The future of energy generation and storage

[Smurf1976]

I think every one in the energy industry understands that wind and solar are intermittent, hence the whole idea in the chart is that Natural Gas usage will grow, and will pumped hydro and battery storage, and what ever residual coal capacity that exists will continue being used.

Everyone in the industry understands it.

Everyone in the industry just wishes the politicians and media either understood it or listened to those who do.

On the inside, the only real debate about the long term comes down to the means of providing deep firming. That is, in practice, gas versus hydro.

Unsurprisingly gas companies argue for the use of gas as the means of doing it whilst hydro companies argue for the use of hydro. No surprises there but that's where any real debate exists, the rest's relatively certain.

In the context of EV's, so long as they're charged outside the peaks then bottom line is an EV uses far less oil or gas than does a comparable internal combustion driven vehicle. That they're imperfect doesn't stop them being an improvement.

If people do charge them during the peaks well that would be a problem definitely. That's an area where a degree of force will need to be applied. The days of flat rate electricity tariffs are numbered, very much so.

As for chargers, well unless someone travels long distances on consecutive days then they simply have no need for rapid charging. Even if they do travel 400km on one day, that's just not an issue if they're only driving 20km the following day. Charging at a modest rate will do the job - very few people fill their car with petrol on a daily basis after all.

Suffice to say I won't be installing a 22kW or similar charger at home simply because I've no need to do so. In the unlikely event that I'm travelling huge distances on two consecutive days, that would be in the context of staying somewhere other than home overnight so there's simply no benefit in high rate charging at home.

 

[qldfrog]

Everyone in the industry understands it.

Everyone in the industry just wishes the politicians and media either understood it or listened to those who do.

On the inside, the only real debate about the long term comes down to the means of providing deep firming. That is, in practice, gas versus hydro.

Unsurprisingly gas companies argue for the use of gas as the means of doing it whilst hydro companies argue for the use of hydro. No surprises there but that's where any real debate exists, the rest's relatively certain.

In the context of EV's, so long as they're charged outside the peaks then bottom line is an EV uses far less oil or gas than does a comparable internal combustion driven vehicle. That they're imperfect doesn't stop them being an improvement.

If people do charge them during the peaks well that would be a problem definitely. That's an area where a degree of force will need to be applied. The days of flat rate electricity tariffs are numbered, very much so.

As for chargers, well unless someone travels long distances on consecutive days then they simply have no need for rapid charging. Even if they do travel 400km on one day, that's just not an issue if they're only driving 20km the following day. Charging at a modest rate will do the job - very few people fill their car with petrol on a daily basis after all.

Suffice to say I won't be installing a 22kW or similar charger at home simply because I've no need to do so. In the unlikely event that I'm travelling huge distances on two consecutive days, that would be in the context of staying somewhere other than home overnight so there's simply no benefit in high rate charging at home.

Just one point i want to moderate is your notion of high charging caoacity.
The current standards for rechargong as i research these in 2022 are
#Just plug standard power point.. trickle charging..13 h or so hours to recharge fully on a 350 km range....forget it based on users general feedback..but yes can be done..not impossible i agree
#Most common chargers:
7kwh can recharge a fully depleted battery in 7h or so for std EV.,45 to 50kwh capacity.battery plenty enough for normal use..that is needed and remains a must have..if EVs develop,that will become the norm imho.
It is still called a high capacity charger,on its own will consume more than what your std solar PV setup produce and will cost the EV owner an extra 2k to install.
#More powerful chargers? Probably indeed nor possible nor needed for domestic setups

 

[Value Collector]

Everyone in the industry understands it.

Everyone in the industry just wishes the politicians and media either understood it or listened to those who do.

On the inside, the only real debate about the long term comes down to the means of providing deep firming. That is, in practice, gas versus hydro.

Unsurprisingly gas companies argue for the use of gas as the means of doing it whilst hydro companies argue for the use of hydro. No surprises there but that's where any real debate exists, the rest's relatively certain.

In the context of EV's, so long as they're charged outside the peaks then bottom line is an EV uses far less oil or gas than does a comparable internal combustion driven vehicle. That they're imperfect doesn't stop them being an improvement.

If people do charge them during the peaks well that would be a problem definitely. That's an area where a degree of force will need to be applied. The days of flat rate electricity tariffs are numbered, very much so.

As for chargers, well unless someone travels long distances on consecutive days then they simply have no need for rapid charging. Even if they do travel 400km on one day, that's just not an issue if they're only driving 20km the following day. Charging at a modest rate will do the job - very few people fill their car with petrol on a daily basis after all.

Suffice to say I won't be installing a 22kW or similar charger at home simply because I've no need to do so. In the unlikely event that I'm travelling huge distances on two consecutive days, that would be in the context of staying somewhere other than home overnight so there's simply no benefit in high rate charging at home.

I think that at the rate that Coal is predicted to decline we are going to need both Hydro and gas firming.

I don’t know about you, but I think that if EV adoption takes off (probably inevitable), and smart charging and electricity storage becomes wise spread, I believe the returns on capital invested in the electricity sector are going to be very attractive.

The biggest blocker of more wind and solar projects being green lit has been the low wholesale prices during the day for solar and during the night for wind, being able to sell all the wind power you generate at a decent price for an extra 8 hours a day really boost the return on capital of projects, so the more EV’s the better for companies like APA that own the firming and are investing in new renewables and transmission.

 

[JohnDe]

The Snowy 2.0 pumped-hydro was pointless during the heavy rains and flooding, because it would have worsened current flooding.

https://www.abc.net.au/radionationa...TFVNhAvBXqJlr0gZETHZNxf08KQC50Eajfg&fs=e&s=cl

 

[Value Collector]

The Snowy 2.0 pumped-hydro was pointless during the heavy rains and flooding, because it would have worsened current flooding.

https://www.abc.net.au/radionationa...TFVNhAvBXqJlr0gZETHZNxf08KQC50Eajfg&fs=e&s=cl

I haven’t listened to the 29min link yet, but what was their main point? Snowy 2.0 is just designed to pump water uphill when there is excess electricity available and allow it to run down hill later when extra power is needed, it wasn’t intended to provide flood mitigation.

Is their argument just that when the lower dam is spilling that releasing from the higher dam would add to water flow, if that’s all they are worried about I don’t see that as a major problem, just temporary Inconvenience, it’s still going to be a huge plus to grid security for the other 99.9% of the time when there isn’t flooding.

 

[JohnDe]

I haven’t listened to the 29min link yet, but what was their main point? Snowy 2.0 is just designed to pump water uphill when there is excess electricity available and allow it to run down hill later when extra power is needed, it wasn’t intended to provide flood mitigation.

Is their argument just that when the lower dam is spilling that releasing from the higher dam would add to water flow, if that’s all they are worried about I don’t see that as a major problem, just temporary Inconvenience, it’s still going to be a huge plus to grid security for the other 99.9% of the time when there isn’t flooding.

Well it is always a good idea to do some research before giving advice, especially when the resource has been given

The lower dam is full.

News report, 10 days ago -

In recent weeks electricity provider Snowy Hydro has been called on to increase production from its Tumut 3 Power Station....

Snowy Hydro has said on its website it is "significantly constrained" due to current water levels in Blowering Dam — the Water NSW-managed dam from which the Tumut River flows, and the final storage in the company's Tumut section of the Snowy scheme.

Blowering has almost reached full capacity due to recent heavy rain, but in order for Snowy Hydro to make power out of Tumut 3 Power Station it has to pump water that ends up in the reservoir.

"It is possible Blowering Reservoir will fill and spill, potentially exceeding the Tumut River channel capacity," Snowy Hydro said.

As Snowy Hydro ramps up production amid power crisis, nearby farmers fear discharge flooding

Further water releases from the Snowy Hydro and the Tumut River channel already at capacity have farmers downstream concerned, one saying there should have been better planning before now.

www.abc.net.au

 

[SirRumpole]

The ins and outs of tidal power.

 

[Value Collector]

Well it is always a good idea to do some research before giving advice, especially when the resource has been given

The lower dam is full.

News report, 10 days ago -

I just listened to your 29 min “resource” it doesn’t talk about the Snowy hydro 2.0 project in regards to flooding, it is talking about the existing snowy hydro scheme, so yes maybe you do need to do some research to understand your own link before posting it.

The 29 mins is not really very informative at all, it’s basically 29 mins of alarmist, cynical and political sound bites that don’t really give the listener any information of actual merit, I would say it’s more for entertainment value to those who enjoy being cynical and pessimistic rather than those actually interested in educating themselves about the system.

But in regards to blowering dam being full and flooding the snowy 2.0 pumped hydro scheme, when it’s actually up and running in the future, could actually take water out of the blowering system/catchment and store it in another dam so may actually have minor flood mitigation potential, in the future.

 

[JohnDe]

I just listened to your 29 min “resource” it doesn’t talk about the Snowy hydro 2.0 project in regards to flooding, it is talking about the existing snowy hydro scheme, so yes maybe you do need to do some research to understand your own link before posting it.

The 29 mins is not really very informative at all, it’s basically 29 mins of alarmist, cynical and political sound bites that don’t really give the listener any information of actual merit, I would say it’s more for entertainment value to those who enjoy being cynical and pessimistic rather than those actually interested in educating themselves about the system.

But in regards to blowering dam being full and flooding the snowy 2.0 pumped hydro scheme, when it’s actually up and running in the future, could actually take water out of the blowering system/catchment and store it in another dam so may actually have minor flood mitigation potential, in the future.

Wording, sorry. At the 17:25 minute mark "the thing that really crippled, us which not many people art talking about, was the fact that Snowy Hydro couldn't drop enough water to generate emergency effectively hydro electric power because the Blowering Dam is full. And because of that unit 3 couldn't generate, because they couldn't drop the water to generate electricity because they would have caused wide spread flooding."

Your statement - "snowy 2.0 pumped hydro scheme, when it’s actually up and running in the future, could actually take water out of the blowering system/catchment and store it in another dam so may actually have minor flood mitigation potential", does not make sense.

How will the team at Snowy 2.0, know when to keep the upper dam empty to allow them to take water from the lower dam to reduce it's capacity during flooding periods?
And if they can predict the exact time this is required, won't this cause the same problem that they just had? Not able to drop the water down to generate emergency electricity because of wide spread flooding.
Finally, if they keep the upper dam empty during flood periods and we continue to have electricity shortages, how will they pump the water to the top without using power from the grid during power shortages?

 

[Value Collector]

How will the team at Snowy 2.0, know when to keep the upper dam empty to allow them to take water from the lower dam to reduce it's capacity during flooding periods?

Firstly, flood management is not the primary goal of Snowy 2.0.

But, its Top dam will very rarely be full, it is absolutely Huge, it would take over a week of pumping 24 hours a day to fill it.

And if they can predict the exact time this is required, won't this cause the same problem that they just had? Not able to drop the water down to generate emergency electricity because of wide spread flooding.

You are assuming that the need for emergency power happens at the same time as the heavy rain event, that is definitely not always going to be the case, just because its raining heavily in the snowy mountains doesn't mean that its not windy or sunny across other parts of the country, this recent "Crisis" was caused by coal plants shutting down, as renewables catch up this is going to a much smaller issue.

Finally, if they keep the upper dam empty during flood periods and we continue to have electricity shortages, how will they pump the water to the top without using power from the grid during power shortages?

They won't be keeping the upper dam empty, they will be pumping into it it when ever there is spare electricity on the grid, some times this will align with times of flooding and the pumping will have a positive impact and reduce the severity, sometimes they won't be pumping during floods in which case the flood will just be what it is and snowy 2.0 will be neither a negative or positive in regards to flooding.

Just because you have an "energy crisis" between 4pm and 8pm, doesn't mean that you won't have extra electricity 6 hours later between 12am and 6am that you can use to pump.

But over all the system of many dams in the snowy does prevent a lot of flooding events and drought by smoothing out flow, But yeah sometimes its electrical generation is limited during these heavy rain periods, but they other 99.9% of the time its providing a huge boost to our green energy production, and Snowy 2.0 is going to be an even bigger boost to wind and solar.

 

[JohnDe]

Firstly, flood management is not the primary goal of Snowy 2.0.

I never said that or implied it. My very first comment (editied for you) was -
"The Snowy hydro generator was pointless during the heavy rains and flooding, because it would have worsened current flooding."
And I backed it up with a reference from experts in the field, including Tina Soloman Hunter is professor of constitutional law and energy and resources law at Macquarie university. She's also the director of the Centre for Energy, Natural Resources, Innovation and Transformation at Macquarie University.
https://www.abc.net.au/radionationa...TFVNhAvBXqJlr0gZETHZNxf08KQC50Eajfg&fs=e&s=cl

But, its Top dam will very rarely be full, it is absolutely Huge, it would take over a week of pumping 24 hours a day to fill it.

"absolutely huge" is it? tell that the NSW's going through their third flood in the same year. "This is the third flood here in 12 months,"

You are assuming that the need for emergency power happens at the same time as the heavy rain event,

No I am not, I just gave an example of one of our major electricity generators going off line during a major weather incident, that's all.

 

[Value Collector]

I never said that or implied it. My very first comment (editied for you) was -
"The Snowy hydro generator was pointless during the heavy rains and flooding, because it would have worsened current flooding."
And I backed it up with a reference from experts in the field, including Tina Soloman Hunter is professor of constitutional law and energy and resources law at Macquarie university. She's also the director of the Centre for Energy, Natural Resources, Innovation and Transformation at Macquarie University.
https://www.abc.net.au/radionationa...TFVNhAvBXqJlr0gZETHZNxf08KQC50Eajfg&fs=e&s=cl



"absolutely huge" is it? tell that the NSW's going through their third flood in the same year. "This is the third flood here in 12 months,"




No I am not, I just gave an example of one of our major electricity generators going off line during a major weather incident, that's all.

You are a bit all over the place with your comments, you seem to be saying one thing, then when I address it you switch to a different thing then when I address that you switch back.

Let me try and clear up some of the points below.

————-

Yes, Snowy Hydro 2.0’s top dam is huge, it takes about 175 hours (7 full days) of pumping to fill it, which would be about a month of pumping, with no draw downs if it pumped for 6 hours a days compared to other pumped hydro which have much smaller capacity.

No, this project is not designed for flood mitigation although this could be a side benefit sometimes if pumping aligns with periods of heavy rain fall that’s causing the lower dam to spill.

Neither of the facts in the above two paragraphs have anything to do with previous floods this year because Snowy 2.0 is still under construction.

Yes floods still occur, of course they do, the area has always been subject to flooding both before and after the dams were constructed.

No, the dams can not prevent 100% of flooding.

Yes, the dams can and do provide some flood mitigation.

No, the dams can not produce electricity at 100% capacity during high rainfall events.

Yes, at the 99.9% of other times when it’s not flooding the snowy scheme is a great source of electricity generation and storage.

 

[JohnDe]

You are a bit all over the place with your comments, you seem to be saying one thing, then when I address it you switch to a different thing then when I address that you switch back.

That's funny, I was thinking the same about how you hound everyone with your comments.

Let me try and clear up some of the points below.

————-

Yes, Snowy Hydro 2.0’s top dam is huge, it takes about 175 hours (7 full days) of pumping to fill it, which would be about a month of pumping, with no draw downs if it pumped for 6 hours a days compared to other pumped hydro which have much smaller capacity.

Huge it could almost be a metaphor in this situation. Huge, extremely large; enormous.
Is the sky that the rain fell from that caused widespread flooding, three times in one year, "huge" or is it gigantic, humungous?

I don't care how "huge" the top dam is, my original point was, and still is, in relation to electricity. When the electricity was required to support a failing system, Snowy could not be used. And as the audio points out, Snowy alone is not enough to support our electricity supply/grid.

It is true that the flooding has been extreme. Just like it is true that we are going through an environment change that has seen more and more regular flooding.

Why you keep bringing flood mitigation into this is unknown to me, only you keep mentioning it. I can only guess that you are falling on old habits.

And now that you have got me looking further into Snowy 2.0, I now believe it to be a waste of our tax dollars. Five years on, Snowy 2.0 emerges as a $10 billion white elephant

Imagine what could have been done to prepare the national electricity grid with $10 billion.

How did it come to this — the energy crisis we had to have?​

 

[Value Collector]

That's funny, I was thinking the same about how you hound everyone with your comments.




Huge it could almost be a metaphor in this situation. Huge, extremely large; enormous.
Is the sky that the rain fell from that caused widespread flooding, three times in one year, "huge" or is it gigantic, humungous?

I don't care how "huge" the top dam is, my original point was, and still is, in relation to electricity. When the electricity was required to support a failing system, Snowy could not be used. And as the audio points out, Snowy alone is not enough to support our electricity supply/grid.

It is true that the flooding has been extreme. Just like it is true that we are going through an environment change that has seen more and more regular flooding.

Why you keep bringing flood mitigation into this is unknown to me, only you keep mentioning it. I can only guess that you are falling on old habits.

And now that you have got me looking further into Snowy 2.0, I now believe it to be a waste of our tax dollars. Five years on, Snowy 2.0 emerges as a $10 billion white elephant

Imagine what could have been done to prepare the national electricity grid with $10 billion.

How did it come to this — the energy crisis we had to have?​

As I said you are all over the place, and this post is even more so.

Go back and re-read our discussion from your first mention of Snowy 2.0, you will see you first comment doesn’t make sense because as you later realised you were actually talking about the existing snowy scheme not 2.0.

Then you started confusing and arguing about my comments about 2.0 with the existing snowy scheme, rather than look at the facts I was saying in context to what I was actually commenting on and the question I was answering.

Anyway, as I said you should re-read the discussion slowly and you will see where you went wrong.

———————
In regards to 2.0 being huge or not, Snowy 2.0 will store energy equivalent to 3,500 Of south Australia’s big Tesla battery, and the Tesla Battery cost $116 Million, so it would cost over $400 Billion to match Snowy 2.0 with Tesla batteries, so even if cost blow out to $10 Billion it’s not that bad.

it will be able to output over half of Victoria coal generation or more electricity than Tasmania’s current hydro generation for 7 days straight, now I consider that a huge battery.

Can it run Australia all by itself, no offcourse not no single project can.

 

[Smurf1976]

7kwh can recharge a fully depleted battery in 7h or so for std EV.,45 to 50kwh capacity.battery plenty enough for normal use..that is needed and remains a must have..if EVs develop,that will become the norm imho.

An issue there is managing them intelligently.

An individual vehicle might be low on charge and need to run at a solid 7kW for hours but on any given night most don't, the average car is only driven ~35km or so each day after all.

So what's really needed there is a smart approach. Instead of them all turning on at once then some are off in under an hour, it's far more practical on the energy supply side if those only needing to put (for example) 5kWh into the car either do so at a slow trickle rate all night, or they don't start until 3am. Etc.

The idea there being to avoid a huge spike when they all turn on given that for most vehicles there'll be no actual need to do that, on any given night most are only going to need a top up.

 

[Smurf1976]

think that at the rate that Coal is predicted to decline we are going to need both Hydro and gas firming.

In theory it could be done all with one or the other.

In practice I totally agree - both will be used.

There's a lot of ideological debate there, some oppose any use of fossil fuels in principle no matter how trivial whilst others get the pitchforks out the moment anyone even mentions the word "hydro", but ultimately it's one or the other with present technology and economics.

It's also a reality that we already have some existing hydro, and Snowy 2.0 under construction, and once built hydro is effectively permanent so long as it's maintained. Gas-fired generation has a finite life but again we do have a significant existing asset base, much of it with a lifespan extending 15+ years from now and some of it beyond that. So both will be used, only real question's about the new things built.

 

[JohnDe]

As I said you are all over the place, and this post is even more so.

Go back and re-read our discussion from your first mention of Snowy 2.0, you will see you first comment doesn’t make sense because as you later realised you were actually talking about the existing snowy scheme not 2.0.

Then you started confusing and arguing about my comments about 2.0 with the existing snowy scheme, rather than look at the facts I was saying in context to what I was actually commenting on and the question I was answering.

Anyway, as I said you should re-read the discussion slowly and you will see where you went wrong.

———————
In regards to 2.0 being huge or not, Snowy 2.0 will store energy equivalent to 3,500 Of south Australia’s big Tesla battery, and the Tesla Battery cost $116 Million, so it would cost over $400 Billion to match Snowy 2.0 with Tesla batteries, so even if cost blow out to $10 Billion it’s not that bad.

it will be able to output over half of Victoria coal generation or more electricity than Tasmania’s current hydro generation for 7 days straight, now I consider that a huge battery.

Can it run Australia all

Simple mistake, I thought you might have been able to understand a simple sentence. I’ll edit it for you -

The Snowy hydro was pointless during the heavy rains and flooding, because it would have exacerbated the flooding. Listen to an industry expert, starting at the 17:25 minute mark -

https://www.abc.net.au/radionationa...TFVNhAvBXqJlr0gZETHZNxf08KQC50Eajfg&fs=e&s=cl


And for your beloved Snowy 2.0 -

Snowy Hydro now expects completion in 10 years, not four, by 2026. Some experts consider even this extended timeframe to be optimistic. Construction of the tunnels is running at least six months behind the latest schedule and the transmission connection is unlikely to be built by 2026 anyway. The all-up cost has increased at least five-fold, to $10 billion-plus, as energy experts warned the Prime Minister and the then NSW premier in 2020.

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.

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.

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.

And on the final claim of minimal environmental impact to Kosciuszko National Park, vast areas have already been cleared, blasted, reshaped and compacted. Hundreds of kilometres of roads and tracks are being constructed, twenty million tonnes of excavated spoil will be dumped (astoundingly, mainly in Snowy Hydro’s reservoirs), and noxious fish will be transferred throughout the Snowy Mountains and the headwaters of the Murrumbidgee, Murray and Snowy Rivers, devastating native fish and trout. The NSW government has even agreed to issue exemptions to its own legislation to override the prohibition of such pest fish transfers – an astonishing precedent.

The massive cost and environmental impacts of Snowy 2.0 cannot be justified for providing occasional longer-term storage.

The latest revelation in this dismal saga is the proposal for four high-voltage transmission lines through eight kilometres of Kosciuszko National Park with a cleared easement swath up to 200 metres wide. The statutory plan of management that controls activities in Kosciuszko expressly prohibits the construction of new overhead transmission lines, as is the norm with national parks in Australia and throughout the developed world. Reprehensibly, the NSW government has released a draft amendment to exempt Snowy 2.0 from having to install underground cables.

Despite Snowy 2.0’s abysmal track record over the past five years, the Commonwealth and NSW governments continue to bend over backwards with billion-dollar subsidies (and more to come), electricity price increases and environmental exemptions, despite conclusive evidence that the project is fundamentally flawed and can never pay for itself.

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.
There is no cause for celebrating today’s fifth anniversary. With another five or so years to go, it is sobering to take stock and review how we got into this mess and what can be done, even at this advanced stage, to limit the ramifications.

 

[Smurf1976]

But in regards to blowering dam being full and flooding the snowy 2.0 pumped hydro scheme

So far as the discussion about Snowy 2.0 is concerned, I'll note that a lot comes down to the water license under which Snowy Hydro operates.

In short, that license compels Snowy to release rather a lot of water whether it's needed downstream or not. Read it, and it's a pretty lengthy document, and the overall tone and language is very much in a context of making sure that Snowy Hydro doesn't hoard water and must let it out. The idea that it would be better to not let it out isn't there to anywhere near the same extent.

That's a political construct that came from politicians, it's not something which came from Snowy or the electricity industry.

If it were up to me, I'd have it changed real quick. There's simply no benefit, to agriculture, town water supply or electricity generation from having the bottom dams (Blowering and Hume) full or spilling whilst the headwater storages (Tantangara, Eucumbene, Jindabyne) are low. From a water management perspective that's nuts.

Far more sensible to would be to focus on water release at the outlet points, that is discharge from Hume and Blowering, and store the water as far upstream as possible. Had that been done the water being spilled would have been 100% retained in storage upstream, primarily in Lake Eucumbene, and no flooding issue associated with release from Blowering would have arisen recently.

At present the focus is on putting water into Hume and Blowering, via release through the Murray 2 and Tumut 3 (and then partially through Jounama) power stations respectively, which somewhat misses the point if it's then simply spilled downstream.

How did that happen one might wonder? Well suffice to say that Snowy Hydro owns everything upstream of those points, Murray 2 and Jounama, whilst the NSW government owns Blowering dam and the associated reservoir (though Snowy operates the power station) and the Murray Darling Basin Authority owns Hume (though Meridien operates the power station). Also upstream, ultimately discharging water towards Hume, are operations managed separately by the MDBA, Victorian state government and by AGL.

Or in much simpler terms, the complexities of who owns things and who has jurisdiction over what has trumped common sense due to politics. Noting that it's an extremely contentious issue there - politicians have been arguing about this one for a century now.

Fundamentally the spill at Blowering this winter is a limitation of politics not of engineering or the as-built assets of the Snowy scheme.

Happy to go into more detail if anyone wants data but perhaps in another thread - managing water's getting a long way off the topic of electric cars.

 

[Smurf1976]

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

Fossil fuels are the only alternative actually on the table with present technology and economics.

Now where the trouble starts is that some will argue that the hydro project is bad and that we should use an alternative.

Others will then argue the moment someone starts drilling for gas off the coast of NSW or in the Great Australian Bight or starts hydraulic fracturing onshore in NSW or the NT. They'll say that gas is bad and we should use an alternative.

Ultimately though it's one or the other. At least it is unless someone's willing to throw a few $ hundred billion at it to subsidise other methods that work technically but not economically. Trouble is, do that and then some other group will argue that government should instead be spending on hospitals, education, roads or whatever.

There's no easy answer with energy. Never has been and probably never will be. Hence we've had 50 years now of public debate first against both hydro and gas, then against nuclear, then later against coal and in favour of gas, now it's back against gas and somewhat more favourable to hydro.

Kosciusko, Lake Pedder, Newport Power Station, Jervis Bay, the Lower Gordon dam in any of its possible locations, uranium mining anywhere, petrol octane boosters, vehicle emissions controls, drilling the Barrier Reef, drilling the Great Australian Bight, ethanol, coal anywhere, drilling off the coast of NSW near Sydney and so on. Some ultimately went ahead, some didn't, all highly controversial at the time and some still are today.

Even wind farms and transmission lines stir up controversy. Heck even rooftop solar panels are contentious in some areas.

And of course now we can add electric vehicles to that list of controversies. Some see benefits with urban air quality and shifting away from the use of oil. Others argue that burning oil beats some other source of energy such that there's no benefit to be had.

Choose your poison but ultimately there's no "do nothing" option unless we're going to go back to the stone age. Even that would, of course, be highly controversial in itself.

I've commented here since it's already in the thread but I do think that, from an investment and practical perspective, how to generate the power to supply EV's is a different subject to EV's themselves given the former ultimately relates to all electricity uses.

 

[JohnDe]

So far as the discussion about Snowy 2.0 is concerned, I'll note that a lot comes down to the water license under which Snowy Hydro operates.

In short, that license compels Snowy to release rather a lot of water whether it's needed downstream or not. Read it, and it's a pretty lengthy document, and the overall tone and language is very much in a context of making sure that Snowy Hydro doesn't hoard water and must let it out. The idea that it would be better to not let it out isn't there to anywhere near the same extent.

That's a political construct that came from politicians, it's not something which came from Snowy or the electricity industry.

If it were up to me, I'd have it changed real quick. There's simply no benefit, to agriculture, town water supply or electricity generation from having the bottom dams (Blowering and Hume) full or spilling whilst the headwater storages (Tantangara, Eucumbene, Jindabyne) are low. From a water management perspective that's nuts.

Far more sensible to would be to focus on water release at the outlet points, that is discharge from Hume and Blowering, and store the water as far upstream as possible. Had that been done the water being spilled would have been 100% retained in storage upstream, primarily in Lake Eucumbene, and no flooding issue associated with release from Blowering would have arisen recently.

At present the focus is on putting water into Hume and Blowering, via release through the Murray 2 and Tumut 3 (and then partially through Jounama) power stations respectively, which somewhat misses the point if it's then simply spilled downstream.

How did that happen one might wonder? Well suffice to say that Snowy Hydro owns everything upstream of those points, Murray 2 and Jounama, whilst the NSW government owns Blowering dam and the associated reservoir (though Snowy operates the power station) and the Murray Darling Basin Authority owns Hume (though Meridien operates the power station). Also upstream, ultimately discharging water towards Hume, are operations managed separately by the MDBA, Victorian state government and by AGL.

Or in much simpler terms, the complexities of who owns things and who has jurisdiction over what has trumped common sense due to politics. Noting that it's an extremely contentious issue there - politicians have been arguing about this one for a century now.

Fundamentally the spill at Blowering this winter is a limitation of

Fossil fuels are the only alternative actually on the table with present technology and economics.

.

There are other options, solar & wind is free. The devices to turn them into electricity are cheaper than combustion engines. Storage devices are dropping in price all the time, and there are many options.

Have a listen to the audio that I posted this morning, which people seem to want to comment about but not take the time to listen to.

How did it come to this — the energy crisis we had to have? - ABC listen

Australia has everything it needs to produce electricity - coal, gas, sun, and wind. Yet we've wound up with energy shortages and huge price hikes. How did we get here - why is our energy system in such a mess? And what can we do to fix it?

www.abc.net.au