Thread: Future of the Australian Electricity Market

Tunnel boring machine wedged in hard rock, leaving Snowy 2.0 hydropower project with new issues - ABC News

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Powering Australia with nuclear energy would cost roughly twice as much as renewables, CSIRO report shows - ABC News

Interesting, FF, thanks. A few observations:

And I presume those costs do not include the "average cost over-runns". Who would set the over-run record - Albo or Dutton's mob.

Any one know what "nuclear storage" is? A nuclear battery???

Finally, the solar and wind estimates are "with firming" - which seems to mean batteries. Wonder how much "firming" - do the batteries need to store electricity for a minimum of 5 hours, 10 hours, 24 hours, 48 hours, a week??? Bet the batteries cost a lot more than the turbines and panels.

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

Haven't heard anything about Florence the tunneling machine recently. Is it busy beavering away or is it back in hibernation?

No. Florence is stuck again.
Tunnel boring machine wedged in hard rock, leaving Snowy 2.0 hydropower project with new issues - ABC News

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

Haven't heard anything about Florence the tunneling machine recently. Is it busy beavering away or is it back in hibernation?

No. Florence is stuck again. The technical explanation is: "It's f****d."
Tunnel boring machine wedged in hard rock, leaving Snowy 2.0 hydropower project with new issues - ABC News

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

An example of a better topic to discuss: how far would $8.5B go towards bringing the current poles & wires up to the standard required for massive solar input? Was a figure of $10B bandied around a while ago?

How long would it take?

When could we start?

I thought 10billion was only getting an interconnector between NSW and S.A.

and as its been mentioned so many times before you need more then just solar, it will be a mix of all renewables (solar, wind, pumped hydro).



the big issue all the good spots to put renewables.... are no where near the poles and wires. Personally I'd rather see a nuclear plonked in an exisiting power station spot ASAP while the renewable transition goes along beside it as the "old elpaso" girl says... why can't we have both

Originally Posted by havabeer69

the big issue all the good spots to put renewables.... are no where near the poles and wires. Personally I'd rather see a nuclear plonked in an exisiting power station spot ASAP while the renewable transition goes along beside it as the "old elpaso" girl says... why can't we have both

Using existing poles and wires is just not going to cut it as many are vastly inadequate, and many need replacement anyway. Increasingly bushfires and storms will render many longer distance, ground level, poles and wires inappropriate. In places like remote WA smaller local communities are going with local renewable to get around repeatedly being cut off from the grid. It's just a cheaper way to operate. Centralised nuclear facilities won't tackle these issues.

Originally Posted by havabeer69

Personally I'd rather see a nuclear plonked in an existing power station spot ASAP while the renewable transition goes along beside it as the "old elpaso" girl says... why can't we have both

If you mean by 'plonk in' a time span of, on, average eight years after the planning phase is completed, but probably much longer than that in a country where there isn't a very well established nuclear industry...

How long does it take to build a nuclear reactor?

Let's say 10yrs for us here in Australia where the limit of our expertise is Luca Heights... I have my doubts about the business case for that.

The political case may be more persuasives, it only has to get you through an election campaign. In the three terms it would take to actually commission the nuclear plant those pollies would be in and out again and more than likely moved on and enjoying their parliamentary super or diplomatic posting overseas!

Originally Posted by NeilS

If you mean by 'plonk' a time span of on average eight years after the planning phase is completed, but probably much longer in a country where there isn't a very well established nuclear industry...

People have been saying that for decades. I think the term is “kicking the can down the road”.

Originally Posted by NeilS

If you mean by 'plonk in' a time span of, on, average eight years after the planning phase is completed, but probably much longer than that in a country where there isn't a very well established nuclear industry...

How long does it take to build a nuclear reactor?

Let's say 10yrs for us here in Australia where the limit of our expertise is Luca Heights... I have my doubts about the business case for that.

The political case may be more persuasives, it only has to get you through an election campaign. In the three terms it would take to actually commission the nuclear plant those pollies would be in and out again and more than likely moved on and enjoying their parliamentary super or diplomatic posting overseas!

do you think in that same 10 years renewables will have had the same uptake/roll out? the dams and pumps still need planning permission, as well as building, as well as power infrastructure.

both are a pipe dream, I just wish we'd at least start building one now, so that in 10 years both renewables and nuclear have both cemented them self's as the power supply for this country.

Centralised nuclear facilities won't tackle these issues.

as our good mate Mr spock says "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.... or the one"

of course a few central nukes aren't going to help the poor folks in remote W.A or N.T etc etc but to say we shouldnt build them because isnt doesnt help remote towns is a bit odd.

which is why i keep saying its a two or three prong attack.

Originally Posted by NeilS

The political case may be more persuasive, it only has to get you through an election campaign.

Hmm, not quite Neil. It has to get through both Houses as well....and that's the tricky bit these days as we seem to have more and more minority or wafer-thin-margin Govts. It appears we are heading towards a more 3-Party system (or 2 plus a couple of significant bits), similar to Europe. I hope that is a good thing in terms of tough decisions having to be negotiated rather than bulldozed through, but it could easily result any many blockages of reforms we actually need.

Originally Posted by havabeer69

do you think in that same 10 years renewables will have had the same uptake/roll out?

Well I do think that in 10 years the battery storage problem will be more or less solved in terms of developed tech. Not necessarily fully implemented by then – but well under way. It seems to me that batteries, and particularly Community Batteries, are by far the most practical solution for dispersing power to wherever it is needed. Stick them on a semi-trailer and unload them where they need to be utilised.

Community Batteries would also obviate the current move to penalise solar roof owners for feeding into the grid.

I can only see a nuclear power plant becoming a giant, very problematic white elephant just a few seconds after it is completed.

Originally Posted by havabeer69

I thought 10billion was only getting an interconnector between NSW and S.A.

I don't have the expertise, but would an interconnector still be necessary if we had a vast system of Community Batteries? Would it be a case of each mini-community being self sufficient, but with links to the rest of the communities within, I dunno, a 200km radius in case of storms, blackouts etc?

Following a little bit of research as I did not know the cost:

"The SA-NSW interconnector, known as Project EnergyConnect, is currently under construction. It will link South Australia (SA) to New South Wales (NSW) and create a “new super highway” for energy exchange between the two states[COLOR=var(--cib-color-foreground-accent-primary)]1[/COLOR]. The project involves building a 916-kilometer, 330 kV high-voltage transmission line from Wagga Wagga in NSW to Robertstown in SA at a cost of $1.73 billion[COLOR=var(--cib-color-foreground-accent-primary)]2[/COLOR]. The total line capacity will be 800 megawatts, equivalent to powering an additional 240,000 households. While the project aims to enhance energy transfer and export opportunities, it’s important to note that the cost of constructing the interconnector is expected to add $6 to the average annual household bill in South Australia initially, with further increases in subsequent years[COLOR=var(--cib-color-foreground-accent-primary)]3[/COLOR]. The interconnector is a significant step toward a more interconnected and sustainable energy market in Australia. 🌏🔌"

Regards
Paul

From what I'm hearing from contractors working on the project, EnergyConnect isn't going particularly smoothly. As with almost all large projects in Australia these days, don't be surprised to see costs blow out (hopefully not in the same league as Snowy 2.0 cost overrruns though).

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

No. Florence is stuck again. The technical explanation is: "It's f****d."
Tunnel boring machine wedged in hard rock, leaving Snowy 2.0 hydropower project with new issues - ABC News

Probably caused by one of the contractors letting his kid drive the thing at the weekend