Yes, pumped storage everywhere, so we can recharge our Tesla on the go.
?
I think we need thermal backup, coal or gas as well.
Yeah wellAnd those are model S and X, which are well over $100K.
Where is the spinning reserve ?
What about periods of adverse weather conditions, overcast and little wind ?
I think we need thermal backup, coal or gas as well.
That is my cue to introduce you to Sarah Hanson Young.The major issue is, who the hell is going to pay for this pie in the sky stuff, in the timeframe that is being banded around.
Smurf's known that for a very long time.....Pumped hydro storage 'could make Australia run on renewable energy alone within 20 years'
From a technical perspective it's certainly possible to have a fully renewable electricity supply system if we build enough storage facilities to make it work. Not all but most of those storage facilities will in practice need to be pumped hydro
Professor Blakers said if pumped hydro storage facilities were built at just a handful of sites spread out nationwide, Australia could run on renewables alone.
That's it! A solar power plant (panels and batteries) to run pumps. Multiple pumps for maintenance/backup purpose. Pump the water straight back up again. As Rumpole posted evaporation and water loss rates would have to be known.From a technical perspective it's certainly possible to have a fully renewable electricity supply system if we build enough storage facilities to make it work. Not all but most of those storage facilities will in practice need to be pumped hydro.
That's it! A solar power plant (panels and batteries) to run pumps. Multiple pumps for maintenance/backup purpose. Pump the water straight back up again. As Rumpole posted evaporation and water loss rates would have to be known.
I heard a suggestion of covering the surface of these storages with solar PV panels to reduce evaporation. Practicable ?
There seemed to be a bit of blue sky optimism in the article I quoted.
A "handfull" is 5 sites ? Surely it can't be that easy ?
5 sites is not enough but the real point is that there's truly massive potential compared to what we actually need. So we can pick the best ones and ignore the rest.
Best? Low cost, near existing transmission lines, not going to upset anyone due to environmentla or other reasons, reasonable distance from a town so there's somewhere to base the maintenance workers without huge commuting distances. Bonus points if the water reservoir has some other practical use in addition to power.
As for covering it with solar panels, well I suppose that could be done but it's not a necessity. How much it would cost I've no idea but it sounds like a rather complex way of generating solar power compared to just putting the panels on conventional mounts sitting on the ground. Less evaporation yes, but evaporation isn't a massive issue anyway for most potential sites (especially those using sea water or in places with lots of fresh water available).
Key point though is that there's thousands of potential sites and we only need to use a few % of them to make this work. If there's some problem with one particular site such as geology or an endangered species living there then just cross that one off the list and develop a different one instead. There's plenty to choose from.
The technology is all absolutely proven. Water storage, pipes, pumps, turbines and generators, conventional high voltage electrical equipment. Absolutely noting needs to be invented, it's just a case of designing, building and operating.
Lifespan? As with any hydro scheme it's indefinite with proper maintenance but for accounting purpose 90 or 100 years is normally used as the lifespan. It's not like coal where there's a practical limit around 50 years before the boiler tubes thin out and the whole place is falling apart and needs to be rebuilt.
Maintenance is the key if you want it to last though. At any given time there's almost always something being pulled apart for inspection or put back together down here in Tas so any problems are spotted early and can be addressed. In the other states some companies are pretty good at that but others aren't......
So what is the hold up? Are they not profitable?
I mean if they could earn some where between 8% - 12% Roc, I thought companies like Apa would be all over it, with 75% debt funding you would have a pretty decent Roe.
I am thinking environmental concerns might be the hold up, there would be loads of red tape, gas fired peaking plants are probably easier and quicker to organise, and could earn around the amount.
Which puts Snowy Hydro with their "Snowy 2.0" project and Hydro Tasmania with their multiple projects as the front runners along with projects built by others but drawing on their engineering expertise.Any idiot can put their hand out for Government money, to put in some crack pot generator.
If the Government requires some guarantee, that the generator will perform to a standard for a defined period, then there will be a bit of gagging going on.
Where it could get complicated is with funding.
"Snowy 2.0" (Snowy Hydro) is around $2 billion for the power stations, tunnels etc. Plus another $1 - 2 billion for transmission infrastructure to make it work so $4 billion all up. That gives 2000 MW.
"Battery Of The Nation" (Hydro Tas) comes to about $5 billion for 2500 MW.
Now, where are we going to find that sort of money?
"Snowy 2.0" (Snowy Hydro) is around $2 billion for the power stations, tunnels etc. Plus another $1 - 2 billion for transmission infrastructure to make it work so $4 billion all up. That gives 2000 MW.
"Battery Of The Nation" (Hydro Tas) comes to about $5 billion for 2500 MW
Now, where are we going to find that sort of money?
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?