Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The future of energy generation and storage

Jump to new
JohnDe said:
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.
Click to expand...
TLDR

Not actually interested in discussing this with you any further, because you are just cram reading headlines and skimming some articles and thinking you know everything when I have been following this topic for a couple of years.

It’s not “My beloved snowy hydro”, I am an APA shareholder, snowy is a competitor to our gas pipelines and gas power plants, still though I think it’s going to be a solid piece of infrastructure but I have no dog in the fight.

You will always be able to find negative articles, people were saying the big Tesla battery was going to be a white elephant, and even Tesla itself, uninformed cramming of those articles written by blockheads is not an education.
 
JohnDe said:
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.

www.abc.net.au

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 www.abc.net.au
Click to expand...
I am 100% certain that Smurf will not learn anything from that 29min video that he doesn’t already know and understand on a deeper level than the people talking.

We understand wind and solar are fantastic and are going to play an ever increasing role, when Smurf says it’s a choice between gas and hydro he is talking about firming, eg filling in the gaps.

Yes batteries will play a part too, but for large scale storage you will need pumped hydro and gas to back the system up, even the podcast you linked says that.

But as I said I am not interested in any further debate with you on it, because the facts are against you, and this is off topic for this thread anyway.
 
Value Collector said:
I am 100% certain that Smurf will not learn anything from that 29min video that he doesn’t already know and understand on a deeper level than the people talking.

We understand wind and solar are fantastic and are going to play an ever increasing role, when Smurf says it’s a choice between gas and hydro he is talking about firming, eg filling in the gaps.

Yes batteries will play a part too, but for large scale storage you will need pumped hydro and gas to back the system up, even the podcast you linked says that.

But as I said I am not interested in any further debate with you on it, because the facts are against you, and this is off topic for this thread anyway.
Click to expand...

Smurf is on the right track, I’m just a bit more optimistic and believe that more and cleaner options will become available in the next few years.

I thought that you listened to the audio. They mention gas as being an interim backup for the supply and storage issues that Australia will be going through as the old coal generators go off line. Also talked about incentivising private industry to build them.

Hydro could have been Australia’s ‘huge’ battery, but a previous government stuffed it by backing the wrong horse & locking our tax dollars into a bottomless pit called Snowy 2.0 (the name should have set off alarm bells).

Tasmania is a hydro scheme designed by nature.

Does Australia need Tasmania to become a multi-billion-dollar 'Battery of the Nation'?​


Does Australia need Tasmania to become a multi-billion-dollar 'Battery of the Nation'? - ABC News

amp.abc.net.au amp.abc.net.au
 
In response to comments in another thread, here's a chart showing total wind (green) and solar (yellow) production in the NEM over the past 30 days.

For reference, the daily average over the past 12 months was 142 GWh / day which is almost equal to the 141 GWh yield on Friday 24 June as highlighted for context:

1657287198647.png


As can be seen, sustained periods of below average yield, with some days seeing very low yields, are a very real occurrence. This isn't simulated data from a modelling exercise - it's the actual real data for all wind and solar presently in the NEM. Wind farms and large scale solar is measured, small solar (household) is scaled up from a sample which is measured.

Daily average from present wind and solar facilities = 142 GWh

Thursday 23 June = 172 GWh
24 June = 141 GWh (almost the daily average over 12 months)
25 June = 147 GWh
26 June = 120 GWh
27 June = 97 GWh
28 June = 127 GWh
29 June = 122 GWh
30 June = 83 GWh
1 July = 76 GWh
2 July = 87 GWh
3 July = 133 GWh
4 July = 140 GWh
5 July = 125 GWh

Whilst some degree of overbuild can be used as a workaround, there are limits to what's practical and economic since ultimately doubling the installed base of wind or solar doubles the cost and that has to be paid 365 days a year in full.

Filling the gap in energy yield is where conventional (on river) hydro, pumped storage (eg Snowy 2.0) and other options such as gas or diesel comes in along with coal so long a that's still around.

That's about energy, a separate issue to peak power. Peak power can also make use of other means such as batteries and short duration hydro storage as a solution but such facilities with running times in the 1 - 8 hour range aren't an option to cover multiple consecutive days of inadequate yield from the wind and sun, indeed they don't really even cover a full 24 hour period.

This chart showing the past 7 days also helps put it into context. It would've been a cold and miserable night on both Tuesday - Wednesday and Wednesday - Thursday if not for other means of keeping the lights on:

1657287802385.png


Now just in case someone thinks transmission is an alternative, well we do need that but it's not an alternative without storage as a look at what happened in the neighbouring states at the same time will reveal:

1657287875690.png



1657287932178.png


1657287964240.png


It does however work just fine when it's all combined, other forms of generation offsetting the intermittency of wind and solar:

Blue = hydro
Light blue = battery
Orange = gas
Red = diesel
Black = coal
Below the zero line = battery charging and hydro pumping loads

1657288103633.png


Diesel is a bit hard to see on that chart, since there's not much of it, so here it is by itself. Note the different chart scale:

1657288263545.png


And here for the batteries. These operate on much shorter timescales, being largely used to "fine tune" supply and demand in real time. Chart resolution is 5 minutes with light blue being charging and dark blue being discharge. I've posted them separately on a state basis to avoid confusion - it's not uncommon to see charging in SA and discharging in NSW simultaneously for example, due purely to local factors, and putting them all on a single chart ends up as just a mess.

1657288483603.png


1657288618681.png


1657288640898.png
 
Value Collector said:
this is off topic for this thread anyway.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

To avoid continuing the debate on this thread, which is specifically about electric vehicles, I've posted a lot of data and charts in another thread here:

The future of energy generation and storage

No xhit Sherlock... The AMEO plan to massively upgrade power transmission lines is (far) easier said than done. But one way or another it has to be done.. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-01/how-aemo-plans-to-fix-broken-energy-system-australia/101196758
www.aussiestockforums.com www.aussiestockforums.com

In that post you'll find real, actual data for the real wind and solar farms in the grid we have right now which shows what the issues are and aren't.

I've limited it to the NEM for simplicity. That's in no way denying the existence of similar issues elsewhere, it's just to keep the data straightforward.

I'm not a moderator but I think it's sensible to keep this thread focused on EV's themselves and whilst the technical and business aspects of charging them is relevant, how to generate electricity as such is getting off topic in my view beyond a broad acceptance that EV's need to work within the limits of what's possible. :2twocents
 
JohnDe said:
Smurf is on the right track, I’m just a bit more optimistic and believe that more and cleaner options will become available in the next few years.

I thought that you listened to the audio. They mention gas as being an interim backup for the supply and storage issues that Australia will be going through as the old coal generators go off line. Also talked about incentivising private industry to build them.

Hydro could have been Australia’s ‘huge’ battery, but a previous government stuffed it by backing the wrong horse & locking our tax dollars into a bottomless pit called Snowy 2.0 (the name should have set off alarm bells).

Tasmania is a hydro scheme designed by nature.

Does Australia need Tasmania to become a multi-billion-dollar 'Battery of the Nation'?​


Does Australia need Tasmania to become a multi-billion-dollar 'Battery of the Nation'? - ABC News

amp.abc.net.au amp.abc.net.au
Click to expand...
I don't want to get involved in this, but to say Snowy 2.0 isn't required is just wrong, as the AEMO said Australia needs 50 Snowy 2.0's to run a renewables system. So I guess you have to get over it, lots more are going in.
 
As a brief comment on alternatives that aren't hydro or gas / diesel, the short answer is "sure, if it can do the job no problem".

There's no fundamental reason why anyone's sensibly going to argue against compressed air, hydrogen etc if it can offer a viable alternative.

What it comes down to however is two basic issues:

1. The timeframe is short which makes any major breakthrough unlikely. We're talking about building things that will be in operation in the relatively near future since there's basically an avalanche of coal plant closures coming, indeed it has already started, and there's international pressure to go even faster.

So we're talking about workers on site building things before the next federal election. That's all environmental studies done, all finances sorted out, it's bulldozers on site it's not just someone in an office talking about it. That doesn't leave much time for any major change in technology to emerge - it's possible for some of the later projects we'll need that something else comes along but not likely for the initial ones.

2. As it is we're looking at $320 billion and that's doing it relatively cheaply.

Anyone arguing for something that costs more is going to be seriously scrutinised, indeed even obtaining the money might preclude it regardless of any benefits.

For context the market cap of APA Group is $13.6 billion, AGL is $5.6 billion, Origin is $9.6 billion and so on. So we're already looking at new investment an order of magnitude greater than the market cap of present major players in the industry, the funding of which could well be problematic, so to increase that any further will be a very tough sell. Bearing in mind the pressure is to reduce prices not increase them.

So those two points don't rule out alternatives but they do mean there's a greater requirement than just being workable technically. Time and cost are also very real criteria. :2twocents
 
Last edited:
Smurf1976 said:
As a brief comment on alternatives that aren't hydro or gas / diesel, the short answer is "sure, if it can do the job no problem".

There's no fundamental reason why anyone's sensibly going to argue against compressed air, hydrogen etc if it can offer a viable alternative.

What it comes down to however is two basic issues:

1. The timeframe is short which makes any major breakthrough unlikely. We're talking about building things that will be in operation in the relatively near future since there's basically an avalanche of coal plant closures coming, indeed it has already started, and there's international pressure to go even faster.

So we're talking about workers on site building things before the next federal election. That's all environmental studies done, all finances sorted out, it's bulldozers on site it's not just someone in an office talking about it. That doesn't leave much time for any major change in technology to emerge - it's possible for some of the later projects we'll need that something else comes along but not likely for the initial ones.

2. As it is we're looking at $320 billion and that's doing it relatively cheaply.

Anyone arguing for something that costs more is going to be seriously scrutinised, indeed even obtaining the money might preclude it regardless of any benefits.

For context the market cap of APA Group is $13.6 billion, AGL is $5.6 billion, Origin is $9.6 billion and so on. So we're already looking at new investment an order of magnitude greater than the market cap of present major players in the industry, the funding of which could well be problematic, so to increase that any further will be a very tough sell. Bearing in mind the pressure is to reduce prices not increase them.

So those two points don't rule out alternatives but they do mean there's a greater requirement than just being workable technically. Time and cost are also very real criteria. :2twocents
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the market capitalisation of Australian governments is negative $346 billion, so one has to ask where is the money coming from ?

With most of the world being financially stuffed at the moment, the only place to look imo are those areas that are making a killing in the current crisis which is coal and gas exports and yet so far our governments (with the exception of Qld increasing coal royalties) haven't made any noises about increasing taxes in this area, probably fearing the political fallout.

They will have to do something about increasing revenue pretty soon or else put other projects like road and rail on hold or the situation in the energy market will only get worse.:2twocents
 
From the 'Electric cars' thread.

@sptrawler

"I don't want to get involved in this, but to say Snowy 2.0 isn't required is just wrong, as the AEMO said Australia needs 50 Snowy 2.0's to run a renewables system. So I guess you have to get over it, lots more are going in."

Is it worth noting that all hydro electric schemes require "surplus" power to pump the the water uphill, so is this surplus going to be available and where will it come from , given that we are running pretty tight in generation right now ?
 
SirRumpole said:
From the 'Electric cars' thread.

@sptrawler

"I don't want to get involved in this, but to say Snowy 2.0 isn't required is just wrong, as the AEMO said Australia needs 50 Snowy 2.0's to run a renewables system. So I guess you have to get over it, lots more are going in."

Is it worth noting that all hydro electric schemes require "surplus" power to pump the the water uphill, so is this surplus going to be available and where will it come from , given that we are running pretty tight in generation right now ?
Click to expand...

From my understanding, the concept is Snowy 2.0 will pump water using the excess electricity in the system at times of low demand.

Mind you, as it's bloody cold here in Canberra overnight and I run the ducted recycle so I don't freeze in the morning, I alone am probably using that excess electricity. So tough Snowy 2.0.
 
Belli said:
From my understanding, the concept is Snowy 2.0 will pump water using the excess electricity in the system at times of low demand.

Mind you, as it's bloody cold here in Canberra overnight and I run the ducted recycle so I don't freeze in the morning, I alone am probably using that excess electricity. So tough Snowy 2.0.
Click to expand...
I've had a couple of days of sun in the last month and the wind hasn't been high either in Orange, so there is no surplus power here either. :roflmao:

The 'excess' will probably come from coal or gas.

It would seem that hydro would be suited to areas of high rainfall where the upper dam would be filled by natural runoff which is why Tassie does quite well, other good sites would seem to be more coastal.

1657323071500.png
 
sptrawler said:
I don't want to get involved in this, but to say Snowy 2.0 isn't required is just wrong, as the AEMO said Australia needs 50 Snowy 2.0's to run a renewables system. So I guess you have to get over it, lots more are going in.
Click to expand...

I don't recall saying 'Snowy 2.0 isn't required'. If you look back at my first post I was just highlighting that Snowy Hydro could not generate during the floods, I wasn't attacking it just making a point that we need more options. And that was why I included an informative audio from the ABC (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?)

Value Collector jumped on a mistake I made in naming the current Snowy, 2.0 and commenting without listening to the audio.

From there I have pointed out some of the issues with Snowy. Such as the generation problem during major flooding events, and issues when the then Turnbill government announced the Snowy project, a timeline & budget blow out, and a missed opportunity in Tasmania.

​
​

Sorry for going so far off topic, but it takes two to tango :)
 
Belli said:
@SirRumpole, I haven't filtered this so the gems will take some digging.

It's the Australian Parliamentary Library. Many of the submission from researchers are years old. What I am getting at is our Parliamentarians were informed but as is the case on numerous occasions, the results were noted but dismissed and no action taken. So many lost opportunities.

Click to expand...
Scuppered b y the fossil fuel lobby. Don't stand between politicians and buckets of money
 
SirRumpole said:
From the 'Electric cars' thread.

@sptrawler

"I don't want to get involved in this, but to say Snowy 2.0 isn't required is just wrong, as the AEMO said Australia needs 50 Snowy 2.0's to run a renewables system. So I guess you have to get over it, lots more are going in."

Is it worth noting that all hydro electric schemes require "surplus" power to pump the the water uphill, so is this surplus going to be available and where will it come from , given that we are running pretty tight in generation right now ?
Click to expand...
That's what I was talking about at the beginning of this thread, we need twice as much renewable generation as installed at call generation and three times as much storage.
This is what the general public isn't getting its head around, that is an amazing amount of plant that needs to be put in, add to that the footprint of a 2GW power station is insignificant, 2GW of renewables is a huge amount of solar panels and wind turbines.
When you consider it is going to take 4GW of renewables and 6GW of storage, to replace that 2 GW power station, to me that explains how big the issue is especially when you think that Snowy 2.0 is only 2 GW from memory
 
SirRumpole said:
Very interesting. I wonder how many hydro sites there are in Darwin ?
;)

But I'm sure that there are many other factors to consider.
Click to expand...
There is a 30MW hydro on lake Argyle, that they are thinking of building a hydrogen plant next to, so there are plenty of options up North.

www.kimberleyecho.com.au

Hydro-power plant planned for Kimberley

The proposal includes a hydrogen production facility near Kununurra using “existing hydro generation.”
www.kimberleyecho.com.au www.kimberleyecho.com.au
 

Similar threads

System
SS1 - Sun Silver
2
Replies
23
Views
4K
Sean K
Sean K
Dona Ferentes
PGTX - Platinum Global Transition Fund
Replies
1
Views
520
Dona Ferentes
Dona Ferentes
System
ASK - Abacus Storage King
Replies
15
Views
3K
finicky
finicky
System
D3E - D3 Energy
Replies
2
Views
1K
Dona Ferentes
Dona Ferentes
ducati916
August DDD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
18K
ducati916
ducati916
Top