If you’re a betting person, put some money on Malcolm Turnbull’s “Snowy 2” pumped hydro idea never, ever happening. It’s an announcement of a feasibility study for an unfunded project involving tunnelling in sensitive areas that would take years to approve, let alone complete. You’ll get more power from burning the media release it’s written on.
Which is a pity, because Turnbull’s summit with gas industry executives yesterday was his best achievement of recent months. Turnbull’s first challenge was to not make the existing situation worse — which is what the Coalition has managed to do at every step on energy policy for years now. In essence, Turnbull told the big gas exporters to fix the problem of domestic supply or face the heavy hand of government intervention, complete with the threat of export controls (this is, by the way, the first time since 2009 that the Coalition has put its faith in industry mechanisms to deliver efficient energy outcomes rather than impose a heavy-handed big government intervention).
[How the mining industry parasites helped destroy good energy policy]
The opportunity to attack state and territory governments for gas development moratoria wasn’t missed, but — highly unusually — the word “Labor” wasn’t once uttered by the Prime Minister, marking a rare departure from his constant politicisation of the issue. If that means someone in the PMO worked out that it would be a bad look using a national crisis to attack your opponents, then perhaps there’s hope for political management within this government.
Having displayed good judgement and, perhaps, some old expertise as a negotiator from his business days, Turnbull turned to the gift wrapping — an announcement about investing in pumped hydro in the Snowy Mountains Scheme. To be fair, Turnbull regularly spoke about pumped hydro while he was trying to use clean coal to attack Labor, but it’s hard to avoid the impression the Snowy announcement is designed to counter the clean coal-derived impression that Turnbull is now entirely a captive of the far right.
That’s likely to be the total impact of the announcement. Where is the money coming from? Existing renewable energy funding, meaning the result is no new capacity? Are NSW and Victoria on board? How will they fund it? How long will it take to approve such a massive project? How much longer to build? And what will happen to the energy market in the intervening five to 10 years?
[Turnbull’s lurch to the right hasn’t worked]
Still, good thing the Howard government caved in and didn’t agree to Morris Iemma’s proposal to flog the Snowy Hydro, eh?
As for the suggestion from backbenchers that nuclear power should be thrown into the mix, take note of the names involved, according to the Fairfax report: Andrew Broad, James Paterson, Tony Pasin, Tim Wilson, Chris Back, Craig Kelly, Eric Abetz, Andrew Hastie, Warren Entsch, Bridget McKenzie, Rowan Ramsey. Take note and remember that none of them can count. Nuclear power in Australia is by far the most expensive energy option and would require massive government subsidies and loan guarantees (bigger even than clean coal), and take at least a decade to build once a site was identified (good luck to the relevant MP) and approvals completed — and then will run massively over schedule and over budget. Perhaps they should provide some remedial maths classes for the Coalition joint party room.
But whether it’s nuclear, pumped hydro or, as South Australia has announced, quick start gas, policymakers have reversed two decades of energy market policy and governments are now getting back into power generation. One of the key reform processes since 1990 is being rolled back. From the point of view of voters, who have got little but higher power prices to show for the immensely complex process of privatisation, corporatisation and marketisation of electricity, it’s not before time.
Does no one in politics have a memory beyond the last news cycle?
Cast your mind back to winter 2008. Lake Eucumbene was below 12% capacity. Lake Jindabyne at 45%. Tantangara Reservoir at 7%.
Fat lot of good additional tunnels and turbines are going to do when there is no water to run through them.
And, I might add, by 2008 the dam levels had been declining for nearly a decade following reduced rainfall and snowfall, to the point where water releases for environmental purposes were being limited to try to preserve dam levels.
Yes, where will the water come from during the next 13 year (or longer) drought? Not to mention predictions of declining rainfall over SE Australia due to climate change.
It is pumped hydro storage. So theoretically the water moves between the upper and lower reservoirs, but not out of the system.
And here is a pumped hydro system that should not run out of water.
http://seawaterpower.com/images/okinawatwo.jpg
Maybe we are missing each other’s points, but unless you are suggesting topping up the Snowy lakes with sea water, I can’t see where the water to pump uphill is coming from.
I accept you can use surplus base-load electricity generated elsewhere (whether by coal, gas, solar or wind) to pump water uphill to create potential energy for hydro generation at times of need, but:
(i) you need enough water in the system to do that – which we did not have in 2008 (as per my original post); and
(ii) using hydro power to pump uphill is a net loss (unless Trumble has magically invented perpetual energy).
K, you are right, and you do need water, but!!
The idea is to use pumped water, presumably from power sourced from windmills and solar, so that you can turn intermittent renewable energy into baseload energy. That is actually the holy grail. Yes, there is a net loss, but if the original energy is garnered from renewable sources then it is unlimited, so the loss of energy is not a problem.
While they will need water, as long as there is any water in the system it can be pumped around. The 2008 figures you provided are more than sufficient to run power, it isn’t lost, it just goes down to a lower dam to be pumped back up again.
If the pumping back up isn’t from renewable energy then it is completely pointless, as you make clear. In that case, yes, there is a loss of energy.
http://www.hydroworld.com/articles/2017/02/energyaustralia-provides-update-on-proposed-seawater-pumped-storage-project.html
Doing the arithmetic on nuclear electricity? Yes, that’s a good idea. Check the state of the art and redo the arithmetic, each time the need for cheap, reliable, carbon-free baseload comes up. Sooner or later we won’t even need a carbon price to make them cheaper than unreliable gas.
Mind doing the arithmetic for me?
https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/powerplants/capitalcost/pdf/capcost_assumption.pdf
Nuclear power is more than twice the cost of solar PV with sun tracking, more than twice the cost of battery storage, more than three times the cost of on-shore wind turbines and more expensive than super-critical coal with carbon capture and storage.
Nuclear power is nearly twice as expensive as conventional hydro and about the same as pumped hydro storage (2013 figures).
That’s in capital costs on a $/kW basis.
And it also has a (usually not mentioned) carbon footprint. The mining, processing, concrete in the construction of the reactors and of course the storage of waste for how long? Building a nuclear reactor is a bit like building a house without a sewerage system, where do you put the shit?
‘It’s an announcement of a feasibility study…’
Indeed, that’s precisely what was announced. Sir Humphrey would be marking Trumble’s exam paper ten-out-of-ten.
Snowy will never happen.
“Look! Over there! It’s the Snowy Mountains Hydro Electric Scheme!”
Squirrel!!!
perhaps the simplest solution is to invite each one of those MPs to nominate a place in their respective electorates in which a ‘small modular reactor’ (SMR) could be located. Surely their electorates would be just keen as their MPs?
http://thebulletin.org/are-small-nuclear-reactors-answer
https://theconversation.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-mini-nuclear-reactors-56647
DODGY – have I got this right- use coal to provide the energy to pump the water up the hill and then harness what they can as it runs down the hill. What happens if there is no water as in the drought a few years back?
All political enthusiasm and no hard nosed detail.
ABC Girls this am over the moon at MT “looking very muscular” and “shining through”
Spare me my cynicism.
Who can believe any of this Canberra Crap
A pity there are no muscles in the brain.
Pam – no, you do not have it right. It is intended to store the energy (NOT electricity) generated by solar/wind when it is excess to requirements by pumping the water (in a closed system so no losses or impact by drought) uphill to be used again running downhill to power turbines.
As the Snowy Hydro has been doing for half a century.