This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

The future of energy generation and storage

Jump to new
sptrawler said:
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
Click to expand...
A core problem in all of this is that the market structure itself doesn't really facilitate this sort of thing, having been designed around the assumption of a predominantly fossil fuel based system.

If as a society we don't want that, if we don't want a predominantly fossil fuel based system, then either we need a market design that works with that OR we have to accept financial losses and fund it by some other means. Making it work with the present market isn't impossible but it does involve a lot of driving whilst looking in the mirror, it's a back to front approach to some of it.

I expect we'll see reform of the market design itself for that reason, it'll be too costly not to.
 
SirRumpole said:
We should recognise that natural inflow , ie rain that fill storages is essentially free energy and should be factored in to the equation.
Click to expand...
Snowy 2.0 is complex in that regard.

Tantangara Reservoir (existing) is the upper storage and that does receive natural inflows, presently sent to Lake Eucumbene for storage and from there released either in a northerly direction via Tumut 1 (then Tumut 2, Tumut 3 and Blowering) power stations or alternatively at the southern end Murray 1 then Murray 2.

Sending that water via SH2 dumps it straight into Talbingo Reservoir (existing) which is the storage for Tumut 3, located below Tumut 2. That is, the water runs via SH2 instead of to Eucumbene and then via Tumut 1 and 2.

As a storage scheme there's no major issue there.

In terms of the natural inflow however the gain is relatively minor. It will yield a bit more energy sending it via SH2 due to higher head but the difference isn't huge and as such, the additional natural energy (as distinct from stored energy or peak power) contribution is small.

Back during the original design and planning of the scheme the idea of a power station between Tantangara and Talbingo was considered but, in the context of the needs of the time and then foreseeable future, was rejected and the water simply sent to Eucumbene instead.

 
The reality is that the coal generators, want to close a lot earlier than stated, to do that a lot more medium to long term storage will be required.
Not many are stepping up to put it in, plenty want to put in batteries, but very few want to install bulk storage.
I think AGL is going to do something left field, time will tell, but something other than Snowy 2 and Kurri Kurri needs to happen, there will be money to be made if you can work out what it is IMO.
 
No drinkin offshore pops and very limited internet access
Get as technical as you like but it's easier to follow the money with governments

The federal government’s massive Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro project appears to have cleared all regulatory hurdles after being granted federal environmental approvals on Tuesday – just days before a key by-election in the local electorate of Eden-Monaro.
 
That's interesting, I thought it would be well past the environmental approval stage.
With regard the technical side, the Eastern States grid will need a lot more long duration storage than Snowy 2.0, they are also increasing the Tassie storage and upgrading Tasmania to mainland link with a second cable, but for any chance of having anywhere like 100% renewables they will need several more Snowy 2.0 size hydro facilities IMO.
So really all the ranting and chanting is pointless, if they want renewables, they will require a lot of pumped hydro. With the amount of flooding happening over East, a lot of pumped hydro could be incorporated with flood mitigation infrastructure.
But IMO people have two options if they want clean energy, a lot more pumped hydro, or some nuclear.
 
Last edited:
It is was meant to be finished
I was showing the announcement coincidentally just before the by- election
 
And now, a slight diversion.

Atmospheric electricity. Pretty impractical now, but who knows in the future.

 
sptrawler said:
The reality is that the coal generators, want to close a lot earlier than stated
Click to expand...
Indeed. The dates I've stated are the present official ones but it's no secret that the risk is of closure being moved forward not back.

Another risk is that of an incident. Whilst I'm not predicting anything specific, bottom line is things can and do happen and if you're closing permanently in 3 years well spending $100 million or $200 million on a repair job, for a facility that's struggling to break even at 0% return on investment and with plant already fully written off, is a shockingly bad investment. That scenario could well bring a very sudden closure or two.

Then there's gas. There'll be a report out shortly which may, um, err, you know.... That cartoon with the guy's hair standing on end as he spits coffee out and all that.....

Then there's this:

Chill wind: Major renewable energy investor says wind farm ruling to have 'disastrous' effect

One of Australia's biggest renewable energy investors says a court's decision to uphold complaints against a Victorian wind farm will have "serious ramifications" for the transition from fossil fuels.
www.abc.net.au

Specific detail aside, I'll draw attention to this quote:

The narrative around what can be done and how it can be done, in my opinion, is being oversimplified to the community.
Click to expand...

That quote's from Jeff Dimery.

Now for those not aware, Jeff's not some random engineer who's unhappy they're not allowed to dam Sydney Harbour for a hydro scheme and he's not some grassroots environmentalist who's unhappy that coal wasn't completely eliminated 30 years ago. Rather, Jeff is in the CEO of Alinta, the fourth largest non-government operator of power generation in Australia after AGL, Origin and Energy Australia.

Obviously he's got his own biases in line with what's best for the company he runs but it's an extremely valid point in my view. Government and the media between them have done a shockingly bad job of informing the general public about all this.

OK, so it's not a subject that's of major interest to most of the population but it is one that has nonetheless been in the news almost constantly for more than a decade and which has played at least some role in every federal election or change of PM during that time. It's one of those things that's become somewhat inescapable so the least government and the media ought to be able to do is give the public the facts.

That doesn't mean picking winners, eg saying that Snowy 2.0 is good or bad, but it does mean explaining what the options are and why a project of that nature is one of them, what it involves and so on. It wouldn't be hard to go through the basic options, sticking to the facts and just listing the pros and cons of each so as to inform the public what the choices actually are.
 
Humid said:
The federal government announced the Snowy 2.0 project without a market assessment, cost-benefit analysis or indeed even a feasibility study.

Basics
Click to expand...
Isn't that what happened with the NBN, just saying.

If something needs doing, it just becomes a case of who does it, on a cost base analysis, pumped hydro is expensive and is why the public sector isn't interested and why it will be up to the Governments to build it.

Basics.?
 
I'm on the NBN now when will I get access to snowy power in WA Homer?
 
Humid said:
As I said before you don't need to understand just follow the money.
Click to expand...
As I said before, you need to stick to topics, you have at least a modicum of knowledge in, rather than blurting out rubbish you have no understanding of.
Just to troll people.

In this thread even as recently as yesterday, we are saying that coal is on a massive downer and isn't worth operating. The next government will have to subsidies coal as well, to keep the lights on, what will you say then you dill?
 
sptrawler said:
As I said before, you need to stick to topics, you have at least a modicum of knowledge in, rather than blurting out rubbish you have no understanding of.
Just to troll people.
Click to expand...
Smurf post about the lack of public knowledge so in the attached article I posted contains this if you bothered to read it.

The feasibility study was published shortly before Christmas and the final investment decision is expected by the end of 2018. All economic analysis has been excluded from the public version of the feasibility
 
What are you talking about now, Whitehaven coal, or Snowy 2.0 ?
Your attached article in #5,735 is about Whitehaven coal, but what your referring to doesn't make sense in that context.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gen Alpha
Replies
13
Views
758
moXJO
M
Electricity investments
Replies
8
Views
503
Smurf1976
The Effect of Deepseek on Australian Stocks
Replies
7
Views
595
Smurf1976
SS1 - Sun Silver
2
Replies
27
Views
5K
Sean K
PGTX - Platinum Global Transition Fund
Replies
1
Views
628
Dona Ferentes
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...