You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
$2,000,000,000 for 2,000 MW pumped hydro assuming the back of a coaster calc done by Turnbull is even close. It's probably a bit short.
Battery is $US250 per KWh that's $1,000 per KW at the 4 hour rate.
Soooo 2,000 MW battery is $US2B now-ish (not in 10 years).
Why bother with the hydro?
of course, the ideal would be heaps of battery now and pumped hydro later.Couldn't agree more.
The other huge advantage with battery storage is that it can be sprinkled around in hundreds of substations which makes the whole system inherently more fault resistant rather than having all the storage in one place.
Lasts a lot longer than battery ?
Couldn't agree more.
The other huge advantage with battery storage is that it can be sprinkled around in hundreds of substations which makes the whole system inherently more fault resistant rather than having all the storage in one place.
Lasts a lot longer than battery ?
It will last as long as you keep the maintenance up - guess the same applies to battery.Lasts a lot longer than battery ?
The other consideration here is they could use the $2Bn as a subsidy, say 20% off the battery purchase price to incentivise homeowners and businesses to purchase it (although for homeowners the economics are good enough now, two more years worth of bill shock and price rises and people will be falling over themselves to get off grid). This would result in $10 Bn of batteries being installed. They could advance order a huge number of Powerwall 2 batteries and flog them off with the discount, getting a bulk buy discount in the process. This would result in, @$500/KWH, 10GW of response and 20 GWH of storage. The batteries are covered for ten years at which point they can be reconditioned or recycled, with some pretty valuable materials in them. A huge pumped hydro scheme only keeps the grid centralised. A truly robust, safe and cheap grid is de-centralised. Poles and wires cost a *sugar* ton of money.And on top of that sprinkled around hundreds of thousands of homes and small business that are paying for it out of their own pocket because it's now cost effective.
As far as long term lifespan goes yes, but a minimum 4 year completion time is likely to make the exercise pointless due to the rapidly falling cost of batteries, what the Snowy hydro proposal may do is embolden more investment in wind and solar.
and supports Turnbull's power base (pun intended). The centralized version of the net keeps the money centralized.Poles and wires cost a *sugar* ton of money.
It is exactly why every single measure announced in the last few days are focused on grid based solutions. The talk on building gas plants and then building more gas production and then guaranteeing a price for it all to be consumed just plain smacks of liberal politiking and protection of the big three. None of those will result in cheaper energy for the consumer because the gas price is still going to be linked to export prices (which is uneconomical in the long term vs PV). In the end it will just result in several billion dollars for some giant white elephants when PV efficiency increases 50% whilst costs reduce by 50% and battery prices fall by another 50%. At that point they're going to shed massive demand from the grid and the major industrial users will all build their own power plants as per Sun Metals Solar PV farm. Olympic Dam and a bunch of other big users are seriously considering it. Smelters will not be far behind them especially with prices already reaching 2c/KWH in some parts of the world, and 6c/KWH for 24/7 solar concentrated supply.and supports Turnbull's power base (pun intended). The centralized version of the net keeps the money centralized.
Hardly.It will last as long as you keep the maintenance up - guess the same applies to battery.
I'm not sure I am following. Do you mean the cost of evaporation ?Not when El Niño comes to town. He can hang around for a long time & create a lot of mothballs. At least $2 billions worth. Not if but when. At least all of a sudden we're not hearing a whole lot from Matt Canavan about his clean coal dreams but something tells me he's not finished yet.
I'm not sure I am following. Do you mean the cost of evaporation ?
I thought this is pumped storage -- which I take to mean a cycle of the same water + replenishment for evaporationOne of my new year resolutions - communicate with more clarity - fail
I was referring to extended periods of drought. There are many examples around the world where long droughts have massively reduced hydroelectric generation. Apart from the Snowy itself; California, Venezuela, Columbia, Chile, Brazil, Kenya, Zimbabwe & China just to name a few, are places where drought has had a huge impact on power generation.
Evaporation has a constant effect in hydroelectrics but when the reservoirs aren’t being replenished, power output is reduced or even crippled when water levels fall below intakes.
Lots of info here:
How Drought Affects Critical Hydroelectric Dams
I thought this is pumped storage -- which I take to mean a cycle of the same water + replenishment for evaporation
Energy Security will be more uncertain by upgrading the Snowy Hydro scheme as water availability in the Murray-Darling basin dries up. With competing uses for water and the increasing likelihood of draught brought on by climate change, increasing our reliance on water to provide electricity is ill-advised.
An increase to the capacity of the Snowy Hydro Scheme by 2000MW would place significant stress on the Murray Darling Basin and its effectiveness as Australia’s largest food bowl. Previously, the increase in environmental flows from the storage lakes have improved water quality and maintained agricultural production.
However, in July 2007, Lake Eucumbene a major storage component of the hydro scheme came within 0.2% (10.1%) of the minimum level required to allow electricity generation. This resulted in the increase of pump storage use to recycle water between storage lakes. Pump Storage requires the use of coal fired electricity overnight. The use of pump storage and the aggressive trading of the snowy hydro power plants up to 30th June 2007 almost caused another electricity crisis.
In 2017, the proposed upgrade to the Snowy Scheme would increase uncertainty in electricity prices, remove water from Agricultural production and reduce the quality of water flowing down the Murray-Darling Basin. Snowy Hydro’s ability to generate clean renewable energy has become consistently more difficult given the reduced availability of water.
$2,000,000,000 for 2,000 MW pumped hydro assuming the back of a coaster calc done by Turnbull is even close. It's probably a bit short.
Battery is $US250 per KWh that's $1,000 per KW at the 4 hour rate.
Soooo 2,000 MW battery is $US2B now-ish (not in 10 years).
Why bother with the hydro?
and pumped hydro has very little and sometimes no duration - see link above.what about if you need that battery to run for 1 week
7days x 24 hours x 2000 MW = 336 GWh
if a natural disaster (or otherwise) causes an outage, perhaps 4 hours is too short to recover, maybe 24 hours is still too quick in case of floods, Fukushima had backup for about 3 days. basically the more duration, the better.