“Snowy Hydro Limited has declared wind and solar are 'clearly cheaper' power options than coal”. I was not aware that a THING could declare something; but, if it can, it is a lying thing;wind and solar are NOT cheaper than coal because of the huge transfers, by the political class, of taxpayer funds to rent-seekers, liars and shonks. So-called alternative energy exists ONLY because of the government's largesse with our money. It is a rort and an insult to our intelligence. The political class is telling us things that are not reflected in our electricity bills!

People who do not belong to the political class or the shonky rent-seeking class are telling us that Snowy 2.0 is another hoax that will use more power than it will produce. As these people are not politicians, climate hysterics, power suppliers or grant-dependent scientists, I am inclined to believe them.

I recently send a letter to the Chief Scientist asking where was he when the Snowy 2 idea was announced. Apart from an acknowlegement from a robot, no reply has been received. One wonders what these people are paid for.
David

"Is Snowy 2.0’s call to can coal an own-goal?"

It sure is! Snowy Hydro 2.0 will not be viable no matter what energy source is used. But much less viable if powered by intermittent renewables.

Pumped hydro energy storage was economic in the 1970s before gas generation became a cheaper option for providing fast response to demand changes. The global capacity of new pumped storage projects since then has been negligible. That's because it is uneconomic.

It is most economic when it is powered by reliable cheap power during off peak periods (e.g. 11 pm to 6 am) and uses most of its storage capacity every day of the year. That requires pumping be powered by cheap coal or nuclear power - e.g. Hazelwood.

If intermittent renewables are used for pumping, storage capacity would need to be some 30 times higher than if power is from coal. This is because there are long periods of low power output from intermittent renewable energy generators. The large storage capacity is needed to supply reliable power through all such periods.

continued below ...

... continued

Furthermore, the transmission costs from the renewable generators to the pumped storage site would be huge. This is because:

1. The transmission line to every renewable energy generator has to be sized to transmit the maximum power output from each generator. But solar plants supply only about 15%-20% of their capacity on average and wind about 30% to 35% on average, so the cost per km of transmission line length is around 2 to 5 times greater than from coal or nuclear plants.

2. Furthermore, the transmission lines required to the widely distributed renewable energy power plants, many of which are in remote locations, are much longer than to the coal fired power stations.

3. The power lines to the coal power plants already exist, whereas as new renewable energy capacity is added, new power lines will have to be built.

4. The cost of the extra transmission capacity has not been included in the costings of Hydro 2.0.

5. Only about 75% of the power purchased for pumping is recovered from storage and resold. That is, about 25% of the energy bought is wasted due to efficiency losses (mostly in friction losses in the tunnels which are over 20 km long – i.e. about 5 to 20 times longer than normal for pumped hydro, and 40 times longer the Tumut 3.

Hydro 2.0 is another ideologically driven intervention by government in the power system. It will cost a fortune. And all the costs mentioned above, plus the cost of buying renewable energy, and losing about 25% due to efficiency losses in the storage and regeneration cycle, mean it is going to be another very costly mistake by government.

Hooray! I am so pleased! Wonderful, wonderful!
So let's drop all subsidies for solar and wind and legislate power prices to decrease by five per cent annually for the next twenty years.
Then let's see what these thieving idiots come up with!

The Energy Security Board tell us that retail power prices will reduce in the next few years. Convince the greater public who have gone on a second wave of installing solar panels. Tas Hydro have told the AFR they can do more pumped hydro (850 Gwh vs 350) than Snowy 2 the catch being another $1bn+ is needed to replicate Basslink cable. Snowy 2 apparently needs a pumping station 1100m underground through unstable rock. They'll also need major new transmission albeit above ground.

It seems unlikely that networked batteries will get to Gwh scale storage. The Powerwall 2 has a levelised cost of 24c per kwh or $240 per Mwh perhaps commercial versions can improve that slightly. If we end up storing a lot of coal power the emissions savings may disappoint. SMRs are the way to go.