Snowy 2.0 and Basslink 2.0

 
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
Well, it would appear Snowy 2.0 is off and Basslink 2.0 is likely to get the nod.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-26/snowy-2.0-project-approved-for-early-works-stage/10848412

I'm not sure of the economics for both, but if we want more RE, then these have to happen and if the economics don't stand up, then the feds should simply "gift" the projects to the nation to enable power prices to be lowered without risk of blackouts. Another "gift project" will be the need for the HV link connecting SA to NSW and this will round off the above mentioned hydro projects providing greater geographic diversity for solar and wind generation. I'm expecting the SA-NSW HV link to be approved this year.

Interesting that Shorten is wanting to see the business case for SNowy 2.0. He knows full well it doesn't stack up, but he also knows full well he will be forced to do it if the LNP doesn't to achieve his RE targets, so as usual the Opposition bring nothing but BS to the table.

On top of Basslink 2.0, Tas Hydro is looking at installing pumped storage as a means to provide a battery for their  wind projects, either under consideration or construction to better capitalise on Basslink 1 and 2 as well as better drought proof.

If all this happens, along with half the wind and solar projects currently in feasibility stage. Then yes Liddle can go quietly into the night along with another 1-2 coal power stations reducing the bass load power from 18-20GW to 12-14GW. However, thats all the low hanging fruit, what next? and does any of this make commercial sense who knows?

Sponsored advertisement

  Carnot Chief Commissioner

Yes, Basslink 2.0 is a very good idea.  And it would give extra redundancy for power and internet for Tassie.
  michaelgm Deputy Commissioner

Basslink, at $54million, to provide 400mw of dispatchable power.
Why has the LNP been sitting on their hands for this?
Other than waiting for an election?
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
Another "gift project" will be the need for the HV link connecting SA to NSW and this will round off the above mentioned hydro projects providing greater geographic diversity for solar and wind generation. I'm expecting the SA-NSW HV link to be approved this year.
RTT_Rules
The thing that fascinates me about this project is that it goes smack bang through the middle of some of the sunniest land in the south east of the country - and in building it, it will create a path along which solar farm after solar farm might be connected into the grid to feed NSW, SA and VIC...

Theres not a lot out there about it but i can see its going to be an interesting one.
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
Basslink 1.0 has a cable issue or did have.  For those interested a fibre cable was also deployed at the same time between Victoria and Tasmania.  I am not sure if this fibre cable is in working order.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
Basslink, at $54million, to provide 400mw of dispatchable power.
Why has the LNP been sitting on their hands for this?
Other than waiting for an election?
michaelgm
Because thats LESS than 10% of what it cost to build the smaller Basslink 1.0.

I think you will find they chipped in $54m towards the project.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
Another "gift project" will be the need for the HV link connecting SA to NSW and this will round off the above mentioned hydro projects providing greater geographic diversity for solar and wind generation. I'm expecting the SA-NSW HV link to be approved this year.
The thing that fascinates me about this project is that it goes smack bang through the middle of some of the sunniest land in the south east of the country - and in building it, it will create a path along which solar farm after solar farm might be connected into the grid to feed NSW, SA and VIC...

Theres not a lot out there about it but i can see its going to be an interesting one.
james.au
Agree and I think you will find a number of solar farms come up if they build.

Flat country, high sun yield, running 25min behind Sydney in time so better suited for evening peak boost, low cost land with limited agricultural usage.

Hay could potentially be in future the solar farm hub of NSW.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
Basslink 1.0 has a cable issue or did have.  For those interested a fibre cable was also deployed at the same time between Victoria and Tasmania.  I am not sure if this fibre cable is in working order.
bevans
Bass link was fixed.

The internet cable part of bass link wasn't severed but was out during the repair.

There are other cables across Bass Strait, but they have other back up options from what I've just read, likely satellite, maybe even the old microwave link?
  Carnot Chief Commissioner

Basslink 1.0 has a cable issue or did have.  For those interested a fibre cable was also deployed at the same time between Victoria and Tasmania.  I am not sure if this fibre cable is in working order.
Bass link was fixed.

The internet cable part of bass link wasn't severed but was out during the repair.

There are other cables across Bass Strait, but they have other back up options from what I've just read, likely satellite, maybe even the old microwave link?
RTT_Rules
Yes, but only fibre-optic offers a huge bandwidth.
  Groundrelay Chief Commissioner

Location: Surrounded by Trolls!
The thing that fascinates me about this project is that it goes smack bang through the middle of some of the sunniest land in the south east of the country - and in building it, it will create a path along which solar farm after solar farm might be connected into the grid to feed NSW, SA and VIC...

Theres not a lot out there about it but i can see its going to be an interesting one.
james.au
Plenty of sun west of the divide all the way to Perth. Much of the grazing country is marginal, not that sheep can't happily co-exist.

Seems to be plenty of options on the storage front beyond Snowy and Tassie dams. Produce hydrogen which can be used to fuel on-demand generators. I believe hydrogen can be stored and transported as ammonia?
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
The thing that fascinates me about this project is that it goes smack bang through the middle of some of the sunniest land in the south east of the country - and in building it, it will create a path along which solar farm after solar farm might be connected into the grid to feed NSW, SA and VIC...

Theres not a lot out there about it but i can see its going to be an interesting one.
Plenty of sun west of the divide all the way to Perth. Much of the grazing country is marginal, not that sheep can't happily co-exist.

Seems to be plenty of options on the storage front beyond Snowy and Tassie dams. Produce hydrogen which can be used to fuel on-demand generators. I believe hydrogen can be stored and transported as ammonia?
Groundrelay
Hydrogen is horrible to store in large vessels.

Converting H2 to NH3 and then back again with transport???? Would be alot lot lot lot cheaper to just build a series of diesel generators as backup. Basically electricity is best transported in wires unless the distances are very large, ie >500 - 1000km or more..
  mikesyd Chief Commissioner

Location: Lurking
Pardon my ignorance, but searching the Web doesn't seem to disclose how much Power will be needed for the pumps to enable the water to flow backwards and be used again.

Yes 2000 mw will be produced, but how much will the pumps use?

Does anyone know?
  apw5910 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Location: Location.
Pardon my ignorance, but searching the Web doesn't seem to disclose how much Power will be needed for the pumps to enable the water to flow backwards and be used again.

Yes 2000 mw will be produced, but how much will the pumps use?

Does anyone know?
mikesyd
"The project has zero chance of making money solely as merchant plant – that is, buying electricity out of the market at off-peak, pumping it 27km uphill at 70 per cent round trip efficiency, and then selling it at peak prices. The project will be able to earn some revenue doing that, but 2000MW is a lot of power and obviously only a small fraction of the storage could be used on any one day. Just to cover the round trip efficiency requires off-peak prices to be, say, 30 per cent less than peak prices. Snowy will certainly have a strong upwards influence on off-peak prices and negative downwards push on peak prices if it was operating on a regular basis." - from https://reneweconomy.com.au/first-thoughts-snowy-2-0-will-lift-emissions-without-more-renewables-91362/

So treating the problem very simplistically, the pumping alone to produce 2000MW will require 2857MW at 70% efficiency.
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: Trapped in a meeting with Rhonda and Karsten
I'm not sure of the economics for both, but if we want more RE, then these have to happen and if the economics don't stand up, then the feds should simply "gift" the projects to the nation to enable power prices to be lowered without risk of blackouts. Another "gift project" will be the need for the HV link connecting SA to NSW and this will round off the above mentioned hydro projects providing greater geographic diversity for solar and wind generation. I'm expecting the SA-NSW HV link to be approved this year.

Interesting that Shorten is wanting to see the business case for SNowy 2.0. He knows full well it doesn't stack up, but he also knows full well he will be forced to do it if the LNP doesn't to achieve his RE targets, so as usual the Opposition bring nothing but BS to the table.

On top of Basslink 2.0, Tas Hydro is looking at installing pumped storage as a means to provide a battery for their  wind projects, either under consideration or construction to better capitalise on Basslink 1 and 2 as well as better drought proof.
RTT_Rules
Isn't it funny that once a politician finds a big sexy infrastructure project to fund, the cost-benefit analyses are ignored and the cycle of endless feasibility studies is broken. Almost like the numbers never mattered at all.
  mikesyd Chief Commissioner

Location: Lurking
Pardon my ignorance, but searching the Web doesn't seem to disclose how much Power will be needed for the pumps to enable the water to flow backwards and be used again.

Yes 2000 mw will be produced, but how much will the pumps use?

Does anyone know?
"The project has zero chance of making money solely as merchant plant – that is, buying electricity out of the market at off-peak, pumping it 27km uphill at 70 per cent round trip efficiency, and then selling it at peak prices. The project will be able to earn some revenue doing that, but 2000MW is a lot of power and obviously only a small fraction of the storage could be used on any one day. Just to cover the round trip efficiency requires off-peak prices to be, say, 30 per cent less than peak prices. Snowy will certainly have a strong upwards influence on off-peak prices and negative downwards push on peak prices if it was operating on a regular basis." - from https://reneweconomy.com.au/first-thoughts-snowy-2-0-will-lift-emissions-without-more-renewables-91362/

So treating the problem very simplistically, the pumping alone to produce 2000MW will require 2857MW at 70% efficiency.
apw5910
Thanks, I suspected that it would be something like that, but of course the Politicians only look at the extra Generation and conveniently ignore the rest. Bit like the Medivac Bill, where the Coalition "forget" to mention that it only applies to those already at Nauru/Manus.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
"The project has zero chance of making money solely as merchant plant – that is, buying electricity out of the market at off-peak, pumping it 27km uphill at 70 per cent round trip efficiency, and then selling it at peak prices. The project will be able to earn some revenue doing that, but 2000MW is a lot of power and obviously only a small fraction of the storage could be used on any one day. Just to cover the round trip efficiency requires off-peak prices to be, say, 30 per cent less than peak prices. Snowy will certainly have a strong upwards influence on off-peak prices and negative downwards push on peak prices if it was operating on a regular basis." - from https://reneweconomy.com.au/first-thoughts-snowy-2-0-will-lift-emissions-without-more-renewables-91362/

So treating the problem very simplistically, the pumping alone to produce 2000MW will require 2857MW at 70% efficiency.
Thanks, I suspected that it would be something like that, but of course the Politicians only look at the extra Generation and conveniently ignore the rest. Bit like the Medivac Bill, where the Coalition "forget" to mention that it only applies to those already at Nauru/Manus.
mikesyd
I heard them talking about it the other day, I'd say some do some don't. It was stated that like Bass Link 2.0 this is to capture mostly wind and lessor degree solar generated when not needed and deal with extreme peaks and enable closure of Liddel. I found the argument basically stated none of this is suited for replacement of any of the remaining coal power stations.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
Pardon my ignorance, but searching the Web doesn't seem to disclose how much Power will be needed for the pumps to enable the water to flow backwards and be used again.

Yes 2000 mw will be produced, but how much will the pumps use?

Does anyone know?
"The project has zero chance of making money solely as merchant plant – that is, buying electricity out of the market at off-peak, pumping it 27km uphill at 70 per cent round trip efficiency, and then selling it at peak prices. The project will be able to earn some revenue doing that, but 2000MW is a lot of power and obviously only a small fraction of the storage could be used on any one day. Just to cover the round trip efficiency requires off-peak prices to be, say, 30 per cent less than peak prices. Snowy will certainly have a strong upwards influence on off-peak prices and negative downwards push on peak prices if it was operating on a regular basis." - from https://reneweconomy.com.au/first-thoughts-snowy-2-0-will-lift-emissions-without-more-renewables-91362/

So treating the problem very simplistically, the pumping alone to produce 2000MW will require 2857MW at 70% efficiency.
Thanks, I suspected that it would be something like that, but of course the Politicians only look at the extra Generation and conveniently ignore the rest. Bit like the Medivac Bill, where the Coalition "forget" to mention that it only applies to those already at Nauru/Manus.
mikesyd
There are two aspects of this. One being they are desperate and need to solve the current deficiencies in network short falls and know there is no economic solution using the technology that is politically correct, so just throw money at the problem. The 2nd is doing this too often just sees taxpayers money thrown at projects that have no economic benefit to Australia and in effect a waste of money.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

Pardon my ignorance, but searching the Web doesn't seem to disclose how much Power will be needed for the pumps to enable the water to flow backwards and be used again.

Yes 2000 mw will be produced, but how much will the pumps use?

Does anyone know?

So treating the problem very simplistically, the pumping alone to produce 2000MW will require 2857MW at 70% efficiency.
apw5910

The Feasibility Study summary states a round trip efficiency of 67% at 2000MW and 78% at 1000MW.

My (limited) understanding of this is the turbines will generate 2000MW or consume 2000MW - the balance of the "efficiency" is made up by the amount of water that is added to/drawn from Tantangara.  ie, you have to run the pumps for 3hrs at 2000MW to pump up enough water to generate 2Hrs of power at 1000MW.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
Pardon my ignorance, but searching the Web doesn't seem to disclose how much Power will be needed for the pumps to enable the water to flow backwards and be used again.

Yes 2000 mw will be produced, but how much will the pumps use?

Does anyone know?

So treating the problem very simplistically, the pumping alone to produce 2000MW will require 2857MW at 70% efficiency.

The Feasibility Study summary states a round trip efficiency of 67% at 2000MW and 78% at 1000MW.

My (limited) understanding of this is the turbines will generate 2000MW or consume 2000MW - the balance of the "efficiency" is made up by the amount of water that is added to/drawn from Tantangara.  ie, you have to run the pumps for 3hrs at 2000MW to pump up enough water to generate 2Hrs of power at 1000MW.
djf01
The 2000MW is the name plate rating for the generational output. It may not actually hold that for the full height of the dam, not sure.

The extra 860MW will be to off-set pump back inefficiency. This has to come from somewhere but it won't be peak periods, rather times of excess power, ie windy days and pleasant sunny days. With the eventual loss of Liddel it won't be off-peak coal as without Liddel coal base load is mostly the min load. Although extra wind will push this down further.

Snowy 2.0 and Bass Link 2.0 need more wind capacity to support them than currently available  to achieve their technical targets. From a cost perspective, thats another story and why the Feds are throwing money at this as none of this is economically viable over building a coal power station and likely peaking gas.

Without Snowy 2.0 and Bass Link 2.0, the wind farmers will start to loose interest to invest further as they will all be selling power for nothing on windy days and being blamed for black outs on hot sunny days.

Snowy 2.0 can delivery 2000 MW of despatchable power, Bass Link 2.0 will be another 1000MW and SA- NSW HV link will help balance wind/no wind - solar/no-solar conditions. Basically sold the issues of the last few years, for now! Further loss of coal power stations in NSW and Vic and EV growth are still the biggest challenges facing the govt by 2025.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

Pardon my ignorance, but searching the Web doesn't seem to disclose how much Power will be needed for the pumps to enable the water to flow backwards and be used again.

Yes 2000 mw will be produced, but how much will the pumps use?

Does anyone know?

So treating the problem very simplistically, the pumping alone to produce 2000MW will require 2857MW at 70% efficiency.

The Feasibility Study summary states a round trip efficiency of 67% at 2000MW and 78% at 1000MW.

My (limited) understanding of this is the turbines will generate 2000MW or consume 2000MW - the balance of the "efficiency" is made up by the amount of water that is added to/drawn from Tantangara.  ie, you have to run the pumps for 3hrs at 2000MW to pump up enough water to generate 2Hrs of power at 1000MW.
The 2000MW is the name plate rating for the generational output. It may not actually hold that for the full height of the dam, not sure.

The extra 860MW will be to off-set pump back inefficiency.
RTT_Rules

That's not my understanding of how it works.  2000MW is the nameplate of the turbines.  It's how much they spit out when the valves are open and maximum possible flow is allowed down the SH2 tunnels.  And it's the amount of power that's drawn from the grid when it's pumping flat out.

It's just that the flow rate downhill to produce 2000MW is higher then than the flow rate uphill from pumping at 2000MW.  So the shortfall is not in mega-watts, but in mega-litres.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
The 2000MW is the name plate rating for the generational output. It may not actually hold that for the full height of the dam, not sure.

The extra 860MW will be to off-set pump back inefficiency.

That's not my understanding of how it works.  2000MW is the nameplate of the turbines.  It's how much they spit out when the valves are open and maximum possible flow is allowed down the SH2 tunnels.  And it's the amount of power that's drawn from the grid when it's pumping flat out.

It's just that the flow rate downhill to produce 2000MW is higher then than the flow rate uphill from pumping at 2000MW.  So the shortfall is not in mega-watts, but in mega-litres.
djf01
I think we are aligned on the Generational Output, open the values at 100% and the rated capacity is 2000MW. However I did say this may change with dam water height level or 2000MW is the min out put for any given dam water height level. Detail will be in the contract.

To return that volume of water back up the hill, you need ~2860MW, but yes I should have written 2860MWh. If you only provide 2000MWh your dame is only 68% full. My thinking is basically I do not know if the max pump back rate matches the max generational water flow rate? For example drain the dam in 10h, how long to pump it all back again?

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: RTT_Rules

Display from: