Perhaps you can explain that data and how it relates to hydro power for those interested.
NASA explains it better than I.
How does climate change affect precipitation? | NASA Global Precipitation Measurement Mission
Current climate models indicate that rising temperatures will intensify the Earth’s water cycle, increasing evaporation. Increased evaporation will result in more frequent and intense storms, but will also contribute to drying over some land areas. As a result, storm-affected areas are likely to...gpm.nasa.gov
"Current climate models indicate that rising temperatures will intensify the Earth’s water cycle, increasing evaporation. Increased evaporation will result in more frequent and intense storms, but will also contribute to drying over some land areas. As a result, storm-affected areas are likely to experience increases in precipitation and increased risk of flooding, while areas located far away from storm tracks are likely to experience less precipitation and increased risk of drought."
So it is feasible a site currently suitable for hydro may not be in the future.
Makes a lot of sense, unfortunately it is not that common and the activists will pour out of the woodwork.In that case the only thing that won't change enough to make a difference is the ocean, it will always be there as the lower reservoir and having pumped hydro site near the coast with associated off shore wind farms to provide the pumping power would seem to be the way to go ?
Rolling blackouts in the TEAL seats may change their minds. ?Makes a lot of sense, unfortunately it is not that common and the activists will pour out of the woodwork.
They just have no idea, have you seen the look on Bowens face, now he has been brought up to speed on magnitude of the issue.Rolling blackouts in the TEAL seats may change their minds. ?
They just have no idea, have you seen the look on Bowens face, now he has been brought up to speed on magnitude of the issue.
It will be interesting to see if they legislate the 43% and if we have to pay some other country for their credits to achieve it.
Chris Bowen to announce review of carbon credits system after expert labelled it a ‘fraud’
Climate change minister says inquiry needed as carbon offset scheme is integral to target of 43% emissions reduction by 2030www.theguardian.com
Yes going stupid at the moment wouldn't end well IMO.If they don't need to legislate they would be silly to do so in view of the world situation.
My guess is that climate change is going to take a back seat to power prices for a while, and the teals will be gone at the next election if they and the Greens hit consumers with power bills they can't afford.
The only developed one is Lake Argyle just over the border in WA. At present that's underutilised following closure of the mine but a new transmission line could be run between the existing substation at Zimin Drive, Katherine, NT to the existing substation located 34km south of Kununurra, WA.I wonder how many hydro sites there are in Darwin ?
A pumped storage scheme requires energy to pump water yes, ultimately it's a storage scheme, but I'll add that an on-river dam doesn't, it's energy positive as such.Is it worth noting that all hydro electric schemes require "surplus" power to pump the the water uphill, so is this surplus going to be available and where will it come from , given that we are running pretty tight in generation right now ?
Commented without listening because I was confused by your statement, because I already had a good understanding of 2.0, your comments didn’t make sense so was just asking for some clarification on what the problem was before I committed to a 29min podcast.Value Collector jumped on a mistake I made in naming the current Snowy, 2.0 and commenting without listening to the audio.
TLDR
Not actually interested in discussing this with you any further,
But as I said I am not interested in any further debate with you,
Sorry, since you continue to bring up my name in a discussion I have already said I am not interested in continuing with you, especially because you just repeatedly quote the same nonsense about things I have already explained I am going to have to block you for a while.Value Collector continues to confuse building long term energy infrastructure with politicians spending tax payers $’s to buy votes, such as the Turnbull governments Snowy 2.0 NSW exercise.
$10 billion could have built a lot more energy infrastructure than Snowy 2.0 will ever give to Australia.
Senate Estimates papers confirm the announcement was cobbled together in less than two weeks after the concept was floated by Snowy Hydro.
How did it come to this — the energy crisis we had to have?
Does Australia need Tasmania to become a multi-billion-dollar 'Battery of the Nation'?
? Sorry couldn’t help myself, someone left a door wide open for me
Value Collector
Sorry, since you continue to bring up my name in a discussion I have already said I am not interested in continuing with you, especially because you just repeatedly quote the same nonsense about things I have already explained I am going to have to block you for a while.
From the sidelines It appears to me that enhancing an existing asset is preferable to starting from scratch with all the design works, site finding, EIS'S and paperwork that needs to be done for a new installion.
But this is really an engineering issue. I haven't heard of Snowy being unable to generate in flood times before, and flooding of coal mines would be unusual also. Wind farms can't generate when the winds are too high. Every grid module has their faults that have to be allowed for.
I don't believe Snowy 2.0 was a vote buying exercise. The public doesn't generally get excited by things they won't see for 10 years. Using $10 billion to reduce power bills now would have bought a lot more votes but would have been a waste of money in the long term.
Snowy 2.0 – Is the reward worth the risk?
…there are several competing projects that do not appear to have been considered. And the costs of competing technologies appear unusually high, which when displaced by Snowy 2.0 in the analysis, produce more benefits than would otherwise be expected.
An even bigger threat to Snowy 2.0 returns comes from alternative modular technologies, especially battery energy storage systems (BESS). Snowy 2.0 is a large capital and irreversible investment – once committed it cannot be unbuilt. Alternative technologies, especially BESS are modular and have little economies of scale.
They can be committed in small quantities at many locations and can be expanded to adapt to the market over time. Snowy Hydro investing in Snowy 2.0 has none of this luxury…
Coalition throws another $1.4 billion to try and make Snowy 2.0 stack up
Prime minister Scott Morrison has given the go-ahead to the Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro scheme, but it has needed an extra $1.4 billion of taxpayer’s money to get the pet project of predecessor Malcolm Turnbull – the man the Coalition dumped because they didn’t trust him on climate and energy policy – over the line.
Morrison and energy minister Angus Taylor rushed to the Snowy Mountains on Tuesday to make the announcement, the latest in a series to try and diffuse climate and energy policy as an election issue.
It follows the modest extension of the discredited Direct Action scheme, now rebranded as “Climate Solutions” fund,and a stream of other measures that will focus on energy efficiency, the vague promise of an electric vehicle strategy, and $56 million to “fast-track” Tasmania’s rival to Snowy 2.0 – the “Battery of the Nation” pumped hydro scheme and links to the mainland.
Snowy 2.0 doesn't measure up economically or environmentally
Snowy Hydro works by using power, during periods of low demand, to pump water uphill. In periods of high demand, this water is allowed to flow downhill, through a turbine, to generate power. It takes much more power to move the water uphill than is generated when the water flows downhill.
Shocked. Shocked! Snowy 2.0 turns $10bn black hole
The nation-building vision was for a big battery to be added to the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Scheme. It was to be completed in four years (that is, by last year) at a cost of $2 billion without any taxpayer subsidy, bring down electricity prices, generate renewable energy and incur minimal environmental impact on Kosciuszko National Park.
Inspiring stuff. But not one of these grand claims has turned out to be true. Worse, Australian taxpayers and NSW electricity consumers will be up for billions of dollars in subsidies and increased electricity costs, all while Kosciuszko is trashed. Let’s have a quick recap.
But imagine what might have been.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?