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
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.
 
Snowy 2.0 feasabiliity study carried out by - SnowyHydro

 
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.
 
JohnDe said:
Snowy 2.0 feasabiliity study carried out by - SnowyHydro
Click to expand...
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.
 

​

sptrawler said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
sptrawler said:
OMG
Why doesn't the current Govt can it then?
Click to expand...

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?
 
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 said:
So you keep saying. I just keep replying to comments, it's a forum of discussion.
Click to expand...
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.
 
sptrawler said:
The issue is you dont seem to accept the reality that Snowy2 is being built,
Click to expand...

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.
 
JohnDe said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
JohnDe said:
we have seen three 1:100 year events in 12 months.
Click to expand...
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.
 
mullokintyre said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Do gravity batteries have a future ?

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

 

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.


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
Click to expand...
 
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
 
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...