the Murray. Trouble is, as a purely agricultural scheme it didn't stack up financially.

The NSW electricity authority had relatively little interest in it, seeing it useful only in terms of base load generation as a direct alternative to coal.

Victoria however had a bigger vision and a bigger problem. The vision was manufacturing industry and overall electrification. The problems were that brown coal is particularly problematic for peak load generation with the other problem being that Tasmania was consistently undercutting Victoria on price, having become the "natural" location for energy-intensive industry by that point.

The Snowy as built promised to fix both problems for Victoria and thus they became a champion of it, ultimately convincing the federal government and NSW on the virtues of hydro power.

The actual design changed after construction by the way. Originally it was to be essentially two separate schemes in no way hydraulically interconnected. The final as-built design wasn't adopted until construction was underway, being driven largely by agricultural interests given the as-built design enables the same water to be sent out either end.

It has never been finished by the way. Some further proposed works were deleted from the plans about 1966 and never built.

As another bit of trivia, Guthega power station, the first to enter service in 1955, was intended to be 3 x 30MW and all three machines were ordered and the power station built to accommodate them. In practice however one was sold to Tasmania and installed at Lake Echo power station where it remains in service today. A replacement was never ordered or installed at Guthega, and the thought of doing so was also abandoned in 1966.

 

[Humid]

Oh well, Albo will be able to cancel it, they are still on the earthworks, same as Kurri Kurri is a white elephant and Albo was canning that when it was first announced. So Albo just cancels both projects and we save probably $7b, we can look forward to the announcement, on the run up to the election.
People painting themselves into corners, isn't a good look.
The Kalgoorlie water pipe was a white elephant, the dude who designed it necked himself.
The Karratha to Perth LNG pipe, was a white elephant, Court had to sign contracts for gas they couldn't even use and had to convert a power station to run on gas .
The only great projects are those that Labor do , yes we know already Humid.
Obviously costs are going to blow out, they are paying people the money your on mate, what major contract wouldn't blow out.

Actually it is funny, I bet the original Snowy scheme was criticised, now both parties are trying to claim ownership of the original idea. ?

Is the Snowy Mountains Scheme the achievement of the Coalition or Labor?

Energy Minister Angus Taylor and Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese have engaged in a back an forth over which party can claim credit for the original Snowy Mountains Scheme. RMIT ABC Fact Check investigates.

www.abc.net.au

The 70th anniversary of the Snowy Mountains Scheme prompted a debate recently in Parliament over which side of politics was responsible for the project — the biggest engineering feat in Australia's history.

Energy Minister Angus Taylor gave credit for the scheme to the Liberal Party.

"t is important to note that the Snowy Scheme is just another incredible achievement of Liberal government," he said during Question Time in the House of Representatives.

But Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese interjected, dismissing the claim.

"Ben Chifley was no Tory," he said, referring to former prime minister Joseph Benedict Chifley. "Your lot opposed it."

The verdict​

Claims that one or other political party alone deserves credit for the Snowy Mountains Scheme are exaggerated.

The complex, nation-building project materialised after numerous reports, years of discussion and decades of construction.

Was meant to be Finished last year ....but keep digging you experts

 

[sptrawler]

Was meant to be Finished last year ....but keep digging you experts

Doesnt affect us Humid, I'm only interested from a technical perspective and your only interested from a political perspective a lot on the forum are interested as consumers.

 

[Humid]

Doesnt affect us Humid, I'm only interested from a technical perspective and your only interested from a political perspective a lot on the forum are interested as consumers.

Well if political is cost and how quickly it was costed and approved then your arguing over some pretty old technology but keep digging you experts

 

[Humid]

At the time it was actually the Victorian SECV, and indirectly Tasmania, that gave the big push to get it built in its as built form.

Various agricultural interests and their political representatives were for obvious reasons interested in water diversion and irrigation. Likewise the SA state government was of course keen on anything that put more water into the Murray. Trouble is, as a purely agricultural scheme it didn't stack up financially.

The NSW electricity authority had relatively little interest in it, seeing it useful only in terms of base load generation as a direct alternative to coal.

Victoria however had a bigger vision and a bigger problem. The vision was manufacturing industry and overall electrification. The problems were that brown coal is particularly problematic for peak load generation with the other problem being that Tasmania was consistently undercutting Victoria on price, having become the "natural" location for energy-intensive industry by that point.

The Snowy as built promised to fix both problems for Victoria and thus they became a champion of it, ultimately convincing the federal government and NSW on the virtues of hydro power.

The actual design changed after construction by the way. Originally it was to be essentially two separate schemes in no way hydraulically interconnected. The final as-built design wasn't adopted until construction was underway, being driven largely by agricultural interests given the as-built design enables the same water to be sent out either end.

It has never been finished by the way. Some further proposed works were deleted from the plans about 1966 and never built.

As another bit of trivia, Guthega power station, the first to enter service in 1955, was intended to be 3 x 30MW and all three machines were ordered and the power station built to accommodate them. In practice however one was sold to Tasmania and installed at Lake Echo power station where it remains in service today. A replacement was never ordered or installed at Guthega, and the thought of doing so was also abandoned in 1966.

Yeah mate it's 2022

 

[Smurf1976]

Well if political is cost and how quickly it was costed and approved then your arguing over some pretty old technology but keep digging you experts

Political and politics is something to be worked around, I think everyone's worked that out by now.

Reality is those opposed would be the first to scream if an alternative were built and they'll also scream really loudly if the lights go out. They could be accused of playing politics and nothing more.

Yeah mate it's 2022

What does that have to do with something of an historical nature?

 

[Humid]

Political and politics is something to be worked around, I think everyone's worked that out by now.

Reality is those opposed would be the first to scream if an alternative were built and they'll also scream really loudly if the lights go out. They could be accused of playing politics and nothing more.


What does that have to do with something of an historical nature?

Yeah mate solar,wind,batteries

 

[Smurf1976]

Yeah mate solar,wind,batteries

And ????

Those are not of themselves an alternative to the role to be filled by SH2, indeed filling in the limitations of those is the primary function of SH2 in the first place.

Actual alternatives, with present technology, are basically:

Some other hydro scheme(s) involving individually or collectively large scale storage.

Gas turbines. In the medium term they'd be fired with either natural gas or a petroleum fuel (diesel, kero, LPG).

Internal combustion engines. Medium term they'd be fired with natural gas or diesel (or both).

Scrap the whole push for renewables and build steam plant with the source of steam being, in practice, coal or nuclear.

Load shedding during incidents of sustained low VRE yield (primarily an issue in the second half of Autumn and during Winter).

Take your pick.

Personally I'd pick hydro either SH2 or an alternative hydro scheme. Reason being it's durable, efficient and incurs minimal ongoing cost once built.

For the record AEMO (and plenty of others) have concluded that renewables are here to stay and that rules out the steam turbine option. Hence they've expressed it as the sum total of gas turbines (or ICE) + hydro.

 

[Humid]

Did either of you bother to read the article and if so pull it apart for me and show where it's wrong
I'm not the one who called it a white elephant ....

 

[Humid]

Since you don't want to read and just flap your gums

As far as the claim that Snowy 2.0 will add 2000 megawatts of renewable energy to the National Electricity Market, Snowy 2.0 is not a conventional hydro station generating renewable energy. It is no different to any other battery, and as such it will be a net load on the NEM. For every 100 units of electricity purchased from the NEM to pump water uphill, only 75 units are returned when the water flows back down through the turbine generators. Not only is the electricity generated not renewable, Snowy 2.0 will be the most inefficient battery on the NEM, losing 25 per cent of energy cycled.

 

[Humid]

There are many cheaper, more efficient and far less environmentally destructive energy storage alternatives.

Snowy 2.0 is bringing a flurry of activity and much-trumpeted construction jobs to the Monaro. But in another five or so years we will be left with a rarely used, $10 billion-plus Snowy White Elephant, higher electricity prices, a needlessly scarred Kosciuszko National Park, and just a dozen extra Snowy Hydro jobs, according to the Snowy 2.0 environmental impact statement.

But I know a bloke who polished chairs in the Kwinana Power station so .....

 

[Humid]

Despite the assurance that taxpayer subsidies were not required, the federal government was forced to shore up Snowy 2.0’s business case with a $1.4bn “equity injection”. Further taxpayer funding is inevitable, warned Standard & Poors when it downgraded Snowy Hydro’s credit rating in 2020.

Far from bringing electricity prices down, Snowy Hydro’s own modelling predicts that prices will rise because of Snowy 2.0.

Keep digging you experts

 

[Humid]

The underground power station and tunnels alone will cost more than $6 billion, and Snowy Hydro avoids mentioning the transmission connections to Sydney – $4 billion-plus for HumeLink and the Sydney ring – and to Victoria. To make matters worse, Snowy Hydro refuses to contribute to these transmission works, leaving it to electricity consumers to pick up the tab. Transmission tariffs in NSW will increase by more than 50 per cent if the NSW government allows Snowy Hydro to get its way, based on analysis in a Victoria Energy Policy Centre report.

 

[Humid]

Ted don't like Kurri.

Kurri Kurri’s a gas-powered folly

Taxpayers should not be paying for a billion dollar generator that can only run for six hours for at stretch and won’t be able to compete with faster, cheaper batteries.

www.afr.com

 

[sptrawler]

Ted don't like Kurri.

Kurri Kurri’s a gas-powered folly

Taxpayers should not be paying for a billion dollar generator that can only run for six hours for at stretch and won’t be able to compete with faster, cheaper batteries.

www.afr.com

Who did Ted work for? The last thing private enterprise want is the Government putting in competing plant, that keeps them honest

The problem is Humid all your above questions and the article has been discussed at length earlier in this thread, just because you have read an article that resonates with your political leanings doesn't make it valid.

The AEMO has very recently stated there is a shortfall in medium to long duration storage, everyone wants to chuck in a battery, but that isn't useful for extended periods of low renewable generation, like I said we have discussed it several times, you were probably on your favourite website up in the donga at the time. Lol

 

[SirRumpole]

Since you don't want to read and just flap your gums

As far as the claim that Snowy 2.0 will add 2000 megawatts of renewable energy to the National Electricity Market, Snowy 2.0 is not a conventional hydro station generating renewable energy. It is no different to any other battery, and as such it will be a net load on the NEM. For every 100 units of electricity purchased from the NEM to pump water uphill, only 75 units are returned when the water flows back down through the turbine generators. Not only is the electricity generated not renewable, Snowy 2.0 will be the most inefficient battery on the NEM, losing 25 per cent of energy cycled.

We should recognise that natural inflow , ie rain that fill storages is essentially free energy and should be factored in to the equation.

 

[sptrawler]

We should recognise that natural inflow , ie rain that fill storages is essentially free energy and should be factored in to the equation.

The last thing @Humid wants to listen to is common sense, smurf has explained endlessly the long duration storage advantages of major hydo facilities, like Snowy 2.0, all Humid wants to do is try to make everything a political issue, as many do.
Once the election is over and Labor are in, they will continue with Kurri Kurri, as they have already said and they will also continue with Snowy 2.0 because it is essential, then Rob, Humid and the boys will be cheering it on, boringly predictable.

@Humid posts up this from his mate TED from Oct 2021

Kurri Kurri’s a gas-powered folly

Taxpayers should not be paying for a billion dollar generator that can only run for six hours for at stretch and won’t be able to compete with faster, cheaper batteries.

www.afr.com

Then the ones he sucks up to do this to him in February 2022, he is just a sad little man, can't even keep up with his own thought processes. Probably in the wet canteen.

Labor backflips on Kurri Kurri gas plant, but experts say it still doesn't stack up | RenewEconomy

Labor makes about-turn on Kurri Kurri gas plant, if it can be fuelled with hydrogen, but experts say the plant is not needed and makes no sense.

reneweconomy.com.au

 

[Smurf1976]

Did either of you bother to read the article and if so pull it apart for me and show where it's wrong

Has been discussed previously.

It is no different to any other battery,

It is extremely different which is the point being missed.

Taking some actual projects:

Victorian Big Battery (in operation) = 300 MW / 450 MWh

Torrens Island Battery (under construction) = 250 MW / 250 MWh

Liddell Battery (approved for construction) = 500 MW / 2000 MWh

Jeeralang Battery (proposed) = 350 MW / 1400 MWh

Snowy 2.0 = ~2000 MW / 350,000 MWh.

That there is the difference.

Batteries or hydro can both easily store a bit of energy sufficient to run for an hour or four.

Storing sufficient energy to run for a week, or even just overnight, without charging is beyond the economic limits of batteries at the present time however. At present that's the domain of either hydro or a combustion based facility.

That's what the debate comes down two.

Wind and solar will be built that's a given.

Batteries for short duration peak power will also be built that's a given.

The debate is about how to deal with extended periods of low wind + solar output. In one camp are the advocates for long duration hydro storage. In the other camp are the advocates for gas turbines (or alternatively internal combustion engines). That's what it comes down to in practice, hydro or gas turbines.

Chart shows wind and solar output for the past 7 days in NSW:

Note what happened on the night of 21 - 22 March 2022. A full 12 hours of essentially no wind or solar generation.

Here's the same period for Victoria:

Note the same problem at the same time.

Filling those gaps, and worse if it's heavily overcast during the previous or following day, is what the issue is about. Batteries can't do that at present, hydro or gas turbines can. Bearing in mind that's just the past 7 days which was by no means a worst case scenario.

At present the gap is filled simply by using existing fossil fuel plant:

However with a large portion of the fossil fleet about to close that option is being removed permanently, requiring that either new fossil fuel plant be built or that large storage hydro be built as an alternative.

Noting there that the next to go, Liddell unit 3, has just 7 days left until closure and there goes 420 MW of coal plant permanently shut.

Another 1260 MW of coal plant in NSW shuts next year.

Then there's 2880 MW at Eraring that Origin could, if they really wanted to, keep running into the 2030's (the technical limit) but for economic reasons they'd prefer to pull the pin in 2025.

Yallourn in Victoria, 1480 MW closing in 2028.

Then there's 1320 MW at Vales Point closing in 2029.

Then there's 2740 MW at Bayswater closing 2033. Could get another 4 or so years out of it if pushed but that would be it. Ballarat (30 MW / 30 MWh) and Gannawarra (25 MW / 50 MWh) batteries in Victoria both currently estimated to cease operation that year too.

So it's a case of either building long duration storage (in practice with present tech that's hydro), building new fossil fuel plant, or getting used to sitting in the dark.

Is Snowy 2.0 the best project?

I haven't and won't claim that since to determine it, every other possible hydro site would need to be assessed and government would need to make a decision on whether "net zero" is really a goer or not given that anything built today will be in operation for decades to come.

What can be said though is that Snowy 2.0 is a real, actual proposal of which there's a scarcity. If it wasn't built then, in practice, gas turbines would almost certainly be the real world alternative given the lack of interest in building hydro from most.

For the record if it were up to me then assuming SH2 stacked up versus a full costing of the others possible schemes then I'd have built it later by a few years. That however is a hypothetical scenario assuming I had the authority to ram it through at the time without debate. Since that's not reality, and even government doesn't really exercise that sort of authority in practice, it's better to err on the side of caution and be a bit early since the public will be out with the pitchforks if the lights go out in Sydney in particular.

For new plant in NSW, current official timing:

Kurri Kurri = Summer 2023 - 24 for the whole facility (660 MW)

Tallawarra B = Summer 2023 - 24 for the whole facility (314 MW)

Snowy 2.0:

Summer 2025 - 26 for 666 MW
Winter 2026 for 1332 MW
Summer 2026-27 for 1998 MW

Snowy 2.0 machines are 6 x 340 MW but for practical operation Snowy Hydro's rating them at nominally 333 MW each.

Closures:

Liddell #3 (420 MW) = 1 April 2022
Liddell #1, #2, #4 (1260 MW) = 1 April 2023
Eraring all units (2880 MW) = 19 August 2025
Vales Point all units (1320 MW) = 2029
Bayswater all units (2740 MW) = 2033
Mt Piper all units (last coal plant in NSW) (1430 MW) = 2040

Timing data from AEMO

Add the above all together and there's plenty of room to build batteries and so on as well, Snowy isn't grabbing the whole market by any means.

 

[sptrawler]

Nice effort @Smurf1976 , but wasting your time, the last thing @Humid will be able to understand is anything resembling technical information, he has already shown that.
There is no chance he would be able to get his head around the difference between 2,000MWh and 350,000MWh, he would be saying WTF is MWH some sort of flightless bird?
You have explained the issue endlessly, it isn't about him wanting information, you have already done that, it is about him thinking he is furthering Labors cause.
When in reality all he is doing is showing intelligent people, why not to vote for them, misguided help labor would call it.