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.