| ▲ | 3stacks 5 hours ago | |||||||||||||
They've already burned at least $15bn on that disastrous Snowy Hydro "battery" project... Could've just rolled out consumer batteries on a large scale instead. | ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | simondotau 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||
At current battery project prices, matching Snowy 2.0’s roughly 350 GWh of energy storage capacity with Tesla Megapacks would cost around AUD $218 billion [0] and require Tesla’s entire global Megapack production capacity redirected to a single client for five years. $15 billion is far more than Snowy 2.0 should have cost. But it remains substantially cheaper than any lithium-ion battery build for bulk storage. Storage on this scale is essential in a post-coal electricity grid, and batteries are not (yet) plausible substitutes for bulk storage. [0] This assumes linear scaling. In reality, placing an order like this would grossly distort supply and demand on many levels. Thus the cost would ultimately be superlinear. | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | asdefghyk 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||||||||
From Australlian ABC news... The cost of the Snowy 2.0 pumped-hydro project is estimated to range from \(\$12\) billion to as high as \(\$42\) billion depending on the scope of costs included (such as direct construction, interest, and broader transmission). Originally announced in 2017 with a $2 billion price tag, the project has faced massive scale and logistical blowouts. The cost of the Snowy 2.0 pumped-hydro project is estimated to range from $12 billion to as high as $42 billion depending on the scope of costs included (such as direct construction, interest, and broader transmission). That said , hydro systems have a LONG LIFESPAN - 100 YEARS ? Batteries need to be replaced every X years. So the ecomiomics of the comparisoan would need to be calculated ... | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | stephen_g 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||||||||
That was exactly the point of the project though - it was designed by the conservative side of politics in our country to try and crowd out investment in batteries and other renewables while taking enough time to build to keep coal plants operating longer in the meantime. It didn't work at all for that though - we had a lot of private investment in large-scale batteries anyway, because the cost came down quickly just as most people (apart from the conservatives) expected. Then the other side of Government got in and put a subsidy scheme to get hundreds of thousands of home batteries installed, which has been multiple times better bang-for-buck than the Snowy 2.0 scheme, as well as taking far shorter a time. At the same time coal plants are shutting down as expected because they are increasingly unreliable given their old ages. Snowy 2.0 be an expensive stranded asset basically, it will work and be somewhat useful but extremely uneconomical so basically relying on the cost being written off - if it had to recoup any investment then it couldn't run because it'd never be able to sell the power for high enough. | ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | Scoundreller 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||||||||
You can do similar math with building above ground oil storage tank capacity aaaaaand giving everyone free gas cans. And you can get out every drop. And it’s always ready to go. Do need to cycle your inventory. Fire departments probably wouldn’t be happy about it. | ||||||||||||||