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
Belli said:
It would have meant I would have been unable to ride the BMW R60 on those gorgeous curves between Coldstream and Yea. Such a lovely bike.
Click to expand...
Correct, but you may have been able to ride the beemer around some other roads that would have been built.
Mick
 

I'll just quote 2 figures

LCOE solar $50 per MWh
LCOE hydro $0.04 per MWh

So even if the Snowy 2.0 budget blew out a bit its going to be $billions cheaper than building 2 GW of solar panels.

Of course, there is a risk in putting a lot of eggs into one basket but hydro schemes around the world including Snowy hydro work, work well, and do so for long periods of time.
 

I once would have agreed, but remember this; the government has borrowed to build, if it is overcapitalised it will take longer to pay off the loan, interest rates are rising, most of the worlds hydro systems don’t need to pump water back up, a lot more energy is required to pump water up and this eats into profits, new technology will bring new competition which will bring prices down and increase the repayment of government loans for Snowy 2.0
 
@JohnDe here is an article from Allan Finkle one of the most respected people in this field, I will paste it in entirety in case you can't open it. It was written on June 20th so is very current.
This very subject has been discussed endlessly inhttps://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/the-future-of-energy-generation-and-storage.29842/page-303 over the last few years since Snowy 2.0 was announced, to regurgitate it here seems pointless and is taking the subject away from its obvious thread.
There are many sectors with vested interests that would prefer other cheaper forms of storage than hydro, mainly due to the fact they can't afford to put it in, so they obviously will try to undermine Snowy2.0

Quote:
Australia’s east coast electricity grid was under unprecedented pressure last week, laying bare the challenges of achieving a zero-emissions electrical system. It’s hard, really hard. And it’s only the beginning. The next step is to expand our zero-emissions electricity generation, and hydrogen produced from it, to replace oil and gas in transport, building heating and industry.

It has been easier for countries such as Norway and France because they have drawn on hydroelectricity and nuclear electricity to massively reduce their emissions. Tasmania, too, has achieved virtually 100 per cent emissions-free electricity through its combination of hydro and wind electricity.
From an engineering perspective, hydroelectricity and nuclear are dream players, producing electricity on demand and contributing to the secure and reliable operation of the grid. Solar and wind generation are less co-operative, but realistically that’s all that mainland Australia has at hand. To deploy them, they must be supported by transmission lines, storage and arguably a modest amount of natural gas generation.

Australia has made good progress. There has been record investment in the past three years that has seen our solar and wind generation in the east coast grid almost double from 12 per cent in 2018 to 23.5 per cent in 2021. On a per capita basis, our solar and wind generation is comparable with California. Looking just at solar electricity, on a per capita basis Australia is No. 1 in the world.
Where we are behind schedule is on the construction of transmission lines, especially the local lines required to connect solar and wind energy zones to metropolitan and industrial loads. These transmission lines, combined with batteries, will substantially improve the reliability of our electricity system.

The requirements for transmission lines are well described in the Australian Energy Market Operator’s integrated system plan, a recommendation of the 2017 review of the national electricity market that I chaired. The new federal government’s $20 billion fund for transmission lines and grid strengthening will accelerate implementation.

As we design the electricity system of the future it is essential to plan for the extremes, not the averages. In the past few weeks alone, we have suffered from a combination of floods, international price pressures, generator breakdowns, lower than usual wind and the normal low winter sunshine. A rare combination of events indeed, but rare events come in many shapes and sizes and, overall, one or the other happens frequently. More foreseeable is that every few years we will see low sunshine and low wind weather patterns lasting for many days or a week or two.
The solution is to invest in long-duration storage. Today, the only way to achieve long-duration storage is with pumped hydro, but such projects have been few and far between because of local objections to the facilities themselves and to installing the transmission lines to connect them. In future, hydrogen made from excess solar and wind electricity during good weather will be stored in large volumes and used to fuel converted natural gas generators to provide long-duration storage.

The economics for investing in storage work well for short-duration storage of an hour or two. For that reason, investment in big batteries in Australia is already happening and growing rapidly, as it must. However, because the existing electricity market only pays for energy (megawatt-hours) dispatched, long-duration storage that will only be called upon infrequently is not an attractive investment. The solution is to introduce payments for the capacity to provide electricity on demand. This is an additional market mechanism known as a capacity market.

Details for such a market have been planned by the Energy Security Board and, encouragingly, federal, state and territory energy ministers have agreed to fast-track its adoption.
There are questions about whether it should include coal and natural gas. Coal generation needs separate attention to manage a planned exit. If the federal government in 2017 had not rejected the clean energy target recommended by the Finkel review, the coal generation owners would already be participating in an orderly exit consistent with the targeted emissions reduction trajectory.
On the other hand, natural gas generation could be included because it provides on-demand electricity that can ramp up and down within minutes to match the variable solar and wind. Natural gas generators will increasingly only be used as the last resort for a small number of hours per year, providing high value by keeping the lights on for short, medium and long durations. But the natural gas has to be available in volume and at reasonable price, which could be achieved by encouraging more supply and implementing a domestic reserve.

The fear that building new natural gas generators will lock them in for decades can be avoided by ensuring that in future they can be powered by hydrogen, as in the Tallawarra B power station under construction in NSW.
Small market tweaks would also help. For example, the $300 per megawatt-hour cap on the wholesale price was set more than 20 years ago. This cap is too small, not just because of inflation but because of our exposure to international coal and natural gas prices. If it had been set at a higher value, the operator might not have had to suspend the trading market.
The imminent threat of blackouts has been averted through excellent system management by AEMO, supported by constructive action by the energy ministers. We must learn from the current price and availability crunch that the transition will not be easy, but with the kind of determination currently being manifest it should be eminently doable.
Alan Finkel was Australia’s chief scientist from 2016 to 2020 and chaired the 2017 national electricity market review, the 2019 national hydrogen strategy and the 2021 low-emissions technology roadmap.

Also another article along the same lines and just as current

‘Stakes never higher’: energy board releases capacity market blueprint

Energy Security Board says fossil fuel generators might need to be paid to stay in business to retain capacity
www.theguardian.com
From the article:
In a statement to the media, the ESB said: “This transition needs to be carefully managed. The stakes have never been higher.”

According to the “step change” scenario that the Australian Energy Market Operator (Aemo) considers the most likely, the country will need about 122GW of new wind and solar, backed up by 45GW of new storage capacity, by 2050. It will also need 7GW of existing hydro and 9GW of gas-fired generation as all coal plants exit by 2043.

“The new capacity required over the next 28 years is more than seven times that built over a similar time frame since the [national energy market] commenced 24 years ago and around 50 times the amount built by the Snowy Hydroelectric Scheme,” the paper said.

It adds: “While 5GW of coal capacity has already announced it will close by 2030, as much as 14GW may become uneconomic by that time” – or one-third of the Nem’s existing readily dispatchable capacity. “Replacement would require the equivalent of another Snowy 2.0 [pumped hydro plant] to be connected every year from now until 2030.”
 
Last edited:


I think @Smurf1976 answered your flooding issue in the thread "The future of energy generation and storage thread"
 
sptrawler said:
I think @Smurf1976 answered your flooding issue in the thread "The future of energy generation and storage thread"
Click to expand...

He may have given his answer, but I was also given an answer by an industry expert and evidence during last week’s flooding that showed that Snowy hydro electricity was drastically reduced because the lower dam could not take any more water, without causing more extreme flooding. This during a power shortage.

Imagine what could have been built with that $10 billion spent on Snow 2.0 so far.

Power transfer cables from Tasmania, battery storage in strategic locations in all states.
 
Lets take it over to 'the future of power generation and storage thread', please. You obviously didn't read smurf's post I inserted, he explained how the lower dam issue could be alleviated, click the expand button on the post.
With regard the Tassie link it has to be built as well as Snowy2, it is just Snowy 2 was already designed so made it easier to get up, batteries are not suitable for long duration storage and the private sector are willing to install them as they are a good return on equity, long duration storage is the major issue.
This is the electric car thread, after all, lets get back on thread.
 
Last edited:

Yes I did read it. I also read that during the flooding there was a power supply shortage across the country, there was flooding in the lower parts of NSW, the lower dam was at capacity, and so on.

I understand that a hydro scheme can help with flood mitigation, but this was not the case this time.

Tasmania does not have the same flooding issues that NSW has. A better solution to power storage and generation would have been Tasmania, but instead politics and vote buying in NSW got in the way of common sense.
 
O.K one last try, firstly the Federal Govt doesn't have any say over Tassies Hydro, it belongs to the State, so the Feds can help fund stuff there but can't demand it is built.
Whereas the Federal Govt does own Snowy hydro, so as Snowy 2.0 was already designed years ago, to moving ahead with it was easy.

Secondly every project known to man is seeing massive cost blow outs, so why you think there wouldn't be similar cost blow outs in alternative projects, just appears nieve.

Thirdly as I said previously I am sure the Blowering dam issue could be engineered out, to which @Smurf1976 supplied a workable solution.
If, as a future project, a pump were to be installed from Blowering Reservoir to Jounama pondage, and if the 3 non-pumping turbines at Tumut 3 were equipped with pumps, then it would be possible to pump from Blowering > Jounama > Talbingo > Tantangara then natural flow to Eucumbene and thus recycle all water in the northern end of the scheme if desired. That's not proposed at present but it's a relatively straightforward add-on. Bearing in mind that the capacity of Blowering Reservoir is equal to just under 92% of its annual inflow or 101% of the annual discharge from Tumut 3. That being so, short term inflows become irrelevant in any scenario other than a truly massive flood.

One final thing, you said you were talking to an expert in the field, I worked my whole career in the field and I can tell you smurf is an expert in the field. Take that to the bank.

Lets get back on thread.
 

  1. The Federal government & "Tassies Hydro - Tasmania touts its “Battery of the Nation” – half the cost of Snowy 2.0 6 June 2018 Tasmania’s bid to be the “battery of the nation” has gained new momentum this week, with fresh estimates that Australia’s island state could provide just under 5GW of storage capacity from just over a dozen of its best pumped hydro sites.
  2. Cost blow out started before current world problems - The nation-building vision was for a big battery to be added to the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Scheme. It was to be completed in four years (that is, by last year) at a cost of $2 billion without any taxpayer subsidy...Snowy Hydro now expects completion in 10 years, not four, by 2026. Some experts consider even this extended timeframe to be optimistic....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.
  3. Increasing dam size to limit flooding has been an ongoing attempt in Queensland and NSW over the past decades, yet Mother Nature always finds away to flood again. No dam can control the biggest floods
  4. I did not say I was talking to an expert, I said that I heard an expert - Tina Soloman Hunter professor of constitutional law, energy and resources law at Macquarie university. Also director of the Centre for Energy, Natural Resources, Innovation and Transformation at Macquarie University. - "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." At the 17:25 minute mark of the ABC program Rear Vision
Yes, let's get back on 'track.'
 
JohnDe said:
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." At the 17:25 minute mark of the ABC program Rear Vision
Click to expand...
No one is disputing that this is true.

Solar cells also don't generate at night, nor wind farms when there is no wind.

Those conditions are far more prevalent than a 1:100 (or more) flood event.
 
SirRumpole said:
No one is disputing that this is true.

Solar cells also don't generate at night, nor wind farms when there is no wind.

Those conditions are far more prevalent than a 1:100 (or more) flood event.
Click to expand...

That may have been the case 10 years ago, however, we have seen three 1:100 year events in 12 months. Climate change is here, the scientists have been telling us for years. Major flooding is going to be a regular event.
 
They are going to need the Tassie battery and the new undersea cables as well as Snowy 2.0, I really cant see your problem, Snowy2.0 needs to be built either way.
Or do you have something to be gained financially from the Tassie option, if so you will just have to wait, it will be done as we have already posted it is being planned for.
 

No financial gain for me from Tassie Hydro. I’m just tired of my tax dollars being wasted on political decisions rather than Australian requirements, also I’ve seen the damage the Snowy scheme originally did. I accept that, for Australia’s development, but not happy about 2.0 when other alternatives were available.

I suppose there’s no point crying over spilt milk, what’s done is done, let’s get on with it.
 
I can understand that, the amount of ecological damage that is going to be done over the next 30 years is going to be mind boggling, all so that humans can have 'clean' energy to run their indulgencies. We are weird creatures.
As for Governments wasting money, I'm pleased it at least is being spent on something that will help Australians for 100 years or so, rather than throwing it away on half ar$ed brain farts like they normally do. But I don't want to get into politics, that would just take the thread further of track.
How about the fact KIA has jacked the price of the EV6 by nearly $5k, even for existing orders, now that is a bit rude. They have told those with orders in, if they don't like it cancel your order and get your refund back, makes you wonder why people are required to put a deposit on at all if it isn't worth the paper it is written on.
 
Can I just point out that you were upset that the snowy had limited production for a few days during flooding, but did you know that the bass link cable that connects us to Tasmania has been down for periods up to 6 months before? So I am not sure how your favoured hydro projects in Tassie would help the mainland during a crisis if the cables go down again during a crisis time, to me it makes sense to not put all out eggs in Tasmania.

By all means invest in Tasmania too, but to suggest such investments in NSW are silly is crazy.
 
JohnDe said:
That may have been the case 10 years ago, however, we have seen three 1:100 year events in 12 months. Climate change is here, the scientists have been telling us for years. Major flooding is going to be a regular event.
Click to expand...
That is very true the world has changed hugely in the last 20 years, year 2,000 I was actually testing our electrical systems ability to cope with the computer calendar changeY2K and a brand new 340MW state of the art coal power station was just commissioned with the ability to fast track a sister unit in the future.

Now 20 years later, the second unit isn't coming and the original unit is scheduled to be de commissioned before 2030, who would have guessed how fast technology would overtake normal standard operation, it was only in 2009 that the solar panel manufacturing plant in Sydney was shut down, now it would be flat out.

With regard rainfall, as you say scientists have been telling us for years that climate change was happening and because of their warnings Sydney built a desalination plant in 2010, because rainfall was predicted to fall and dams were expected to empty. As it turns out the exact opposite looks to be happening.
That is the problem with sciences that are not precise, where you are not dealing with constants and outcomes are difficult to predict.

With the electrical system, it can't be left to chance, if it fails society fails we can't function without electricity. Imagine 5million people in Sydney with no running water, no sewage pumps, no traffic lights, no petrol stations operating, no essential services, no lights, no fridges, shops not opening food going off, no trains, how long do you think before anarchy would break out?
That's why there is no back of the napkin transition, we will be better served having Snowy2.0 and not needing it, than needing it and not having it, because we did the Tassie link first and it broke like happened a few years ago.
 

Part of the Tasmanian proposal was to add two more links to the existing set up. This would allow a lot more power transfer, as well as providing back up to accidental damage to one or more links.

Any damage to those power lines will not cause flooding.

There will be an update of the Tasmanian link -

Marinus Link welcomed AEMO’s 2022 ISP, which confirms that Marinus Link should be delivered urgently to provide much-needed clean energy for the national grid.
 
Last edited:
But you hate projects that run over budget, the original Basslink had a budget of $400 Million, but ended up costing $780 Million by the time it was complete in 2004.

How can we trust that building 3 more in todays dollars won’t also run well over budget? I mean you have set a pretty high bar of not wanting Infrastructure unless it’s 100% reliable and doesn’t run over budget, so given the previous history under sea cable cost over runs and outages, is this something you want to take the risk on.

(Just playing devils advocate here, I love Bass link APA is currently in a chess game trying to take ownership of it)
 

I also hate project that are chosen to buy votes, rather than on feasibility.

Maybe if you hadn't banned me you would have seen that the information is all in my previous posts.

The current proposal -

Does Australia need Tasmania to become a multi-billion-dollar 'Battery of the Nation'?
28 Jun 2022

The renewables-rich island state of Tasmania has big plans to become a green battery for the mainland, however, the project is set to cost billions and not everyone's convinced that the economics stack up.

In 2017 with much fanfare, then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull announced two major pumped hydro projects – Snowy 2.0 in New South Wales and the "Battery of the Nation" in Tasmania.

Both states have used hydro-electricity for decades and, in Tasmania, it is the main source of electricity.

Normal hydropower is created by storing water on high ground and running it downhill to spin a turbine at the bottom.

Pumped hydro operates on the same principle, except that two dams, one higher than the other, work in a cycle that pumps water into the upper reservoir during off-peak hours.

Potential energy is then stored and generated when it's needed — virtually a big, green battery.

Snowy 2.0 is well underway but the project has faced delays and cost blowouts.

Tasmania's project, however, is still at the feasibility study stage.

The island state's ambition to become the so-called "Battery of the Nation" hinges on someone funding two undersea Bass Strait cables, the Marinus Link, connecting it to Victoria.

"What Marinus Link is doing is, it's unlocking Tasmania's fantastic renewable energy results," Battery of the Nation chief executive Bess Clark told ABC News.
She said this included the state's variable wind resource, "and the hydro resource we've got here and the pumped hydro potential we've got here".

While there is already an undersea cable connecting the island state to Victoria, called Basslink, it is running close to capacity and cannot carry any additional power.


A stylised 3D graphic of the proposed Marinus Link project.(Supplied: TasNetworks)
When the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) releases its latest plan to improve the grid on Thursday it's expected to again list Marinus Link as one of five key "actionable" projects.

The cables would have a combined, 1,500-MW capacity, which is enough to power up to 1.5 million homes and is roughly the equivalent output of the former Hazelwood coal-fired power station in Victoria.

Marinus Link is now expected to cost around $3.8 billion, after its price tag was recently revised upwards.

The federal and Tasmanian governments have already committed more than $200 million to pay for feasibility studies and a business case, with a final investment decision is set for 2024.

According to AEMO, the first cable could be built as soon as 2028, and the second from 2030, and would allow Tasmania to double the amount of electricity it exports.

"Australia is going to need a lot more energy if our coal plants continue to retire, so we're going to need to replace that energy," Ms Clark said.
"But we're also going to need what's called dispatchable energy, because a lot of the new energy will come from wind, it will come from solar."

"And that's great a lot of the time, but some of the time, it's not windy, and it's not sunny, so we'll need to store that energy. And that's where we can turn on hydro, and pumped hydro."


Trevallyn hydro power station was commissioned in 1955. (ABC News: John Gunn )
Tasmania does not need the extra energy, but the state's public-owned energy industry would make money from exporting the excess power to the mainland.

"We're sitting on a pot of gold of renewable energy," Battery of the Nation's project director, Paul Molnar, said.
Mr Molnar said the current hydro system has enough capacity to immediately export energy into the first Marinus Link cable.

"The second cable relies on us constructing a pumped hydro power scheme and, again, we've done all the work to position ourselves to be ready to go with that," Mr Molnar said.

But the projects do not come cheap.

The estimated cost has already gone up. It could end up costing a combined $10 billion, including $2.25 billion for Battery of the Nation and $3.5 billion for Marinus Link. That price does not include wind development either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gen Alpha
Replies
13
Views
805
moXJO
M
Electricity investments
Replies
8
Views
562
Smurf1976
The Effect of Deepseek on Australian Stocks
Replies
7
Views
634
Smurf1976
SS1 - Sun Silver
2
Replies
27
Views
5K
Sean K
PGTX - Platinum Global Transition Fund
Replies
1
Views
647
Dona Ferentes
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...