“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.

Taswegian - just as an aside to your note, that decrease in power prices is off historic highs in the wholesale price resulting from brown coal plants shutting up shop.

Like the other posters I am extremely suspicious of figures supposedly showing that renewables are somehow cheaper than conventional power. But about all I can add to the discussion is that no where have renewables added up to cheaper prices. All grids were conversion has been tried - including very small grids such as Barrow Island off Alaska and King Island in Bass Strait - have required massive (subsidised) investment, even to replace diesel-fuel generators. High power prices have proved politically explosive in countries which have embraced the renewables dream, such as Germany, Denmark and Spain.

Quote - "figures supposedly showing that renewables are somehow cheaper than conventional power."

How the figures are calculated could be one reason that they appear cheaper, but what calculations are they leaving out, for example the cost of repairing wind turbines is enormous especially if they are built in or near the ocean.

Far too many unfounded assumptions far too few known facts!

Fact one. One unit of thorium has the dispatchable energy quotient of one million hydrocarbon units.
Fact two, thorium with a half-life of 25 billion years is, therefore, less radioactive than a banana, and is fertile, not fissile, has been notoriously difficult to weaponize!

Fact three, MSR can be used to burn and burn, again and again, in perfect safety, other folk's nuclear waste! And as those folk pay us or our competition, annual billions for the service. Drive energy costs through the cellar.
This proposed burn and burn, again and again, can potentially reduce the half-life of that waste to just three hundred years.
That we should be opting for this far lower costing, to us, option, is an economic no-brainer!
We know Snowy 2 is going to blow out and cost several more billions than the current, back of the table napkin, estimate?
Setting up waste burners will cost far less given they can be mass produced, factory built and paid for by the annual billions we could earn?
But only if we stop the endless politically inspired prevarication and obstinate obfuscation and just crack on with it and Modernized MSR technology.
If we lack the expertise?
451 visas will allow us to import the necessary expertize until we have enough up to speed, technicians thoroughly trained and in place.
Suggest a Government facilitated and funded, cooperative model, would drive the build costs as low as they can conceivably go?
The time for excuse making and blame shifting is well and truly over, as are some of the political careers of fathomless fools. Who would die in a ditch before they allow us to both decarbonize the economy, as well as, quite massively growing it and JOB/JOBS/JOBS!
Alan B.

I personally welcome the statements that renewables are cheaper than coal, and eagerly await the cancellation of all subsidies.

Apologies and correction. a half-life of 25 billion years is incorrect and should be read as 15 (fifteen) billion years.
Alan B.

//thorium with a half-life of 25 billion years is, therefore, less radioactive than a banana//

What's the half-life of a banana, Captain Misinformation?

"What's the half-life of a banana"

Around my place, when the grandkids are visiting, about 45seconds.

Snowy 2.0 isn't about improving the electricity grid.

Its a political tool. Snowy 2.0 allows the government (and opposition for that matter) to assure disgruntled voters that they have the answer to their electricity power bills.

At some point there will be a reckoning about how the political elite 'managed' to turn Australia from an efficient low cost power nation to an inefficient very high (highest) cost producer.

So the political aim is to kick that reckoning down the track, beyond the next election.

In that respect, Snowy 2.0 is massively successful even without generating a single watt of power. Of course, the nation will be lumped with a $10 billion white elephant but winning an election is much more important than mere government debt.

Tony Lavis. Bananas are a good source of potassium which contains a significant amount of a radioactive isotope. If you have access to a geiger counter you might like to try using it on a banana. You will be surprised at the result.

From Wikipaedia "Bananas are slightly radioactive because they contain potassium and potassium decays. Potassium is a necessary substance for healthy operation of your body. You would have to eat a LOT of bananas just to compete with the natural potassium dose of your body. ... No one ever developed radiation sickness from eating bananas.
Isotope mass‎: ‎39.96399848
Half-life‎: ‎1.251(3)×10^9 years"

David

VK3AUU - Are you sujesting it is better for people to eat Uranium rather than bananas?

//Bananas are a good source of potassium which contains a significant amount of a radioactive isotope. If you have access to a geiger counter you might like to try using it on a banana. You will be surprised at the result.//

David, I'm quite aware that bananas contain high levels of K and therefore K-40. I'm not disputing that they're more radioactive than the average piece of fruit; I am having a dig at Alan's claim that thorium is 'less radioactive than a banana'. Less radioactive than K-40, yes... but less radioactive than a banana? I have been over this ground with him before, and apparently he didn't learn last time around.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19664#348660

I still stand by my argument that even if we agree on the radioactivity of a standard banana (which sounds like a fun exercise in metrology), without a specified quantity of Th-232 the claim is meaningless. I also stand by the claim that on a mass for mass, or mole for mole (insofar as it makes sense to speak of a mole of bananas) basis, thorium is definitely more radioactive.

But feel free to correct me if you think I'm wrong; I enjoy discussing science with people that aren't complete crackpots.

Anyway, I'm off to eat some brazil nuts. I'm hoping they'll give me super powers, like Captain Misinformation. Did you know that the average brazil nut is more radioactive than a supercritical mass of Pu-239? ;)

No, he's not Philip! And almost the most ridiculous retort you've posted to date. Bananas are a natural source of Potassium 40 and therefore slightly radioactive.
As for the half-life of potassium 40? My Granddaddy would have said. I would'na clue!
The rest of the banana would have decayed beyond recognition, and therefore no way of knowing. Suffice to say, the next crop can and does suck up a share from the soil.
Interestingly, some crops like industrial hemp do much the same thing in irradiated soil to permanently remove enough of the isotopes over time, to completely decontaminate an area and bring the rads down to where they're low enough to allow people and fauna and flora to safely re-establish! Finally, understand this. The longer the half-life, the less radioactive the material!
Alan B.

//Bananas are a natural source of Potassium 40 and therefore slightly radioactive.//

Yes, we know.

Bananas are not made entirely out of K-40. If they were, nobody would eat them.

//As for the half-life of potassium 40? My Granddaddy would have said. I would'na clue!//

It's 1.251 x 10^9 years.