The future of energy generation and storage

[sptrawler]

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.

View attachment 143930
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."

View attachment 143931
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.

Have a chat with @Smurf he worked there for a long time, he will be able to answer any questions you have.?
The biggest problem I've heard, is that Victoria wont stump up any money, so what your on no one knows.
Let's get back to cars rather than your pet project that Uncle Dan isn't interested in and it isn't a Federal Issue other than if requested some funding could be provided, this is a Federation the States still have control over their infrastructure.
Lets move on FFS.

State open to Marinus Link, for now at least​

The Victorian government says it does not oppose Marinus Link, but sees other energy projects as higher priorities.

 

[JohnDe]

Snowy 2.0 feasabiliity study carried out by - SnowyHydro

Snowy Hydro 2.0 will cost more and deliver less than promised, 30 experts say
This article is more than 2 years old
Group calls for independent review of project it says would permanently damage Kosciuszko national park

Engineers, economists, energy specialists and environmentalists are calling for a final decision on the Snowy Hydro 2.0 project to be delayed to allow an independent review, claiming it will cost far more and deliver far less than has been promised.

The group of 30 said the 2,000-megawatt pumped hydro storage project in the Snowy Mountains would permanently damage the Kosciuszko national park.

“Snowy 2.0 is not as it has been publicly portrayed,” they said in a joint statement. “There are many alternatives that are more efficient, cheaper, quicker to construct and incur less [greenhouse gas] emissions and environmental impacts.”

The group was assembled by the National Parks Association of New South Wales and Ted Woodley, a former managing director of Energy Australia. In a letter to the prime minister, Scott Morrison, and NSW premier, Gladys Berejiklian, the members said they hesitated to raise the issue during the unparalleled challenge of the coronavirus pandemic, but they were concerned about the project going ahead without “independently validated justification”.

They said they were sceptical about the merits of Snowy 2.0 when it was announced by former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull in March 2017 and that scepticism had consolidated as more information emerged.

Their listed concerns included that they believed:

• About 40% of the energy generated is lost before it reaches consumers, more than other pumped storage schemes due to the distance between reservoirs being far longer, and more than other storage options.
• It was likely to cost at least $10bn, compared with Turnbull and Snowy Hydro’s initial estimate of $2bn. A $5.1bn contract has been signed as part of the project, with further costs to be added. They say this will be more than the Snowy Hydro’s estimate of the market benefit of between $4.4bn and $6.8bn.
• It would require substantial transmission works to connect to the grid, costing billions more.
• It will lead to more than 50 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions during construction and the first 10 years of operation.
• It will convert extensive areas of national park into a construction site, with permanent damage over thousands of hectares and the destruction of habitat used by 14 threatened species.

“Snowy 2.0 should not proceed on the basis of overstated claims that have never been tested,” the letter concluded. “At stake are billions of dollars of Australian taxpayers’ money, tens of millions of tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions and thousands of hectares of Kosciuszko national park.”

The project was proposed by Turnbull as a 50% expansion of the celebrated scheme, which was built over 25 years, starting in 1949. The official estimated cost of Snowy 2.0 has more than doubled and the timeline for completion has been pushed out from 2021 to 2027 since it was announced.

Asked for its response, the federal government said it would be responding to the letter in writing.

A Snowy Hydro spokesman said an environmental impact statement was being considered by the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment, and the issues in the letter had been raised and responded to before. He said only 0.01% of the national park would be permanently affected by this project.

Some issues raised in the letter, including what the project would cost, how long it would take to develop and its impact on the environment, have been raised by energy analysts since the project was announced. Letter signatories to have detailed criticisms before include Woodley and Bruce Mountain, the director of the Victoria Energy Policy Centre at Victoria University.

Tony Wood, energy program director with thinktank the Grattan Institute, was not a signatory to the letter, but said he agreed with much of what was in it, including that there should be an independent review, not least because it was public money being invested.

He said the process by which Snowy Hydro had been announced before there had been a feasibility study was “ordinary to say the least”, and some of the claims about its financial case remained unclear.

“Surely they could clear the air by tabling an independent review of the project, given it’s not a typical or listed company,” he said. “The government is the shareholder on behalf of the people of Australia.”

A further concern some have raised but that is not mentioned in the letter is that the development risked giving the Snowy Hydro company, which is owned by the federal government, too great a hold over the energy market. In his book Superpower, economist Ross Garnaut suggested Snowy Hydro be broken in two so the existing generator and retailer was separate to a new body responsible for ensuring constant capacity to balance electricity supply and demand across the national grid.

The group behind the letter suggested a review could be taken by the Productivity Commission, Infrastructure Australia, the federal chief scientist, Alan Finkel, or the NSW chief scientist and engineer, Prof Hugh Durrant-Whyte.

 

[Value Collector]

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.

View attachment 143930
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."

View attachment 143931
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.

I can’t see anywhere there that suggests that there are safe guards to prevent cost over runs happening as they did with the original one.

The truth is I have actually already been studying these various options for years, it’s something I have taken an interest in for a long time, this isn’t my first week in looking into it.

 

[sptrawler]

Snowy 2.0 feasabiliity study carried out by - SnowyHydro

Another two year old pre covid story, from probably vested interests, move it to 'the future of power generation and storage'.
We are now into the third page of this nonsense that is derailing the thread.

 

[JohnDe]

​

Another two year old pre covid story, from probably vested interests, move it to 'the future of power generation and storage'.
We are now into the third page of this nonsense that is derailing the thread.

The age of the report is the point, there were questions and concerns about Snowy 2.0 before we got to the budget blow out of $10 billion.

Imagine if an independant feasibility study was carried out, maybe it would have chosen Snowy 2.0. or maybe Tasmania, we will never know.

 

[sptrawler]

​

The age of the report is the point, there were questions and concerns about Snowy 2.0 before we got to the budget blow out of $10 billion.

Imagine if an independant feasibility study was carried out, maybe it would have chosen Snowy 2.0. or maybe Tasmania, we will never know.

OMG
Why doesn't the current Govt can it then?

'A battery with no plug': Labor backs Snowy 2.0, but calls for more renewable firepower

Bill Shorten says more renewable generation is needed to make full use of the hydro-electric project.

www.smh.com.au

With a gas crisis already on its hands, the government has just learned Snowy Hydro faces significant delays

The signature energy reform piece of the previous government will not start producing electricity until late this decade, presenting another energy market headache for the country.

www.abc.net.au

Being from W.A I certainly hope they do, that will save us from having to contribute to a grid we don't use.

 

[JohnDe]

OMG
Why doesn't the current Govt can it then?

What? The project has started, why waste more money canning it?

Go back to my original post of several days ago. All I did was point out that Snowy can not be relied on all of the time, I was just trying to point out that we need more supply and storage options. That was all I was saying.

From there we had a flood of apologists for Snowy 2.0 and the people that chose it. We have comments about government wasting tax dollars over Covid, but they don't mind it wasted on Snowy 2.0. Is that because it is a NSW project?

We once had the Democrats to keep the bastards honest. Who do we have now?

 

[sptrawler]

What? The project has started, why waste more money canning it?

Go back to my original post of several days ago. All I did was point out that Snowy can not be relied on all the time, we need more supply and storage. That was all I was saying, from there we have had a flood of apologists for Snowy 2.0 and the people that chose it. We have comments about government wasting tax dollars over Covid, but they don't mind it wasted on Snowy 2.0. Is that because it is a NSW project?

They do that all the time, remember East West link in Melbourne, subs in France.
I wish they would allow all you people over east to enjoy the electrical system you deserve, for sell it all off years ago.
If Snowy wasn't being done F all would be being done, that's what you don't seem to understand, even Kurri Kurri which taxpayers are funding is because your states aren't standing up to the plate, all they are doing is talking up a storm.

 

[JohnDe]

They do that all the time, remember East West link in Melbourne, subs in France

Just because it has been done, it does not make it right or reason to do it.

 

[sptrawler]

Just because it has been done, it does not make it right or reason to do it.

You obviously fixated, so be it, enough is enough.
You are becoming very troll like.

 

[JohnDe]

You obviously fixated, so be it, enough is enough.

So you keep saying. I just keep replying to comments, it's a forum of discussion.

 

[sptrawler]

So you keep saying. I just keep replying to comments, it's a forum of discussion.

The issue is you dont seem to accept the reality that Snowy2 is being built, if it wasnt required or a better option was available the new Govt would halt it, they own it, but they aren't therefore it must have merit.
You obviously are the one out of step, the AEMO, the EMA say it is required, yet you prefer to accept the opinion of private individuals who could well have vested interests, thats fine and your perogative.
As with investing it all depends on what information you believe.
It is a forum of discussion and I think it is a valid discussion, I just wish it was being held in the appropriate thread , but hopefully @Joe Blow can move the content.

 

[JohnDe]

The issue is you dont seem to accept the reality that Snowy2 is being built,

Maybe, or maybe you don’t accept that someone might have a different view.

And even though I think Snowy 2.0 is a wasteful project, only you have mentioned stopping it.

 

[sptrawler]

Maybe, or maybe you don’t accept that someone might have a different view.

And even though I think Snowy 2.0 is a wasteful project, only you have mentioned stopping it.

As I said, both projects will have to be done, it is only that Snowy 2.0 was already designed, marinus link will happen, but it is still at the drawing board stage.
There is nothing wrong with having a different view, it is the refusal to accept the reality, you seem to be having issues with.
As for stopping it, if it was wasteful, the new Govt would stop it, as the last Govt did with the diesel subs.
Maybe you dont accept that others may not agree with you, no matter how strong their reasoning.

 

[Smurf1976]

I'll encourage all who are interested to read the AEMO 2022 Integrated System Plan or any of the other publicly available reports on the subject.

Bottom line is that even with all present hydro + Snowy 2.0 + an assumed future fleet of shorter duration pumped hydro and battery systems in operation AEMO has still concluded that 10 GW, that is 10,000 MW, of gas (or other fuel) based generation is required to be retained indefinitely.

That leaves more than enough room to develop other deep storage projects in Tasmania or elsewhere, bearing in mind that as time passes there's a need to replace that gas-fired capacity with something, that is either built more gas or build an alternative.

A point many miss is the huge increase in electricity consumption likely over the coming years driven by electrification of not only vehicles but of basically everything.

The future involves a lot more electricity for reasons best explained by the following figures which are electricity as a % of secondary energy supply. Secondary energy being that supplied to end users - so it's electricity not the fuel used to generate it, it's petrol not the oil it came from, etc.

Tasmania = 39%
NSW = 23%
SA = 20%
Queensland = 19%
Victoria = 17%
NT = 17%
WA = 15%

Those figures being Australian Government statistics. Data's a couple of years old but hasn't changed significantly.

To simply achieve the same level of electrification nationally as presently exists in Tasmania would approximately double Australia's total electricity consumption.

Now add EV's to that.

Now add at least some growth of industrial energy consumption. There's quite a few proposals starting to emerge there.

The risk is firmly toward having insufficient supply rather than having too much.

 

[Smurf1976]

we have seen three 1:100 year events in 12 months.

What we haven't seen however is a situation unable to be managed simply by operating the infrastructure differently.

Blowering has been constantly close to full for the past 12 months, and has not been substantially lower for almost two years now.

Hume has likewise been full or very close to it since August last year.

Meanwhile Lake Eucumbene, the largest storage in the Snowy scheme with water discharged in both directions (Eucumbene > Tumut 1 > Tumut 2 > Tumut 3 > Jounama > Blowering and separately Eucumbene > Murray 1 > Murray 2 > Hume) is presently at 25.5% of capacity.

Jindabyne, the second largest Snowy storage, is presently 79.6% full.

Tantangara, the third largest Snowy storage, is at present 20.4% full.

Total of the above three is 29.47%

Those figures are for active storage, that is water able to be taken out of the reservoir, and ignore dead storage which is water below the intake. The latter being particularly significant at Jindabyne, less so at the others, but does result in any data looking at total volume showing a higher %. In the context of operations however it's active storage that matters - though total is of more relevance if your interest is in going fishing on the lake etc.

So why do we have downstream storage full to the point of flooding meanwhile upstream storage is low?

It's not because of recent weather.

Rather, it's simply because operation of the scheme has intentionally aimed to release water rather than storing it at high elevation. That comes about primarily due to the water license under which Snowy Hydro operates, that license being a construct of politics which sees the idea of Snowy retaining water in storage as "bad" or at least a threat, and compels that it be released regardless of need.

Wait for the next drought and there'll be plenty of screaming from farmers and others that we ain't got no water. That will indeed be the case, that's what happens when you don't aim to store it when there's plenty.

The present situation could have been avoided simply by operating the existing infrastructure differently. That is, focusing water licenses on release from Blowering and Hume not release into them and aiming to maximise storage upstream rather than minimising it.

Further improvement could be achieved if the pumping scheme I mention were to be built.

Still further improvement could be achieved by modification to the Kiewa scheme (AGL) and operating Dartmouth (Victorian Government / MDBA / AGL) in an integrated manner with Snowy's Murray assets.

Kiewa - construction of a single additional dam would increase storage in the existing scheme with its 4 power station from 30% of annual inflow to 250% of annual inflow. That dam, combined with an additional reversible pump turbine, would enable a firm 410 MW to be delivered, operating base load when required, for 4 weeks each year for the specific purpose of filling VRE droughts. That one project would replace about 4% of gas-fired generation required across the NEM for that purpose in a future predominantly VRE scenario (the one envisaged by AEMO in the ISP).

Could go even further and build the unbuilt upstream storage on the Murray side of the Snowy scheme too. That would primarily serve an electrical purpose, displacing gas use, but also has some benefit to water management. That one would likely be somewhat contentious but could be built in a modified form, without the lengthy aqueducts originally proposed, thus addressing not all but most of the environmental concerns previously raised.

Overall there's an awful lot that could be done to improve water management and remove reliance on fossil fuels if we really wanted to. That we don't comes down primarily to politics - there are specific projects where real environmental downsides exist and where there's a reasoned argument against it but there's plenty more where it's simply down to sheer ignorance technically combined with ideological "no dams anywhere" type thinking which fails to acknowledge that not building it also comes with a very real impact to the extent that fossil fuels are the in practice alternative.

 

[Smurf1976]

He said that he had worked with others to produce the original plans for the Eildon dam which had the wall about 40 KMS further west at a place called Trawool.

Interesting, I wasn't aware of that one.

Looking at topographic maps it would seem possible to go half way. That is, retain the existing dam and power station, and build the new one downstream to a height that would flood Yea but not Alexandra.

Electrically well if it were built it would free up operation of the existing Eildon station, shifting it from summer to anytime, thus enabling it to be deployed for the purpose of filling VRE droughts. That's another 120 MW of gas capacity replaced.

A very rough calculation comes to about 160 MW of generation installed at the new dam, operating on a regime similar to the present Eildon power station and essentially replacing its function during the summer months.

A possible additional development would of course be a pumped storage scheme between the two.

Whether it's a good idea is of course another matter. Those living at Yea probably won't be keen on having their town submerged. Those at Alexandra would plausibly be more than happy that they now have waterfront properties, the lake would be right to the edge of the town near the convergence of Hall Street, Vickery Street and Morris Street. Ideological opponents of dams obviously wouldn't be in favour. Farmers it would likely depend - it's good news for those outside the new lake area obviously, not so good for those within it.

Yarck would also be unaffected albeit with a new lake beside it.

All comments are approximate based on my looking at maps, it's not an idea I have any formal knowledge of.

 

[SirRumpole]

Do gravity batteries have a future ?

Yes I know hydro is a gravity battery, but there are other types.

 

[JohnDe]

What we haven't seen however is a situation unable to be managed simply by operating the infrastructure differently.

Blowering has been constantly close to full for the past 12 months, and has not been substantially lower for almost two years now.

Hume has likewise been full or very close to it since August last year.

Meanwhile Lake Eucumbene, the largest storage in the Snowy scheme with water discharged in both directions (Eucumbene > Tumut 1 > Tumut 2 > Tumut 3 > Jounama > Blowering and separately Eucumbene > Murray 1 > Murray 2 > Hume) is presently at 25.5% of capacity.

Jindabyne, the second largest Snowy storage, is presently 79.6% full.

Tantangara, the third largest Snowy storage, is at present 20.4% full.

Total of the above three is 29.47%

Those figures are for active storage, that is water able to be taken out of the reservoir, and ignore dead storage which is water below the intake. The latter being particularly significant at Jindabyne, less so at the others, but does result in any data looking at total volume showing a higher %. In the context of operations however it's active storage that matters - though total is of more relevance if your interest is in going fishing on the lake etc.

So why do we have downstream storage full to the point of flooding meanwhile upstream storage is low?

It's not because of recent weather.

Rather, it's simply because operation of the scheme has intentionally aimed to release water rather than storing it at high elevation. That comes about primarily due to the water license under which Snowy Hydro operates, that license being a construct of politics which sees the idea of Snowy retaining water in storage as "bad" or at least a threat, and compels that it be released regardless of need.

Wait for the next drought and there'll be plenty of screaming from farmers and others that we ain't got no water. That will indeed be the case, that's what happens when you don't aim to store it when there's plenty.

The present situation could have been avoided simply by operating the existing infrastructure differently. That is, focusing water licenses on release from Blowering and Hume not release into them and aiming to maximise storage upstream rather than minimising it.

Further improvement could be achieved if the pumping scheme I mention were to be built.

Still further improvement could be achieved by modification to the Kiewa scheme (AGL) and operating Dartmouth (Victorian Government / MDBA / AGL) in an integrated manner with Snowy's Murray assets.

Kiewa - construction of a single additional dam would increase storage in the existing scheme with its 4 power station from 30% of annual inflow to 250% of annual inflow. That dam, combined with an additional reversible pump turbine, would enable a firm 410 MW to be delivered, operating base load when required, for 4 weeks each year for the specific purpose of filling VRE droughts. That one project would replace about 4% of gas-fired generation required across the NEM for that purpose in a future predominantly VRE scenario (the one envisaged by AEMO in the ISP).

Could go even further and build the unbuilt upstream storage on the Murray side of the Snowy scheme too. That would primarily serve an electrical purpose, displacing gas use, but also has some benefit to water management. That one would likely be somewhat contentious but could be built in a modified form, without the lengthy aqueducts originally proposed, thus addressing not all but most of the environmental concerns previously raised.

Overall there's an awful lot that could be done to improve water management and remove reliance on fossil fuels if we really wanted to. That we don't comes down primarily to politics - there are specific projects where real environmental downsides exist and where there's a reasoned argument against it but there's plenty more where it's simply down to sheer ignorance technically combined with ideological "no dams anywhere" type thinking which fails to acknowledge that not building it also comes with a very real impact to the extent that fossil fuels are the in practice alternative.

Water management authorities may have made mistakes, poor decisions and compromises. However, even if everything was done perfectly there still would have been flooding.

As for the upper dam Tantangara Dam being partially empty, well that is part of the problem mentioned in previous discussions - if there is a power issue, how will the water be pumped? Australia, including NSW, has had a generation problem for the past few months.

Snowy 2.0 is going ahead, was it the right decision? Some will say yes and others no. At the end of the day we will never have a definitive answer because there was no independent feasibility study.

I personally think that it has diminished future nation building projects by lumbering Australians with a huge debt and expensive electricity generation.

No dam can control the biggest floods

Planning in Australia often uses the 1-in-100-year flood return interval as a safety standard. This is not appropriate. Flood risk in the valley is increasing with climate change, and development in the catchment increases the speed of runoff from paved surfaces.

The historical 1-in-100 year safety standard is particularly inappropriate in the valley, because of the extreme risk of rising water cutting off low-lying roads and completely submerging residents cut-off in extreme floods.

What’s more, a “medium” climate change scenario will see a 14.6% increase in rainfall by 2090 west of Sydney. This is projected to increase the 1-in-100 year flood height at Windsor from 17.3m to 18.4m.

Cost Per Kilowatt Of Power

If Snowy Hydro 2 comes in at $10 billion, its cost per kilowatt of power output comes to…

$5,000 per kilowatt

 

[mullokintyre]

Water management authorities may have made mistakes, poor decisions and compromises. However, even if everything was done perfectly there still would have been flooding.

As for the upper dam Tantangara Dam being partially empty, well that is part of the problem mentioned in previous discussions - if there is a power issue, how will the water be pumped? Australia, including NSW, has had a generation problem for the past few months.

Snowy 2.0 is going ahead, was it the right decision? Some will say yes and others no. At the end of the day we will never have a definitive answer because there was no independent feasibility study.

I personally think that it has diminished future nation building projects by lumbering Australians with a huge debt and expensive electricity generation.

To paraphrase that saying about oil, Debt is not all the same.
I am happy to be lumbered with debt to produce infrastructure.
At some point, the debt can indeed be repaid., the cost is fixed, the debt known.
What I do not want is debt that is created to employ a myriad of public servants, or to pay the future commitments to social services etc, or to give free childcare to parents (I was going to say working parents, but that is not a distinction that is made by the givers of free stuff).
All of these sorts or programs are on going i.e. once created , are perpetualised, such that the debt will never be repaid, merely added to.
Mick