Sensational-Adelaide.com

SBD wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 21, 2024 3:57 pm

The Commonwealth government's Snowy 2.0 seems to have stalled (literally!)

Kidston 250MW, 8 hours pumped hydro in northern Queensland seems to be under construction.

South Australia had a bunch of pumped hydro proposals a few years ago. Baroota (also 250MW for 8 hours) is the only one I can't find has been cancelled, but I'm not certain if it's still proposed or under construction either - does anyone else know for sure either way?

There have been various proposals for new technology with thermal storage but none seem to have matured past concept demonstrations if they've even got that far.

Cant find much on the Baroota thing beyond 2021 with this link..
https://reneweconomy.com.au/one-pumped- ... ct-wind-an

They did seem to get Crown sponsorship whatever that means/whatever it's worth..
https://www.saplanningcommission.sa.gov ... 001-18.pdf

Part of the problem for those against renewables is that they have been crying wolf for so long, that even if correct now, people are going to disbelieve. Add that to the proposal to build unproven SMR, and people will chuckle. Add to that, it's being proposed by people who couldn't build Inland Rail on time, or Snowy Mk2, or the NBN, and you can't expect them to be taken seriously.

Certainly, the transition is fraught with difficulties. Sure, it might crash and burn even. However, what is rock solid certain is that the suggestions of a party that couldn't produce an energy plan at all, that couldn't handle building a Rail line properly, aren't going to help.

This whole debate is made up in bad faith by people who won't build a nuclear plant, and on the record of achievement in infrastructure, cannot build anything. Coal, nuclear, gas, whatever. Leave it to the Coalition? Well, look at their record of major project delivery. That's what you are going to get. Zero.

rubberman wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 21, 2024 4:20 pm

Part of the problem for those against renewables is that they have been crying wolf for so long, that even if correct now, people are going to disbelieve. Add that to the proposal to build unproven SMR, and people will chuckle. Add to that, it's being proposed by people who couldn't build Inland Rail on time, or Snowy Mk2, or the NBN, and you can't expect them to be taken seriously.

Certainly, the transition is fraught with difficulties. Sure, it might crash and burn even. However, what is rock solid certain is that the suggestions of a party that couldn't produce an energy plan at all, that couldn't handle building a Rail line properly, aren't going to help.

This whole debate is made up in bad faith by people who won't build a nuclear plant, and on the record of achievement in infrastructure, cannot build anything. Coal, nuclear, gas, whatever. Leave it to the Coalition? Well, look at their record of major project delivery. That's what you are going to get. Zero.

If people in general believe Dutton or not, they know what in the real world they are being told by Labor and the teals and what is actually transpiring. We are all guaranteed that as renewables are the cheapest for generation, our power bills would go down. They continue to rise dramatically. People were also reassured that renewables would be able to step in as coal shut down. It is not. They were told by Labor that large uptake of gas would not be nesessary, when the Libs proposed gas as a stop gap… we are now being told that gas is essential, by the same party that rubbished the Libs plans for gas. We were told renewables are environmentally the best path, only to have regional communities up in arms about destruction of swathes of bush for renewable projects. Unfortunately, people no longer trust either side, but Dutton has nothing to loose. Labor on the other hand have lots of explaining to do.

claybro wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 21, 2024 8:03 pm

rubberman wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 21, 2024 4:20 pm

Part of the problem for those against renewables is that they have been crying wolf for so long, that even if correct now, people are going to disbelieve. Add that to the proposal to build unproven SMR, and people will chuckle. Add to that, it's being proposed by people who couldn't build Inland Rail on time, or Snowy Mk2, or the NBN, and you can't expect them to be taken seriously.

Certainly, the transition is fraught with difficulties. Sure, it might crash and burn even. However, what is rock solid certain is that the suggestions of a party that couldn't produce an energy plan at all, that couldn't handle building a Rail line properly, aren't going to help.

This whole debate is made up in bad faith by people who won't build a nuclear plant, and on the record of achievement in infrastructure, cannot build anything. Coal, nuclear, gas, whatever. Leave it to the Coalition? Well, look at their record of major project delivery. That's what you are going to get. Zero.

If people in general believe Dutton or not, they know what in the real world they are being told by Labor and the teals and what is actually transpiring. We are all guaranteed that as renewables are the cheapest for generation, our power bills would go down. They continue to rise dramatically. People were also reassured that renewables would be able to step in as coal shut down. It is not. They were told by Labor that large uptake of gas would not be nesessary, when the Libs proposed gas as a stop gap… we are now being told that gas is essential, by the same party that rubbished the Libs plans for gas. We were told renewables are environmentally the best path, only to have regional communities up in arms about destruction of swathes of bush for renewable projects. Unfortunately, people no longer trust either side, but Dutton has nothing to loose. Labor on the other hand have lots of explaining to do.

Renewables are cheaper than other alternatives. However, the generation costs are only part of the cost. So, it's completely absurd and irrational to think that substitution with a more expensive type of generation could reduce costs. If 1 + 1 = 2, what happens if you substitute a higher number? Continue to rise dramatically? I was just advised of a reduction. Renewables are stepping in. Both battery and wind/solar capacity are increasing. As for gas capacity, the Coalition simply didn't reserve gas.

However. Given that the Coalition couldn't build the NBN on time, submarines, Murray Darling Basin Plan, Inland Rail, Snowy Mk2, the record shows that the best way to have no solution lies with them. There's a big challenge, certainly, but going down the nuclear path, led by the Coalition is a sure fire guarantee that a) we will run out of power, and b) they'll blame Labor, and c) people will swallow that.

claybro wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 21, 2024 8:03 pm

rubberman wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 21, 2024 4:20 pm

Part of the problem for those against renewables is that they have been crying wolf for so long, that even if correct now, people are going to disbelieve. Add that to the proposal to build unproven SMR, and people will chuckle. Add to that, it's being proposed by people who couldn't build Inland Rail on time, or Snowy Mk2, or the NBN, and you can't expect them to be taken seriously.

Certainly, the transition is fraught with difficulties. Sure, it might crash and burn even. However, what is rock solid certain is that the suggestions of a party that couldn't produce an energy plan at all, that couldn't handle building a Rail line properly, aren't going to help.

This whole debate is made up in bad faith by people who won't build a nuclear plant, and on the record of achievement in infrastructure, cannot build anything. Coal, nuclear, gas, whatever. Leave it to the Coalition? Well, look at their record of major project delivery. That's what you are going to get. Zero.

If people in general believe Dutton or not, they know what in the real world they are being told by Labor and the teals and what is actually transpiring. We are all guaranteed that as renewables are the cheapest for generation, our power bills would go down. They continue to rise dramatically. People were also reassured that renewables would be able to step in as coal shut down. It is not. They were told by Labor that large uptake of gas would not be nesessary, when the Libs proposed gas as a stop gap… we are now being told that gas is essential, by the same party that rubbished the Libs plans for gas. We were told renewables are environmentally the best path, only to have regional communities up in arms about destruction of swathes of bush for renewable projects. Unfortunately, people no longer trust either side, but Dutton has nothing to loose. Labor on the other hand have lots of explaining to do.

Not really sure if your being genuine or not Claybro.

Surely you've realised that the price of renewables is a very cheap source of power, evidenced by the fact that when there is over 100% being generated the price is negative.

The prices peak when an additional resource is required (gas in our case). I'm sure, because all your ranting, you would have looked closely at this mechanism and understood what drives prices up.

Example is, say you need 100 electrons to run the system, 99 electrons are produced by renewables, 1% is needed to be supplied by gas. That last 1% dictates the charge that all gerators get, including renewables.

Gas, as you would know is actually in short supply, partly because of NSW and Vic policies. When gas is needed on the east coast the price spikes to say $1600kwh. Bingo.

The quicker we can get to 100% renewables with storage, to cover that last gap, the quicker we will all pay less, not just u.

mattblack wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 21, 2024 10:04 pm

claybro wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 21, 2024 8:03 pm

rubberman wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 21, 2024 4:20 pm

Part of the problem for those against renewables is that they have been crying wolf for so long, that even if correct now, people are going to disbelieve. Add that to the proposal to build unproven SMR, and people will chuckle. Add to that, it's being proposed by people who couldn't build Inland Rail on time, or Snowy Mk2, or the NBN, and you can't expect them to be taken seriously.

Certainly, the transition is fraught with difficulties. Sure, it might crash and burn even. However, what is rock solid certain is that the suggestions of a party that couldn't produce an energy plan at all, that couldn't handle building a Rail line properly, aren't going to help.

This whole debate is made up in bad faith by people who won't build a nuclear plant, and on the record of achievement in infrastructure, cannot build anything. Coal, nuclear, gas, whatever. Leave it to the Coalition? Well, look at their record of major project delivery. That's what you are going to get. Zero.

If people in general believe Dutton or not, they know what in the real world they are being told by Labor and the teals and what is actually transpiring. We are all guaranteed that as renewables are the cheapest for generation, our power bills would go down. They continue to rise dramatically. People were also reassured that renewables would be able to step in as coal shut down. It is not. They were told by Labor that large uptake of gas would not be nesessary, when the Libs proposed gas as a stop gap… we are now being told that gas is essential, by the same party that rubbished the Libs plans for gas. We were told renewables are environmentally the best path, only to have regional communities up in arms about destruction of swathes of bush for renewable projects. Unfortunately, people no longer trust either side, but Dutton has nothing to loose. Labor on the other hand have lots of explaining to do.

Not really sure if your being genuine or not Claybro.

Surely you've realised that the price of renewables is a very cheap source of power, evidenced by the fact that when there is over 100% being generated the price is negative.

The prices peak when an additional resource is required (gas in our case). I'm sure, because all your ranting, you would have looked closely at this mechanism and understood what drives prices up.

Example is, say you need 100 electrons to run the system, 99 electrons are produced by renewables, 1% is needed to be supplied by gas. That last 1% dictates the charge that all gerators get, including renewables.

Gas, as you would know is actually in short supply, partly because of NSW and Vic policies. When gas is needed on the east coast the price spikes to say $1600kwh. Bingo.

The quicker we can get to 100% renewables with storage, to cover that last gap, the quicker we will all pay less, not just u.

That’s just it though. It is not physically possible to be 100 renewables with battery backup in the timeframe promised. We cant mine, manufacture or even upscale technology fast enough. And as fast as it come online, the relatively short lifespan of batteries at 20 years, means we have to start all over again, before we have even finished. Will nuclear be any different? Well many countries seem to think it is the way forward. For Australia, maybe not.., but you are also buying into an idea that is simply not going to happen, in the timescale or cost promised and that is exactly the argument against nuclear.

South Australia can easily reach 100% renewables, fossil free, with Duttons nuclear money.

One small nuclear plant is going to cost around 12-13 billion AUD....
let's buy 10 (ten) 500mw/2000mwh batteries (one billion each) instead (Western Australia is building one of these right now) and maybe 1000mw of new wind for another 3 billion...

One small nuclear plant is 470mw max.....I just gave you a plan for the potential of 6000mw at one time...of course you wouldn't work it like that. The batteries would alternate and only put power into the grid when needed. They are not "base power".

PeFe wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 22, 2024 12:27 pm

South Australia can easily reach 100% renewables, fossil free, with Duttons nuclear money.

One small nuclear plant is going to cost around 12-13 billion AUD....
let's buy 10 (ten) 500mw/2000mwh batteries (one billion each) instead (Western Australia is building one of these right now) and maybe 1000mw of new wind for another 3 billion...

One small nuclear plant is 470mw max.....I just gave you a plan for the potential of 6000mw at one time...of course you wouldn't work it like that. The batteries would alternate and only put power into the grid when needed. They are not "base power".

batteries don't generate electricity

PeFe wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 22, 2024 12:27 pm

South Australia can easily reach 100% renewables, fossil free, with Duttons nuclear money.

One small nuclear plant is going to cost around 12-13 billion AUD....
let's buy 10 (ten) 500mw/2000mwh batteries (one billion each) instead (Western Australia is building one of these right now) and maybe 1000mw of new wind for another 3 billion...

One small nuclear plant is 470mw max.....I just gave you a plan for the potential of 6000mw at one time...of course you wouldn't work it like that. The batteries would alternate and only put power into the grid when needed. They are not "base power".

Hydrogen creation for when there is more than 100% renewable energy is what the SA govt is banking on in Whyalla. Massive storage potential with 250mw power station able to be switched on when there are peaks in demand and replace natural gas as much as possible. Water is the big problem which is why they are building a desal plant powered by renewables. Batteries for short spurts, Hydrogen for days of generation.

abc wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 22, 2024 12:53 pm

PeFe wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 22, 2024 12:27 pm

South Australia can easily reach 100% renewables, fossil free, with Duttons nuclear money.

One small nuclear plant is going to cost around 12-13 billion AUD....
let's buy 10 (ten) 500mw/2000mwh batteries (one billion each) instead (Western Australia is building one of these right now) and maybe 1000mw of new wind for another 3 billion...

One small nuclear plant is 470mw max.....I just gave you a plan for the potential of 6000mw at one time...of course you wouldn't work it like that. The batteries would alternate and only put power into the grid when needed. They are not "base power".

batteries don't generate electricity

Banks don't "generate" money , but they do store an awful lot of it.

abc wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 22, 2024 12:53 pm

PeFe wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 22, 2024 12:27 pm

South Australia can easily reach 100% renewables, fossil free, with Duttons nuclear money.

One small nuclear plant is going to cost around 12-13 billion AUD....
let's buy 10 (ten) 500mw/2000mwh batteries (one billion each) instead (Western Australia is building one of these right now) and maybe 1000mw of new wind for another 3 billion...

One small nuclear plant is 470mw max.....I just gave you a plan for the potential of 6000mw at one time...of course you wouldn't work it like that. The batteries would alternate and only put power into the grid when needed. They are not "base power".

batteries don't generate electricity

Correct, but they act as both a load and a generator on the grid.

In "load" mode, they consume energy from the grid, providing stability and consuming excess non-scheduled generation. In "generator" mode, they feed electricity to the grid to provide stability and reduce the requirement for fossil fuel quick-reaction generation - batteries are faster to respond than even quick-start machines.

When the grid needs more electrons, it can get them from a machine burning gas/diesel/coal/uranium, a hydro turbine or other dispatchable source, or retrieve stored electrons from a battery of some kind.

PeFe wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 22, 2024 1:27 pm

abc wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 22, 2024 12:53 pm

PeFe wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 22, 2024 12:27 pm

South Australia can easily reach 100% renewables, fossil free, with Duttons nuclear money.

One small nuclear plant is going to cost around 12-13 billion AUD....
let's buy 10 (ten) 500mw/2000mwh batteries (one billion each) instead (Western Australia is building one of these right now) and maybe 1000mw of new wind for another 3 billion...

One small nuclear plant is 470mw max.....I just gave you a plan for the potential of 6000mw at one time...of course you wouldn't work it like that. The batteries would alternate and only put power into the grid when needed. They are not "base power".

batteries don't generate electricity

Banks don't "generate" money , but they do store an awful lot of it.

Actually banks don't store an awful lot of money, but that's ok you can't be an arm chair expert on everything lol.

You gave us a plan did you?

Ill ask you as well, since fan #1 has gone quiet, what are your credentials that make you an expert?
Feel free to share at your leisure....

The Reserve BANK alone has $100bn of gold and foreign exchange reserves. It's easily found by googling.

Australian banks also have about 15% of assets as liquid reserves. That's a lot of money.

So, the bank analogy is valid. PeFe is absolutely correct.

I have been hearing tales of how renewables can't work from people absolutely certain of themselves for over twenty years.

Each and every prediction of renewables not working has proven wrong. Efficiency of batteries has improved way beyond predicted. Efficiency of solar panels as well. Prices of solar and wind have also reduced. This is despite repeated predictions that this is impossible.

This continuous record of being wrong hasn't deterred people from repeating themselves and making further wrong predictions over those decades... it's as if their previous wrong predictions had never happened. Shameless.

What is even worse, the increased costs we really do see, get blamed on renewables. There's this refusal to acknowledge that gas is the leading factor, and that the hundreds of millions spent on repairs to decrepit coal burners has any effect.

Dutton isn't just blaming costs on renewables, but on transmission infrastructure. He wants us to believe that this is somehow the Achilles heel of renewables which will be solved by concentrating the entire nations generation capacity on 7 nuclear power plants. They don't need transmission wires apparently. They feed energy to the grid vis carrier pigeons.

10 years into "building nuclear power plants" they will discover the solution to the transmission problem. They'll decide it's better to continue burning coal and "scrap" their "plan" to "build nuclear power plants".

If it is so important for the grid to have reserve dispatchable backup sources, why is the state government not lining up to buy the two gas turbine power stations that are being closed as they have no contracts? Snuggery may be 46 years old, but Port Lincoln is only 25 years old and seems not to have been heavily used so is likely to still have a long working life if maintained.

Snuggery and Port Lincoln power stations are 63MW and 75MW, diesel-fueled. The contract to provide backup power was not renewed by Electranet last year, so Engie is cutting its losses.

Engie to shut two South Australian generators as losses mount Australian Financial Review 6 February 2024