BGT wrote: "Peter please tell me where the new storage is for Snowy 2.0. Besides it takes more power to pump back up the hill than the power produced going down the hill. Efficient it's not."
Snowy 2.0 uses two existing storages within the Snowy Scheme. There is a head difference of about 700 m, which is substantial. There is no net usage of water with this scheme - the water will be pumped up and then released through the machines when required to produce power. Overall efficiency of the scheme is about 75% - and this is a lot more efficient than any gas turbine or other non-renewable source of energy.
A comment was made about lots of smaller schemes being built around the country. Oh that this will happen, but don't hold your breath. Snowy 2.0 is economical only because the required reservoirs already exist. However, the tunnel works involved are fearfully expensive and extensive, and this project is going to be right at the forefront of technology.
There are other pumped storage schemes around in Australia. Wivenhoe in Queensland, Shoalhaven in NSW are 2 existing schemes, although they are both associated with domestic water storages for the relevant capital cities, and as such are not necessarily dedicated to providing peak load power when and where it is required. A scheme is being constructed in Far Nth Qld now, a few hundred km West from Cairns. This uses an old mine, and is a great way to recycle an old work site, but it is a long way from any major load centre, and transmission lines are very expensive to install and maintain. Tasmania has some excellent pumped storage sites as well, but is it costly to get the power delivered from the power station to the load centres. Similarly, South Australia has identified a possible site, using sea water and pumping into the adjacent hills. These schemes are all good in theory, but unless the head difference is reasonably high, the scheme will require very large volumes of water to be moved. This requires very large, slow machines (the electrical machines then become very expensive as well), and also very large pipelines or tunnels to carry the water. The higher the head difference, the smaller and hence more economical the machinery and infrastructure can be made. Sadly, Australia doesn't have very many good sites which meet these requirements and which are close to load centres which can use the energy.
Regarding the sources of the energy to pump the water, currently it is coal fired power, but eventually (maybe 20 or 30 years, there will be enough excess renewable energy being produced to pump the water, and then it will be truly renewable energy. Incidentally, Hydro machines have a design life typically of around 70 years, so they will well and truly outlive the Solar and Wind farms which are now the rage.
-- Edited by erad on Monday 1st of March 2021 05:23:03 PM
Mike Harding said
06:19 PM Mar 1, 2021
bgt wrote:
Besides it takes more power to pump back up the hill than the power produced going down the hill. Efficient it's not.
My recollection is that friction losses pumping a fluid via pipelines is about 25% (I stand correcting) - this is in addition to the extra energy required to pump against gravity, no, it is not an efficient system.
Peter_n_Margaret said
07:01 PM Mar 1, 2021
Brodie Allen wrote:
Be interesting to see a steel plant or an aluminium smelter run off a windmill!
Gupta flags 3,000MW new renewables for Whyalla green steel plans
Cheers,
Peter
Peter_n_Margaret said
07:04 PM Mar 1, 2021
Mike Harding wrote:
bgt wrote:
Besides it takes more power to pump back up the hill than the power produced going down the hill. Efficient it's not.
My recollection is that friction losses pumping a fluid via pipelines is about 25% (I stand correcting) - this is in addition to the extra energy required to pump against gravity, no, it is not an efficient system.
If the renewable power is basically free, the efficiency is of no consequence. Use the power today or loose it. There will be another lot available tomorrow.
We need to change how we think about energy and power.
Cheers,
Peter
bgt said
07:39 PM Mar 1, 2021
Gupta is in for ever cent he can get from any government he can get it from.
Any getting for "free" is laughable. What about the capital investment? Typical greenie argument forgetting any capital or subsidy costs.
Free? Peter you have made my day. Free! Heaven help us if that's how green economics work.
Craig1 said
08:04 PM Mar 1, 2021
Mike, friction loss in a pipeline is dependant on volume required, time needed to get it to the other end, size of proposed pipeline and length of said pipeline. then the economics of scale of all of above.
Brodie Allen said
08:13 PM Mar 1, 2021
Peter_n_Margaret wrote:
Brodie Allen wrote:
Be interesting to see a steel plant or an aluminium smelter run off a windmill!
Gupta flags 3,000MW new renewables for Whyalla green steel plans
Cheers,
Peter
When nighttime comes or the wind doesn't blow they stop the furnaces
and shut the pot line down and all go home 'till the morning.
Or do what SA does - draw on other States' power.
-- Edited by Brodie Allen on Monday 1st of March 2021 08:20:24 PM
Whenarewethere said
08:20 PM Mar 1, 2021
Why one spreads input as far apart as possible. 2% loss per 1000 km.
HunnyBunny said
09:01 AM Mar 2, 2021
I personally believe that it's all part of a natural cycle. The Sahara was once a rain forest, how long have we known it as it is today? The planet will look after itself, if it gets too dry, it will flood, hence the rising oceans. Then it will freeze, another ice- age perhaps? Long after we have left our tiny footprint on the planet, it will survive!
msg said
09:35 AM Mar 2, 2021
We may not need to be concerned with global warming, but are we going to continue to pollute until there's not a square inch of land, no water in the rivers, no clean air to breathe and oceans where the fish can't swim because of the rubbish we are continuing to pile up everywhere.
bgt said
09:40 AM Mar 2, 2021
We can all dream about an ideal world. We can strive to achieve as much of that ideal as we can. But at some time reality will bite. Many of the dreamers are simply refusing to take their blinkers off and look at the big picture. Free wind, solar, pumped hydro etc etc simply don't exist. Just like fossil fuels they come at a cost. The trick is accepting at what cost.
msg said
10:03 AM Mar 2, 2021
bgt, Are you saying that we shouldn't minimise waste and be mindful of where we put it but look at the bigger picture. "the trick is accepting at what cost" what do you mean exactly?
Whenarewethere said
10:26 AM Mar 2, 2021
Our area just had a Council clean up. The house hold goods people throw out one can furnish a house. Actually we do get things off the piles of rubbish to reuse but we are at our limit.
We have no issues reusing things.
I fail to see the logic in burning stuff, ending up with mountains of ash when there is an alternative.
elliemike said
10:35 AM Mar 2, 2021
Peter_n_Margaret wrote:
Brodie Allen wrote:
Be interesting to see a steel plant or an aluminium smelter run off a windmill!
-- Edited by elliemike on Tuesday 2nd of March 2021 10:37:13 AM
bgt said
11:23 AM Mar 2, 2021
msg I was referring to power generation. Rubbish/waste is a whole nuther debate.
Rubbish is a person problem not a product problem.
Brodie Allen said
12:25 PM Mar 2, 2021
HunnyBunny wrote:
I personally believe that it's all part of a natural cycle. The Sahara was once a rain forest, how long have we known it as it is today? The planet will look after itself, if it gets too dry, it will flood, hence the rising oceans. Then it will freeze, another ice- age perhaps? Long after we have left our tiny footprint on the planet, it will survive!
X2
Brodie Allen said
12:30 PM Mar 2, 2021
Peter_n_Margaret wrote:
bgt wrote:
Peter ever heard of droughts? How is pumped hydro going to work in a drought? And those same pumped hydro systems need power to pump the water back up hill. Will the folks in Hay appreciate the fact that their water is still going up and down hill back in the Snowy while they have no water?
Pumped storage does not consume any water. Fill it up once during a wet season and it is available forever. This will be water that was never available before.
In Adelaide we will use excess solar power to desalinate sea water so we can reduce our reliance on the River Murray, so there will be more water that there used to be.
There is also the opportunity to pump sea water into a dam and let it run back to the ocean to produce power any time it is needed.
Or we can turn the excess solar into hydrogen and use that to make electricity using fuel cells. These are already available. and the by-product is pure water.
We need to change the way we think.
Cheers,
Peter
And we need squillions of money. motor manufacturers are turning away from Hydrogen because of storage, liquifaction
and transport difficulties. Also it's corrosive properties.
Why we insist on self flagellation while the rest of the world ambles along beats me.
Too much thoughtless hysteria.
Brodie Allen said
12:35 PM Mar 2, 2021
elliemike wrote:
Peter_n_Margaret wrote:
Brodie Allen wrote:
Be interesting to see a steel plant or an aluminium smelter run off a windmill!
-- Edited by elliemike on Tuesday 2nd of March 2021 10:37:13 AM
Pie in the sky at this time. Who will buy product that is substantially more expensive to manufacture.
Australia needs to stop toying about with pipe dreams and get on with getting ourselves
out of the financial bottomless pit that is opening below us.
We have stuff-all manufacturing now having legislated against it for the last 20 years and
still haven't learned our lesson.
Bring on the nuclear.
Aus-Kiwi said
12:37 PM Mar 2, 2021
We need a little of both . Plus we need to STOP breeding . Slow our population .
Whenarewethere said
01:21 PM Mar 2, 2021
Nuclear will not happen simply on one basis alone. They will not get the insurance.
Brodie Allen said
03:00 PM Mar 2, 2021
Aus-Kiwi wrote:
We need a little of both . Plus we need to STOP breeding . Slow our population .
So whats that youre holding?
Brodie Allen said
03:43 PM Mar 2, 2021
Whenarewethere wrote:
Nuclear will not happen simply on one basis alone. They will not get the insurance.
In 2019 American Nuclear Insurers quoted $1 million per reactor site. Not that much I wouldnt think.
Nothing like the indemnity the virus manufacturer has demanded of Argentina the whole of gov assets including
military, State owned assets in their entirety. You have to wonder what they are afraid of and what has Australia
put up?
-- Edited by Brodie Allen on Tuesday 2nd of March 2021 03:48:04 PM
JayDee said
03:51 PM Mar 2, 2021
Aus-Kiwi wrote:
We need a little of both . Plus we need to STOP breeding . Slow our population .
This old BULL has been partly responsible for the breeding growth.
From Dee & I, we have a family of 3 sons and 9 grandchildren.
But the old BULL just ain't what he used to be.
I am all for Breeding growth.
Bugger slowing it down. For the future growth, one must keep it UP.
Happy Days
Jay&Dee
Buzz Lightbulb said
03:54 PM Mar 2, 2021
Mike Harding wrote:
bgt wrote:
Besides it takes more power to pump back up the hill than the power produced going down the hill. Efficient it's not.
My recollection is that friction losses pumping a fluid via pipelines is about 25% (I stand correcting) - this is in addition to the extra energy required to pump against gravity, no, it is not an efficient system.
I read this morning that a similar system being considered in the United Kingdom has an efficiency of 75%. That's worth it if excess renewable energy is used to pump up the water.
-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Tuesday 2nd of March 2021 04:35:41 PM
Tony Bev said
04:31 PM Mar 2, 2021
Similar (but obviously a lot smaller) to Snowy 2, is a power station called Dinorwig Power Station, in Wales in the UK
Known to the tourist as Electric Mountain
I visited in 2013, and (going from memory here), since it started operating in the 1980's, there had been no significant power outages, on that part of the grid
They built tunnels from an abandoned slate mine, added a few extra large valves, and large water driven turbine generators, with the used water collecting in a lake below
The method behind the madness, was to use low cost (night time) electricity, to pump water from the lake below, to the man made lake above
This electricity generated is used to fill in gaps on the grid, when it is required
It was around one minute, to get up to full capacity, (just open the valves and stand back)
It had paid for itself within the first few years of operation
Knowing that such a power station does work, I am confident that the Snowy 2, will also work
As Peter has already said, the cost of pumping the water uphill, has no meaning, if the power used is either excess power, or power from renewables
Buzz Lightbulb said
04:32 PM Mar 2, 2021
HunnyBunny wrote:
I personally believe that it's all part of a natural cycle. The Sahara was once a rain forest, how long have we known it as it is today? The planet will look after itself, if it gets too dry, it will flood, hence the rising oceans. Then it will freeze, another ice- age perhaps? Long after we have left our tiny footprint on the planet, it will survive!
I suppose you could think that human influence on the environment as being "natural" but the effect is much faster than all other "natural" changes. On previous occasions the flora and fauna have had time to evolve to adapt to the changes, but not to the rapid change that we are causing. There something like 70% less wild animals on earth than there was in the 70's.
We have a very major footprint on the planet. The combined weight of humans and our domestic animals outweighs all other wild animals. Yes. The planet will survive long after we have caused one of the biggest extinctions on this planet and caused the collapse of civilisation, but do we really want to be the cause of that when we're, apparently, intelligent enough to prevent it?
-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Tuesday 2nd of March 2021 04:37:57 PM
-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Tuesday 2nd of March 2021 04:44:59 PM
Buzz Lightbulb said
04:39 PM Mar 2, 2021
JayDee wrote:
Aus-Kiwi wrote:
We need a little of both . Plus we need to STOP breeding . Slow our population .
This old BULL has been partly responsible for the breeding growth.
From Dee & I, we have a family of 3 sons and 9 grandchildren.
But the old BULL just ain't what he used to be.
I am all for Breeding growth.
Bugger slowing it down. For the future growth, one must keep it UP.
Happy Days
Jay&Dee
Where do we get all the resources to support the forever increasing population?
bgt said
05:29 PM Mar 2, 2021
I can't believe that some folks think that power from Snowy 2.0 is all but free. I mentioned before about capital cost has to be taken into consideration. And like all government projects is will go way past budget estimates. Billions of dollars don't equal "free". If it does then you can come and do my tax returns.
peter67 said
05:58 PM Mar 2, 2021
Good question Buzz. We've been overfishing for years now, at last count China has over 5000 medium to large fishing ships and a world total count up of large trawlers would be staggering. Many of these fish species are not quick breeders eg; deep sea orange roughy which are nearly all gone and I think they take many decades to reach breeding maturity. Read a book called Outlaw Ocean by Ian Urbina, a good journalist who spent many uncomfortable years aboard foreign flagged fishing boats. Once they get out of sight offshore it's a free for all no matter how hard green peace or government departments with access to satellite imagery chase them. I've read a national geographic article that says there is what they call a plastic mound of rubbish floating around in the sea that is the same size as Texas, it kills more than a million seabirds and 100,000 marine animals every year. As an example there was an article in the paper here about the amount of plastic flushed into the sea around Asia, Africa ( we all do it to some degree) and seen on the beaches after storms by tourists, before Covid 19. On a lighter note does the trademark lighter BIC mean beach in china?? (where you found it)
ps just a quick thought about all water sources and the demands being placed on it re population growth. The author Bill Bryson wrote a well researched and best seller book called "a short history of nearly everything" after spending many years interviewing the best scientific minds in each area, and according to him there will never be any water PRODUCED what we have now is all we've ever had or will have.
BGT wrote: "Peter please tell me where the new storage is for Snowy 2.0. Besides it takes more power to pump back up the hill than the power produced going down the hill. Efficient it's not."
Snowy 2.0 uses two existing storages within the Snowy Scheme. There is a head difference of about 700 m, which is substantial. There is no net usage of water with this scheme - the water will be pumped up and then released through the machines when required to produce power. Overall efficiency of the scheme is about 75% - and this is a lot more efficient than any gas turbine or other non-renewable source of energy.
A comment was made about lots of smaller schemes being built around the country. Oh that this will happen, but don't hold your breath. Snowy 2.0 is economical only because the required reservoirs already exist. However, the tunnel works involved are fearfully expensive and extensive, and this project is going to be right at the forefront of technology.
There are other pumped storage schemes around in Australia. Wivenhoe in Queensland, Shoalhaven in NSW are 2 existing schemes, although they are both associated with domestic water storages for the relevant capital cities, and as such are not necessarily dedicated to providing peak load power when and where it is required. A scheme is being constructed in Far Nth Qld now, a few hundred km West from Cairns. This uses an old mine, and is a great way to recycle an old work site, but it is a long way from any major load centre, and transmission lines are very expensive to install and maintain. Tasmania has some excellent pumped storage sites as well, but is it costly to get the power delivered from the power station to the load centres. Similarly, South Australia has identified a possible site, using sea water and pumping into the adjacent hills. These schemes are all good in theory, but unless the head difference is reasonably high, the scheme will require very large volumes of water to be moved. This requires very large, slow machines (the electrical machines then become very expensive as well), and also very large pipelines or tunnels to carry the water. The higher the head difference, the smaller and hence more economical the machinery and infrastructure can be made. Sadly, Australia doesn't have very many good sites which meet these requirements and which are close to load centres which can use the energy.
Regarding the sources of the energy to pump the water, currently it is coal fired power, but eventually (maybe 20 or 30 years, there will be enough excess renewable energy being produced to pump the water, and then it will be truly renewable energy. Incidentally, Hydro machines have a design life typically of around 70 years, so they will well and truly outlive the Solar and Wind farms which are now the rage.
-- Edited by erad on Monday 1st of March 2021 05:23:03 PM
My recollection is that friction losses pumping a fluid via pipelines is about 25% (I stand correcting) - this is in addition to the extra energy required to pump against gravity, no, it is not an efficient system.
Better warn the bloke who is doing it?
Gupta flags 3,000MW new renewables for Whyalla "green steel" plans | RenewEconomy
Gupta flags 3,000MW new renewables for Whyalla green steel plans
Cheers,
Peter
If the renewable power is basically free, the efficiency is of no consequence. Use the power today or loose it. There will be another lot available tomorrow.
We need to change how we think about energy and power.
Cheers,
Peter
When nighttime comes or the wind doesn't blow they stop the furnaces
and shut the pot line down and all go home 'till the morning.
Or do what SA does - draw on other States' power.
-- Edited by Brodie Allen on Monday 1st of March 2021 08:20:24 PM
Why one spreads input as far apart as possible. 2% loss per 1000 km.
I personally believe that it's all part of a natural cycle. The Sahara was once a rain forest, how long have we known it as it is today? The planet will look after itself, if it gets too dry, it will flood, hence the rising oceans. Then it will freeze, another ice- age perhaps? Long after we have left our tiny footprint on the planet, it will survive!
Our area just had a Council clean up. The house hold goods people throw out one can furnish a house. Actually we do get things off the piles of rubbish to reuse but we are at our limit.
We have no issues reusing things.
I fail to see the logic in burning stuff, ending up with mountains of ash when there is an alternative.
Also https://www.australianmining.com.au/news/forrest-unveils-fortescues-green-steel-plans/
-- Edited by elliemike on Tuesday 2nd of March 2021 10:37:13 AM
X2
And we need squillions of money. motor manufacturers are turning away from Hydrogen because of storage, liquifaction
and transport difficulties. Also it's corrosive properties.
Why we insist on self flagellation while the rest of the world ambles along beats me.
Too much thoughtless hysteria.
Pie in the sky at this time. Who will buy product that is substantially more expensive to manufacture.
Australia needs to stop toying about with pipe dreams and get on with getting ourselves
out of the financial bottomless pit that is opening below us.
We have stuff-all manufacturing now having legislated against it for the last 20 years and
still haven't learned our lesson.
Bring on the nuclear.
Nuclear will not happen simply on one basis alone. They will not get the insurance.
So whats that youre holding?
In 2019 American Nuclear Insurers quoted $1 million per reactor site. Not that much I wouldnt think.
Nothing like the indemnity the virus manufacturer has demanded of Argentina the whole of gov assets including
military, State owned assets in their entirety. You have to wonder what they are afraid of and what has Australia
put up?
-- Edited by Brodie Allen on Tuesday 2nd of March 2021 03:48:04 PM
This old BULL has been partly responsible for the breeding growth.
From Dee & I, we have a family of 3 sons and 9 grandchildren.
But the old BULL just ain't what he used to be.
I am all for Breeding growth.
Bugger slowing it down. For the future growth, one must keep it UP.
Happy Days
Jay&Dee
I read this morning that a similar system being considered in the United Kingdom has an efficiency of 75%. That's worth it if excess renewable energy is used to pump up the water.
-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Tuesday 2nd of March 2021 04:35:41 PM
Known to the tourist as Electric Mountain
I visited in 2013, and (going from memory here), since it started operating in the 1980's, there had been no significant power outages, on that part of the grid
They built tunnels from an abandoned slate mine, added a few extra large valves, and large water driven turbine generators, with the used water collecting in a lake below
The method behind the madness, was to use low cost (night time) electricity, to pump water from the lake below, to the man made lake above
This electricity generated is used to fill in gaps on the grid, when it is required
It was around one minute, to get up to full capacity, (just open the valves and stand back)
It had paid for itself within the first few years of operation
Knowing that such a power station does work, I am confident that the Snowy 2, will also work
As Peter has already said, the cost of pumping the water uphill, has no meaning, if the power used is either excess power, or power from renewables
I suppose you could think that human influence on the environment as being "natural" but the effect is much faster than all other "natural" changes. On previous occasions the flora and fauna have had time to evolve to adapt to the changes, but not to the rapid change that we are causing. There something like 70% less wild animals on earth than there was in the 70's.
We have a very major footprint on the planet. The combined weight of humans and our domestic animals outweighs all other wild animals. Yes. The planet will survive long after we have caused one of the biggest extinctions on this planet and caused the collapse of civilisation, but do we really want to be the cause of that when we're, apparently, intelligent enough to prevent it?
-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Tuesday 2nd of March 2021 04:37:57 PM
-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Tuesday 2nd of March 2021 04:44:59 PM
Where do we get all the resources to support the forever increasing population?
ps just a quick thought about all water sources and the demands being placed on it re population growth. The author Bill Bryson wrote a well researched and best seller book called "a short history of nearly everything" after spending many years interviewing the best scientific minds in each area, and according to him there will never be any water PRODUCED what we have now is all we've ever had or will have.
Says it all: