Warren Buffett's comment about building unreliable windmills says it all. As for the “green elephant” of using as much electricity to push water uphill as the process produces, well that's just another example of liars still thinking they can get away with their scams. Unfortunately, there is every possibility that our gullible politicians will go along with it, despite Turnbull's ignominious retreat retreat to New York.

The renewables fraction of generation was probably higher (25%?) around 1975 without wind and solar than the current 16%. As we speak Tas is exporting 400+ MW to Vic which the Andrews govt may unwisely assume will always be there as backup.

With Snowy 2's main supporter Turnbull out of the way I wonder how long before we see any actual tunnel digging and new power lines. Without carbon tax there is nothing to stop coal baseload becoming the main input for pumping. If they also ask for per-Mwh subsidies green dreamers might wonder if it is such a great idea. OTOH we would need millions of lithium ion batteries all internet connected to replicate Snowy 2 but at much greater cost.

In short Snowy 2 full version may never happen. Networked batteries won't get past the demo stage. Back to generating in real time hope there's plenty of gas.

And good riddance to Malcolm the "terrorist" Turnbull and his treacherous plan with the Snowy mountains, to assist the Labor Party into power

With so little industry left in Australia, what/who is using so much power ?

ttbn,

"... As for the “green elephant” of using as much electricity to push water uphill as the process produces,"

Never learn do you?

All around the world stored power via pumped water (uphill) is being used, just to remind you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity

I can agree with many of Viv's comments but using his own figure the
proposed Snowy 2.0 scheme if full could supply flat out for 28 days.
Now, before some here jump on me that figure is not accurate, but
whatever the real figure is, it would be a great many times what any
practical battery could supply.
The round trip efficiency of both batteries and pumped hydro is +-70%.

Basically, it is now becoming accepted that wind and solar are unreliable
and to fiddle with the surrounding systems to make them reliable is
just far too expensive. That can be a reason to ban wind & solar.
This what the renewable lobby refuse to take into account when they
insist that wind/solar is the cheapest.

Yes, yes and yes. It is pumped using cheap off-peak power and available as pumped hydro during peak demand when it commands the highest returns!?

And remains reliant as does Tassie Or NZ hydro on reliable rainfall!

And both have had years, where levels have fallen dangerously low as we might if, lumbered with this ultra expensive, thought bubble, ideological response.

And at taxpayers expense!

None of who were ever consulted at a general election,
before this daft, cost blow out, project was drawn up on the back of a table napkin?

And before we knew if the geology allowed it to be feasible?

Moreover, done simply to avoid green anger at the next poll and to kick the nuclear power option down the road, essentially, I believe, for the same cowardly reason.

We'd score far better in the poll that counts, by taking a principled stand and telling he loony tune left (the greens) to go (deleted expletive) root themselves.

Time to end the never-ending, eternal prevarication and the intransigence of the loony tune left!

Who need to be robustly shirt-fronted, with irrefutable facts!

Just promise to investigate the nuclear option as part of the suite of energy possibilities then let those with financial merit, most outstanding safety and health records, stand or fall on conclusive, "unsubsidised" merit!
Alan B.

My very faulty understanding of Snowy 2 is that water is to be pumped uphill when power prices are low, i.e. in the early hours, and then let go later when power demand is highest, i.e. when electricity prices are higher.

So what happens when electric cars become the rule, when (presumably) a million of them will be getting their batteries charged in those same early hours, when everybody hopes electricity prices are lowest ? i.e. when electricity prices will be evening out across 24 hours ?

Sooner or later, small-scale nuclear power plants will have to be considered and, given their safety records in France and Finland etc., probably become the major provider of energy in Australia by 2100. In the meantime, why not a few more latest-design gas- and coal-fired power stations ?

Even an idiot can ask questions and make suggestions :)

Joe

Read a report this morning about Donald Trump's enthusiasm for Super fuel.

Sometimes described by alleged experts as element U. Imagine this dense material the size of a golf ball described as element U, would power your home for three years And for a tad under $11.00.

Obviously nobody has told the genius that 8 grams of thorium, far and away the most energy dense element on earth and so abundant, that we can never run out of the stuff, can power both your house and car for the next 100 years at a total cost of just $100.00 And that's just one oxford scholar a year.

Albeit, We might get element U down there with thorium if used exclusively in MSR technology.

But I believe we should reject that possibility on the grounds of the actual amount of weapons-grade plutonium we'd create, going down that path!? Albeit, even if safer, cleaner and cheaper than coal?

The Saudis are selling their oil company, I'm informed, so they can plough their money into element U?

So much for non-proliferation treaties and almost as useful as tits on a bull!
Alan B.

When you look at the NBN & Snowy 2.0, you have to wonder if Turnbull is just Rudd returned in disguise. Both are equally wasteful of public money, equally pie in the sky, & both offer a huge opportunity for a few the get very rich from the crumbs falling out of the projects.

Chuck in the Sub project, & I guess you could say Rudd was simply a trial run in maximising waste for Turnbull to follow.

I agree with everything, Viv, but for "All of this is motivated by the carbon dioxide/global warming scare. This is a planned distraction and that story is wearing thin."

What wears thin is the absence of any precautionary approach to the possibility the overwhelming weight of evidence supporting AGW and ocean acidification is correct.

I agree that renewables are not the answer but not that fossil-fuels should provide thermal baseload, due to their emissions.

Rest assured Lucifer, whatever Donald Trump likes? We will as well! And given public opinion actually matters, particularly at election time!

Those who decide for us, with the help of various vested interest? Will probably lock on to Element U as being less of a threat to the fossil fuel industry and big nuclear, than thorium?

With big pharma asked to look after its own challenged pecuniary interests with a suite of new drugs/treatments. Like much more expensive peptide and nanoparticle therapies for cancer e.g.

We apparently own 25% of the world's element U and the world apparently has enough of this alleged super fuel to power the planet with carbon-free energy for the next 230 years?

Albeit, if it chose thorium? For thousands of years or even billions if we mine it from known reserves in igneous rock. And given that we do? Almost destroy the fossil fuel industry and big nuclear overnight!

And the reason for a half-century of pushbacks by the aforementioned cashed-up players and their political lobbyists, one suspects, who engineered the prohibition of even minor R+D on MSR thorium? And with it, miracle cancer cure, bismuth213!?

However, not completely successful given the Cando Candian solid fuel reactors have used some thorium in their solid fueled reactors as have the Indians. Even so, reported stocks of bismuth 213 or its procurement element, down to just 2 grams worldwide?

The Chinese apparently took up off from the Oak Ridge experiment and went straight into MSR as have Brazil, on the back of FUJI's 350MW MSR experiment?

Look at, the case for thorium and scroll down to a free PDF if technically minded, or want a more technical explanation by nuclear physicists who know what they are talking about, as do the referred whose who, expert biblical biography, in the index. Unless you're a conflicted politician?

Then don't bother, as there'd probably be no point anyway?
Alan B.

Al.

I prefer a chip heater, tank water, and candle light. At least while housing remains unaffordable, and power companies become the new masters of the poor, (with the total assistance of the uncaring political classes)!

Diver Dan,

We use solar for water heating with a backup from the boiler (wood fired) that I use to run my workshop (mechanically) and also to charge the battery bank and to generate 240V power (for power tools mainly).
The windmill pumps water to a 2.000 gallon tank that is above house level, thus supplying domestic water at pressure.

The power lines are only a mile or so away but the cost of connecting is prohibitive and the benefits negligible.

I made the solar water heater about thirty years ago, using corrugated copper sheets and lots of solder!!