All Activity

$1tn in a new grid for all of Australia to meet tomorrow's energy security requirements - for a country the size of Australia- even allowing for local storage and power for remote areas doesn't sound too much. We can A) get going ASAP and spread the cost over a longer period and have an orderly transition. B) kick the can down the road yo a point where we have to do it in short time and the cast will bite That is an investment in tech, jobs, and reducing the costs over the journey not to mention reduced cleanup costs, reduced public health costs and the like. The real financial disaster is to not do anything or contract it all out to foreign companies and not use that money to build a local industry even if it is a little more expensive.. A bit like 380bn in sub purchases

That all seems right. The estimate was made by a credible person. We had grid that worked, radiating from power stations. For taxpayers to benefit from SH2.0 we need a new grid, total cost of both is about one trillion. i am quoting Robert Gottliebsen in April. He called it the biggest financial disaster since Federation.

That is a bold claim to make without evidence. The short answer is no. There is no credible estimate that connecting Snowy Hydro 2.0 to consumers requires $1 trillion in grid upgrades. Here's where the claim appears to come from. What Snowy Hydro 2.0 actually costs The project has experienced enormous cost overruns: Original estimate (2017): $2 billion Revised estimate (2023): $12 billion Snowy Hydro now acknowledges the final cost will be higher than $12 billion. Some independent analysts (Bruce Mountain and Ted Woodley) estimate the total economic cost could reach around $42 billion, but this includes: construction, financing (interest), and Snowy 2.0's share of major transmission projects such as HumeLink and VNI West. Even critics of the project are talking about tens of billions, not hundreds of billions. Where does the "$1 trillion" come from? There are a couple of possibilities. 1. Confusing Snowy 2.0 with the entire energy transition Some opinion pieces have argued that Australia's entire electricity transition—generation, transmission, storage, distribution upgrades and financing over decades—could approach very large figures. For example, one recent opinion article claimed: about $450 billion for transition infrastructure plus around $600 billion in financing costs and rounded this to roughly $1 trillion. It was not referring solely to connecting Snowy Hydro 2.0 to consumers. That estimate is controversial and is not an official government, AEMO or CSIRO estimate. 2. Simple exaggeration Sometimes numbers grow in online debates. Someone may have taken: "$42 billion for Snowy" plus "Australia's grid will need hundreds of billions of investment" and turned it into "Snowy needs a trillion dollars of transmission." There is no evidence for that statement. What do official bodies estimate for transmission? Australia does need significant transmission investment regardless of Snowy 2.0. AEMO's Integrated System Plan includes projects like: HumeLink VNI West Marinus Link EnergyConnect These collectively amount to tens of billions of dollars, not hundreds of billions for Snowy alone. The purpose is to connect new renewable generation across the National Electricity Market, not just Snowy Hydro. Is Snowy 2.0 competitive? That's a separate question. There are legitimate criticisms: huge cost blowouts years behind schedule uncertainty over final cost batteries have become much cheaper since Snowy 2.0 was conceived Many energy economists now question whether Snowy 2.0 would be approved if starting from scratch today. Others argue its enormous storage capacity and expected operating life (many decades) still make it valuable for grid reliability. The "$1 trillion to connect Snowy 2.0" claim isn't supported by any credible estimate. Even critics of the project put Snowy 2.0's total cost at around $40–42 billion, including construction, financing and associated transmission. The "$1 trillion" figure comes from some opinion pieces estimating the possible cost of Australia's entire long-term energy transition—not the cost of connecting Snowy Hydro 2.0 to consumers. They're two completely different claims. So I'd rate the original statement as: "Connecting Snowy Hydro 2.0 costs $1 trillion" → False "Snowy Hydro 2.0 has become extremely expensive" → True "Australia will need major transmission investment during the energy transition" → True "Those transmission costs are all because of Snowy Hydro 2.0" → False

How did that number come about? Sounds like bullshit to me.

Then one example. The cost of connecting Snowy Hydro 2.0 to consumers via grid upgrades has been estimated at one Trillion dollars. How is that competitive with anything?

It gave me a better Insight into Elon Musk that I had before. It's on Netflix. An amazing effort by all involved. I highly recommend it. Nev

Let me see if I have got this straight.. your position is that fossils/nuclear provide energy security over renewables (and its related tech)? If that is so, then the above post sort of throws that out the window faster than a Putin dissident. Scotland are paying power stations to mot produce power because of a failure to plan execution of upgrading to renewables. They asked to have all this extra capacity in the form of renewables added to the grid that cannot handle it. That is a policy or politics failure. Not a renewables can't meet "baseload" failure. It is akin to building a new suburb with only bicycle lanes but to be extra green, adding driveways with electric car chargers and declaring it an ice car free green suburb - and they crying EV cars aren't practical transport for a suburban life. That is called overpaying or underinvesting in energy security... the payments they make to compensate the owners for the governments cock up probably would have gone a decent way to grid upgrades. On the other hand, Raring power station was availing itself of a government guarantee because, even presumably fully amortised, wasn't predicted to be economically viable (ie produce power at a price that others could and make money).. in the supposed economically most effective way being a privatised market. Isn't that the government being tapped by the fossil fuel industry for energy security? BTW, Origin don't currently opt into the scheme as they are predicting, again fully amortised, it will not lose money We can find individual cases with all forms of generation that have not gone to plan or need a bail out. And all forms receive some form of government subsidy. That is policy because of energy security

True but it does have to be quite hot: The Temperature Limits Standard industrial wind turbines are engineered according to international IEC 61400-1 standards, which dictate a normal operational ambient temperature limit of 40°C and an extreme survival limit of 50°C. [1] When weather conditions push past these thresholds, turbines protect themselves using a two-stage defense mechanism: [1] Thermal Derating (Curtailment): When ambient air temperatures rise between 40°C and 45°C, the turbine's control system automatically throttles or "derates" its power output. By reducing electricity generation, the turbine limits the internal heat produced by electrical resistance. [1, 2, 3] Automatic Shutdown: If the ambient temperature crosses the critical maximum limit—usually 45°C to 50°C depending on the specific model—the turbine will initiate a full safety shutdown. [1, 2, 3] Why Extreme Heat Causes Issues Even though turbines use internal liquid or air cooling systems, they ultimately rely on the outside air to dump that heat. [1, 2] Inefficient Heat Exchange: When the surrounding air is extremely hot, the temperature differential between the turbine's internal components (like the gearbox or generator) and the outside environment shrinks. The cooling loops can no longer dissipate heat effectively. [1, 2, 3] Component Protection: The oil in the gearbox can thin out excessively under extreme heat, reducing lubrication and risking catastrophic mechanical friction. Similarly, generator windings can suffer insulation melting or permanent damage if they overheat. [1, 2, 3, 4] Thin Air Dynamics: Hot air is less dense than cold air. Less dense air provides less aerodynamic lift on the blades, requiring the turbine to work harder (generating more internal heat) just to produce the same amount of electricity. Regional Adaptations To combat this, manufacturers build specialized "hot climate packages." Turbines bound for desert environments like parts of Australia, the Middle East, or the Southwestern United States feature upgraded, heavy-duty cooling fans, larger liquid-to-air heat exchangers, and altered internal insulation to withstand ambient operational temperatures up to 50°C before shutting down. 2. Thermal Derating Over Full Shutdowns When temperatures do spike above 40°C in parts of South Australia, Victoria, or New South Wales, modern wind farms are engineered to dynamically adapt. [1] Rather than shutting down completely, turbines usually undergo thermal derating (throttling back total output by 10% to 20%) to keep internal temperatures safe while continuing to supply power to a stressed grid. [1] Because the majority of Australia’s wind assets are located in coastal or elevated southern regions (which rarely sustain ambient temperatures above the 45°C–50°C critical cutoff), full thermal shutdowns are exceptional events.

Sounds like a wind turbine except they dont need to be old. Hot windless days! Hot windy days. They derate, cooling water for genetator and converter get too hot causes them to stop. When we most need them!

OLD Coal-Fired Power stations are notoriously unreliable and obsolete.(inefficient and Polluting. NO parts available) Their Capital value has been amortised so on the books they look profitable. Usually fail when needed most . Hot days. with no warning. and not back on grid for ages. One in Qld, the co Owners are suing each other. Nev

Scotland they are paying windfarms not to produce electricity because of transmission constraints. Government is paying to keep Eraring power station open in NSW. The worst thing it is probably still making money, just not enough.

Well.. given we risk assess them, I sort of have seen how it is done Governments don't cover our losses

We may need to disagree on that. Worker safety and then $$$$$. Less energy security = more money from governments to fix

Actually, given project finance is usually collateralised/financed against the cash flows of yhe asset it is financing, it is in their interests to make sure that asset is going to perform as expected/promised... And they generally do go to decent lengths to ensure that.. so in an indirect way they do care

I think it infers exactly that.

They don"t care aboyt Australias energy security either

As Jerry points out, the financial balance must be separated from the political and media (vested interests). The big players are voting with their dollars against fossil fuel power stations. They don't give a rat's about environmental issues. Their investments are based upon best return for dollar. And they don't see value in fossil fuel, or nuclear energy.

Reliable comparison costs are available if you seek them Out.. Each country has different circumstances. Distance and sparse population is a feature of ours. The concept of a GRID has to be Justified in my view.. It's prone to failure and expensive. we have Plenty of Sun and it doesn't mean the Land can't be used for Grazing or cropping at the same time There's a lot of Buildings yet to have it installed to full capacity .Nev

I don't see the thread saying 100% powering it... Follow the money.. If it wasn't economic to do it, it generally wouldn't be done.. and it certainly wouldn't be used.

Tou're quite right re the levelised cost. But taking these into account, a) it is still cheaper and b) it also doesn't take into account hte ongoing capital investment required to fossil burning plants that isn't needed for renewables in any of the same way. Your point on naming a country that exists solely on solar and winbd is moot, by the way. In the scheme of things, these are newer technology at scale and existing infrastructure in countries where it is applicable would make sense means its a transition, not a big bang. That is the politics, not economic side, Maybe we should make Australia the first to go the whole hog, but a lot of established vested interests will have their noses put out of joint, and they happen to contribute to the major political parties' cofferss... South Australia's electricity isstill relatively expensive due to structural factors which have always made it expensive compared to eastern seaboard states. @octave has already prvied the info above - I don't need to repeat it suffice to say fossils will be more expensive. But if you want to pay more, be my guest,,,

Which channel you watch can have a big bearing on that. Most are a waste of time, or even Propaganda. Nev

Victor Willis, lead singer of the group Village People, (Y.M.C.A., In The Navy) died on Monday after a short but agressive illness.

Does anyone else think they are watching an episode of Yes Minister when watching the politicians talk on the morning news or is it just me?

I particularly liked her role in 'To the Manor born". She and Peter Bowles were absolutely hilarious together.