Select to expand quotecammd said..
1. What energy storage system is being built in a big way in Australia - genuine question, all I can think of Snowy Hydro 2.0
2. You said "The problem with Sky Lies is that they ignore the facts" then you proceeded to confirm what the Sky report was saying. So where are the Sky News Lies you mentioned
There are plenty of battery projects being built at the 2 and 4 hour level of storage. I haven't added them up but I think it's about 7 or 8 gigawatt hours in NSW
There are also pumped hydro projects going ahead. Some of them are reusing old coal pits.
One in western Sydney uses an old coal washing tailings dam is intended to provide one gigawatt for 8 hours in the evenings to keep all those air conditioning units going in western Sydney
In Queensland the LNP has cancelled the Pioneer Dam project but they are continuing with the smaller Borumba Dam
They are building a battery in Collie WA. colliebattery.com.au/
I wonder if it would make more sense over the long term to connect the east and west coast grids? Probably not as it would no doubt be expensive and much harder than just throwing down some cables on a seabed.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
..... it would no doubt be expensive and much harder than just throwing down some cables on a seabed.
..... but not if you use macroscienc's ingenious vacuum tunnel superconductor with spiral wound casing, solar powered boosters and multi-weave honeycomb carbon cables.
The thing holding that back is not expense or difficulty, it is only held back by the laws of physics in this universe.
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
one gigawatt for 8 hours in the evenings to keep all those air conditioning units going in western Sydney...
my maths might be out, but one gigawatt is good for about 1,000 households (with a bit of rounding of the numbers) ?
Out of 2 million in Sydney.... so you'd need 2,000 old elevated coal tailings dams. Or 6,000 if you wanted 24 hours of back-up?
And then at least double power the next day to pump the water back as well as powering the houses, if you wanted the capacity back within 24 hours ?
You know houses that use 1MW of 240V electricity?
That's 4166.66666 amps of current, so 400 circuits with 10 amp circuitbreakers, plus a few electric stove circuits.
They must have enormous fuseboxes.
And yes, the water gets pumped up whenever power is cheapest. But it's not 50% energy loss. More like 25%.
Also, I don't think the cistern gets drained every day. Sometimes only a half flush will be needed.
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..Mr Milk said..
one gigawatt for 8 hours in the evenings to keep all those air conditioning units going in western Sydney...
my maths might be out, but one gigawatt is good for about 1,000 households (with a bit of rounding of the numbers) ?
Out of 2 million in Sydney.... so you'd need 2,000 old elevated coal tailings dams. Or 6,000 if you wanted 24 hours of back-up?
And then at least double power the next day to pump the water back as well as powering the houses, if you wanted the capacity back within 24 hours ?
That's if the sun is there given that the capacity factor is so bad it only works about 2 days a week on average over a year.Wind is a little bit better at 3.Massive overbuild always required and still unreliable and dilute no matter how many batteries and pools of water you have.Must be backed by fossil fuels.
Select to expand quotepeacenlove said..
COP29 was a total failure. Appropriate given all the hot air being discharged.
Another new log in, picking up the discussion like they never left? Hmm.
Select to expand quotepeacenlove said..
COP29 was a total failure. Appropriate given all the hot air being discharged.
www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/12/cop29-host-azerbaijan-brands-oil-and-gas-gift-from
There was some honesty there amongst all the virtue signalling .
What does SWIS stand for? South West Integrated System?? Nit picking: Walpole is trying to get its pumped hydro system commissioned now, so there is a tiny, tiny bit of pumped hydro in WA atm.
I do like the irony of the pollies talking up the 'National Grid' . I guess calling it the 'East Coast Grid' just doesn't sound as impressive in a press release.
www.energy.gov.au/energy-data/australian-energy-statistics/data-charts/australian-energy-mix-state-and-territory-2022-23
WA is +95% fossil fuel driven .Everyone gets caught up in just grid electricity as if that's net zero.
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
... they are continuing with the smaller Borumba Dam
which is going really, really well......
quite by co-incidence.... (if you beLIEve everything you read on the ABC,,,)
www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12-04/borumba-dam-project-delayed-amid-cost-blowouts/104683332
.....now cost $18.4b and will not be ready until 2033 at the earliest.The "risk-adjusted" completion date is now July 2035
$18.4bn would get you a nuclear plant, that produces power 24/7/365, not just stores it for four hours.
Select to expand quotefangman said..
What does SWIS stand for? South West Integrated System?? Nit picking: Walpole is trying to get its pumped hydro system commissioned now, so there is a tiny, tiny bit of pumped hydro in WA atm.
I do like the irony of the pollies talking up the 'National Grid' . I guess calling it the 'East Coast Grid' just doesn't sound as impressive in a press release.
True, but remember the WA Chief Scientist is not a political appointment. Just a smart person who advises government.
Select to expand quotePedantoc said..
$18.4bn would get you a nuclear plant, that produces power 24/7/365.
When Dutton approves it you should put your hand up to get it build in your back yard.
Select to expand quotecammd said..fangman said..cammd said..GasHazard said..
Oh Jesus, Sky News, nuf said. Who tf watches that crap, apart from cammd obviously?
edit: "Who tf watches that crap" apart from me, over 5M subscribers do,
I think main stream media is on the decline, maybe a better question is who still watches Nine News or the ABC .
That aside, attack the content if you think its BS.
Sky News is owned by News Corp Aust, which is owned by News Corp (US) which is owned by Rupert Murdoch who owns a huge chunk of global media, from Fox right down to your community newspapers. Murdoch's influence is truly massive and, as such, his companies decide what content is mainstream media.
Sky isn't the little guy in the corner fighting for the underdog conservative politics. It's the (propaganda) gorilla in the ring.
If its just propaganda pull it apart with your critical thinking skills
Here is a report from the ABC yesterday saying exactly the same thing as Sky News is about the reality of operating a grid high in renewables, is that propaganda too?
www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12-02/aemo-demands-emergency-backstop-to-switch-off-solar/104670332
Interesting for me to read this article as rooftop solar is not really present here in Florida. So that raises the question why rooftop solar is so popular in Australia? I assume it's lots of individual homeowners looking at the economics of installing it and deciding it makes sense economically. From what I understand rooftop solar doesn't make economic sense here in Florida, otherwise I'd see it on residential rooftops.
Select to expand quotecammd said..
Here is a report from the ABC yesterday saying exactly the same thing as Sky News is about the reality of operating a grid high in renewables, is that propaganda too?
www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12-02/aemo-demands-emergency-backstop-to-switch-off-solar/104670332
Gas turbine power generators are best for cycling power generation up and down, whereas nuclear is the worst. Coal is closer to nuclear with respect to cycling up and down.
So any grid with a large proportion of unreliable power generating capacity would have to build a lot of gas turbines to compensate for the instability.
Select to expand quotephiln said..
Interesting for me to read this article as rooftop solar is not really present here in Florida. So that raises the question why rooftop solar is so popular in Australia?
I haven't got a solar installation, but I think the reason people do it is the solar rebate and the attraction of the feed-in tarrifs. I don't know what these are though. Hopefully someone here knows the numbers and can provide an example.
It seems so attractive that some people ditch their existing solar setups after a number of years and get a new install, even bigger than the last.
Like anything I am sure this will change in the future. Maybe it helps the headline of 'we are moving to renewables' without actually requiring much input from the government to actually do anything apart from paying the subsidies. This is pretty typical of a government where anything in the way of a capital project takes a lot of effort, but if you throw money at the public you can get something to happen even if its not what you really want.
Over the years the feed-in tarrif has fallen a lot as more people get solar setups and the energy provided is creating more of a problem than a solution. There have been calls in the media lately about requiring roof-top solar systems to be remotely shutdown when the energy providers think there is too much in the system, which tells you that we are reaching the peak and there is too much supply at times.
Like all of these systems, base-load is the problem especially when there is no wind or solar input. Our government seem to be trying to shutdown coal powered power plants at the same time they are moving to renewables, but don't have any decent solution to the problem of providing power when there is no wind or sun.
A few people are predicting that coal power stations may stay operational for longer than expected in order to support the grid. To counter this, the owners of the private coal powered stations are running them down as they know that the requirement for them is going to dissappear in the future.
Australia 20 years from now will have really clean air, but no power between 7pm and 6am everyday 
Select to expand quotephiln said..cammd said..
Here is a report from the ABC yesterday saying exactly the same thing as Sky News is about the reality of operating a grid high in renewables, is that propaganda too?
www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12-02/aemo-demands-emergency-backstop-to-switch-off-solar/104670332
Gas turbine power generators are best for cycling power generation up and down, whereas nuclear is the worst. Coal is closer to nuclear with respect to cycling up and down.
So any grid with a large proportion of unreliable power generating capacity would have to build a lot of gas turbines to compensate for the instability.
That's right, so the only emissions free energy that can run a modern country is nuclear but the left in Australia are religiously opposed to it, in the face of all the evidence and lived experience around the world the left in Australia want to build an unreliable expensive renewable grid that will depend on burning fossil fuel into the future for ... ever I guess. Go figure that.
I think nuclear is inevitable in Australia but the left will delay it as long as they can and continue to emit CO2 longer than need be. In the meantime the left will clear land for wind towers and solar panels and the associated additional transmission lines, mine minerals for batteries, create massive amounts of landfill and deliver unreliable expensive power that will hurt business and investment and make Australia less competitive than it already is and increase the cost of living in a already expensive country.
Generally speaking they will hurt the economy and environment and then claim to be the side that cares about the little person and a green clean future.
And they will believe it 
I should clarify philin 
, its mainly the older lefties in Australia that grew up with Midnight Oil and the end of the cold war that are religiously opposed to Nuclear, it was a thing back then with songs and t-shirts and stickers you could put on your bongo van and guitar.
I think the younger lefties don't have that same anti nuclear stance ingrained in their being, they can see the sense, anyway that's my experience of being the father of five young adults. That's another reason why it will happen here eventually.
If net zero is 'scam', why are you now arguing for emissions free technology? Sounds like you are a sky news, mixed up leftard.
Australia has plenty of natural gas, I can't understand why we export so much of it rather than use it to compliment the renewables.
Select to expand quotemyscreenname said..
If net zero is rubbish, why are you now arguing for emissions free technology? Sounds like you are a leftard.
Australia has plenty of natural gas, I can't understand why we export so much of it rather than use it to compliment the renewables.
Sky news addresses that exact question in the report, I think the head of Woodside called that one a head scratcher in one of the interviews on the report. Watch from 30.00 to 35.00 if you want to know why.
Select to expand quotecammd said..
I should clarify philin , its mainly the older lefties in Australia that grew up with Midnight Oil and the end of the cold war that are religiously opposed to Nuclear, it was a thing back then with songs and t-shirts and stickers you could put on your bongo van and guitar.
I think the younger lefties don't have that same anti nuclear stance ingrained in their being, they can see the sense, anyway that's my experience of being the father of five young adults. That's another reason why it will happen here eventually.
It's not a left or right thing anywhere else in the world we,ve just had successively incompetent leaders Bowen being in the highest order.
Select to expand quotemyscreenname said..
When Dutton approves it you should put your hand up to get it build in your back yard.
Like I said before I used to build 'em. Well, not build from scratch but work on upgrades and resilience works. I have no issue there, I used to regularly hug the outside of the reactor core. Never did me no harm, like.
Anyone unduly scared of a nuclear power plant because it has the word 'nuclear' in the title lacks rationality and are mostly ignorant.
But I agree with you. I don't think nuclear is a particularly good option for Australia. We should use Australian gas as the back-up for renewables. Export less and use it ourselves. Stuff everyone else, let them work out their own energy solutions.
remery's screen-shot there shows coal phased out by 2030 and gas by 2050.
I don't know why the symbol for gas is a petrol pump, seems an incorrect understanding of what "gas" means in the context, but anyways, not allowed to be pendantic.....
So, if that is the requirement then the question is; what is the concept of what the grid looks like in 2050 with no oil, no gas and no coal. The options do seem to include either a) renewables with batteries and pumped hydro on a scale that is currently unacceptable to most people, or b) nuclear or c) some magical technology that is not yet developed.
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..myscreenname said..
When Dutton approves it you should put your hand up to get it build in your back yard.
I don't think nuclear is a particularly good option for Australia.
Why not?
Select to expand quotephiln said..
.....So that raises the question why rooftop solar is so popular in Australia? ....
Good question and I'd suggest it is more of a fashion thing where the more people have it, the more people assume it must be a good idea and so more people get it.
To me it doesn't make much (if any) economic sense for the vast majority of situations. For most it is typicallly a 8 to 10 year repayment investment. But system life span isn't much more, the average person sells their home after 10 years, and if you invested the capital in stocks or even just bank interest accounts you'd do better on that 10 year period.
I'd suggest to think of it like this :
Americans ask why rooftop solar so popular in Australia ? Aussie with rooftop solar will explain the logic and not understand why Yanks don't get it.
Australians ask why guns are so popular in America. Yanks with guns will explain the logic and not understand why Aussie's don't get it.
Not much sense to either in my opinion.
Select to expand quotecammd said..Carantoc said..myscreenname said..
When Dutton approves it you should put your hand up to get it build in your back yard.
I don't think nuclear is a particularly good option for Australia.
Why not?
A few reasons, including that Australia's grid running on renewable with 5% or 10% gas is going to make exactly zero difference to the world climate than Australia's grid running on renewables plus nuclear.
When the Aussie population hits 100 million I would probably change this opinion.
Edit: yeah, also just to clarify, I don't think nuclear is a particularly bad option for Australia either. When I say not particularly good, I don't mean bad or wrong. If somebody wants to go nuclear I don't oppose that. It seems to me to be the only viable solution if you also say zero coal/oil/gas. I just don't think the difference between a bit of coal/oil/gas and zero coal/oil/gas is catastrophic. Net zero is net total, not absolute individual.
Select to expand quotemyscreenname said..
If net zero is 'scam', why are you now arguing for emissions free technology? Sounds like you are a sky news, mixed up leftard.
Australia has plenty of natural gas, I can't understand why we export so much of it rather than use it to compliment the renewables.
www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-27/gas-rich-australias-need-for-lng-imports-labelled-bizarre/103634670
Go figure.Maybe you need a chef scientist to advise you on that one.
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..cammd said..Carantoc said..myscreenname said..
When Dutton approves it you should put your hand up to get it build in your back yard.
I don't think nuclear is a particularly good option for Australia.
Why not?
A few reasons, including that Australia's grid running on renewable with 5% or 10% gas is going to make exactly zero difference to the world climate than Australia's grid running on renewables plus nuclear.
When the Aussie population hits 100 million I would probably change this opinion.
Edit: yeah, also just to clarify, I don't think nuclear is a particularly bad option for Australia either. When I say not particularly good, I don't mean bad or wrong. If somebody wants to go nuclear I don't oppose that. It seems to me to be the only viable solution if you also say zero coal/oil/gas. I just don't think the difference between a bit of coal/oil/gas and zero coal/oil/gas is catastrophic. Net zero is net total, not absolute individual.
I don't disagree with your point about the impact Australia will have on the global climate, but
I think a massive renewable grid made up of thousands of wind towers and millions of solar panels that need to be replaced every 10 or 20 years is a poor environmental outcome. The gas plants alone needed to "firm" the grid will most likely have as much impact as Nuclear plants. So much land has to be cleared to build, maintain, access and transmit power from thousands of locations and then eventually replace and dump the hardware in landfill.
renewable energy is diffuse, nuclear energy is dense. You can get far more from far less with nuclear. Nothing is perfect, it seems to be the best trade off to me.
Agree nothing is perfect and end of life waste is an issue too easily glossed over.
The environmental impact caused from the by-product of renewables is an issue for sure. Yet the by-product of a nuclear industry is almost unfathomable. Check out the timelines and cost the UK is facing dealing with legacy of half a century of large scale nuclear activity.
The cost of decommissioning Sellafield is estimated to be between 116 billion and 253 billion GBP, depending on the complexity and length of the cleanup. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), which owns Sellafield, believes that the buildings will be torn down by 2125, and the nuclear waste will be buried underground in England. However, the underground project's completion date has been delayed to the 2050s at the earliest. Each decade of delay costs Sellafield between 500 million and 760 million GBP.
Sellafield is a site that includes legacy facilities that date back to the UK's first efforts to produce an atomic bomb. The NDA is a non-departmental public body of the UK government that is taxpayer-owned and -funded.
Also
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield#:~:text=The%20site%20is%20owned%20by,cost%20of%20%C2%A3121%20billion.
