Questions being asked about Queensland Government’s proposed pumped hydro scheme | 7.30
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 มิ.ย. 2024
- Last year, the Queensland Government announced the state will build the 'world's largest' pumped hydro scheme - dwarfing even the troubled Snowy Hydro 2.0 in New South Wales.
The Queensland Government say it's a crucial piece of the energy puzzle, but some in the industry are warning the government should reconsider its plans before powering on. Stephanie Zillman reports.
Subscribe: ab.co/3yqPOZ5
ABC News In-depth takes you deeper on the big stories, with long-form journalism from Four Corners, Foreign Correspondent, Australian Story, Planet America and more, and explainers from ABC News Video Lab.
Watch more ABC News content ad-free on ABC iview: ab.co/2OB7Mk1
For more from ABC News, click here: ab.co/2kxYCZY
Get breaking news and livestreams from our ABC News channel: / newsonabc
Like ABC News on Facebook: / abcnews.au
Follow ABC News on Instagram: / abcnews_au
Follow ABC News on Twitter: / abcnews
Note: In most cases, our captions are auto-generated.
#ABCNewsIndepth #ABCNewsAustralia
![[Watch Party] APL 2024 รอบ 8 ทีมสุดท้าย ไทยต้องแชมป์ !](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NctOkvaex-Y/mqdefault.jpg)
Everyone wants action. Nobody wants to be the one to move.
Everyone wants tax payer money to line their pockets. No-ones installing renewables in Australia without a government kick-back.
There needs to be two possible routes for power lines to be identified and then see which community is happier with lower compensation. That way the communities can feel they have more agency.
No such thing as a gigawatt of storage. Should that be gigawatt hours? Check your units - there's an important difference
GigaJoules
ABC fix the audio on your TH-cam uploads it's terrible and shows a lack of effort
Maybe your device…I receive quality audio
Lack of funding? 😂
Lots of little crackles in it. Once you hear them, you notice them throughout. I downloaded the video from YT, they're still there.
@@martinXY I hear them too
That last comment warning about "world's biggest, watch out" was ridiculous. We live in a world that is transitioning away from fossil-fuels, every day we have more non-fossil-fuel power generation than the last, IT'S A RECORD THAT GETS FRESHLY RE-BROKEN EVERY SINGLE DAY.
It's no longer the old world he grew up in.
Old mate might be an engineer & retired CEO, but he has either gone senile or has an agenda with his talk about logic dictating building power generation as close to the market as possible. Pumped hydro depends on suitable locations for upper & lower reservoirs. If there were suitable places closer to the main markets which could produce the same amount of power, they would have been used.
I live on the Sunny Coast. The half a mil people living in the immediate vicinity of Imbil wont be complaining about proximity to market like that guy
He might have been an Electrical Engineer but he probably wasn't a very good one. Minimising transmission loss is only one factor in any power project and good engineers are aware of all the relevant factors and can work in multi-factor environments.
Yeah, someone better tell all those coal powered stations that were build nearer coal mines than the cities they power.. I mean when you need generation to be at a particular location: the transmission losses are just a factor of it, but they aren't a reason not to do it.
yeah the ABC had reported horribly on this topic, barely covered either of the arguments.
It is like the bloke hasn't heard of HV DC
Well thanks for that. One-sided fear mongering much. Why don’t you spend a little time talking about what happens if we don’t transition away from coal. How does Platypus pool fair then?
You rarely ever get an unbiased view from the ABC. The institution is dominated by green left gender confused ideologues.
Glad we have experts on the job
Not sure if serious.
Theres needs to be a national approach, not a state approach.
A "pumped hydro" scheme is being proposed for New Zealand. The feasability study has already cost $100 Million. If the scheme goes ahead, cost will be so many billions of dollars, that free solar panels could instead be installed on 90% of Kiwi homes and apartments for the same money. ie Free Solar Panels could be provided for all Kiwis, except for the wealthiest who already HAVE solar panels, or can afford them but don't want them. .In NZ there is but little need for air-conditioning but for most Kiwis most of the time, home heating is a big consumer of home energy bills. Keep in mind 38% of Kiwis are Rental tenants and have almost zero access to solar panels to help control electricity bills. Many areas have no Natural Gas available and wood/coal burning appliances are so strictly regulated as to be almost-banned. Leaving Electricity as the ONLY home heating option. Domestic electricity usually retails for over 30 cents per kw/hr unit, plus other "connection" fees. Many older, and often uninsulated homes, need regular home heating for 8 months of the year or more (especially in the South of the country).
The problem is that solar does little to reduce the costs of heating. Funding to retrofit homes with more efficient insulation and windows would be a better long term solution to reduce the overall energy demand for heating. The further south the worse the problem is because solar energy intensity reduces the closer you are to the south pole.
Solar only works during the time of day you need heating the least... when everyone is working in the middle of the day, these schemes basically turn that abundance of electricity into night time power which is what you need to bring your cost per kwh down. This scheme would work better in NZ because the main issue highlighted in this issue doesn't exist in NZ which is having to transport the elctricity 1000KM (The distance between Christchurch and Auckland)
Like Pete said eliminating ineffiencies is much more productive to solving the problem longterm.
@@HardstylePete Solar and battery is by FAR the cheapest form of reliable electricity.
@@elephantintheroom5678 this just ignores the reality of solar. You need solar intensity and it only operates during the middle of the day. I have solar installed on my house. I have the data to prove this.
Batteries are very expensive and more than double installation costs.
@@HardstylePete The IEA (International Energy Agency) has the data to prove that solar and battery combination is the cheapest power overall. The price has substantially decreased since the advent of the war in Ukraine, and a subsequent price war between solar manufacturers in China, with knock on effects on battery prices. No doubt your data is out of date.
It's all so tiresome.
We (Australia) need to bite the bullet on these schemes and just get on with it. The benefit is there and will far outweigh any moaning/groaning along the way.
Questions are being asked why with more renewables online than ever, our electricity prices are rising 35% next moth.
“During the election campaign, and in the months before, Anthony Albanese said Labor’s powering Australia policy would lead to lower power prices. More renewables in the market would reduce household energy bills by $275 by 2025.”
The easy answer is that since power generation & transmission have all been privatised for short term gain, foreign owned companies are price gouging to return larger profits.
@@thedamnedatheist shit go for Australians. Wish we could have a true long term plan in this space that is a)realistic b)will deliver very cheap power which will help the people and industry.
Nuclear is inevitable for meeting base load requirements, carbon goals and being realistic. Batteries not viable for base load, gas is carbon and only getting more experience. Pumped hydro is good type of stored energy but not sure re possible scale.
@@uwisho nuclear isn't a bad option as long as its done right. We could also let the EU and usa spend the billions to solve fusion power then set that up for much much much cheaper than what they've invested. But yeah @thedamnedatheist is right. Prices wouldn't be this high if everything wasn't privatised. It'll also take Albo more than 1 year to reposition the direction we were heading in before. Renewables will end up much cheaper than the alternative soon since it is literally free energy once its set up
@@tobenweston1687 fusion is a pipe dream. Probably won’t see it in our lifetimes. Agree re privatisation, sold to the highest bidder, and sold out by politicians for short term gains. Similar with toll roads.
I don’t ever see power prices coming back down. The base is set and the only way is up. I also don’t think the gov gives a crap, they have agreed to unrealistic carbon goals and they know the expensive prices will push more people to solar and make the battery prices more viable. Renters and low income owners will suffer not being able to afford
@@uwisho Scale's not so much the issue with pumped, it will scale really well, but no-one's taking the time to explain why storage tech are required. In a pure fossil fuel (OK, and Nuclear) power generation system, you have to have enough generation to cover all of the demand, all of the time (plus spare in case something goes oopsie). With all others (solar, wind, tide, hydro) you have to plan based on availability. You need to generate enough power to supply everything during the day, plus enough extra to charge stuff up (plus spare in case something goes oopsie). Then on top, you have to have sufficient excess stored to cover when the sun don't shine, the wind don't blow, drought shuts down the hydro, etc. So you end up having to have MORE supply available when you are running on renewables.
In all cases, the excess is 'wasted', but still needs to be paid for in some way or another.
So, this pumped hydro will not replace 1 single kg of coal required to generate electricity, but it will enable the gov to use renewables for 'base load'.
Multi-billion dollar makeover to power homes for just 24 hrs? 01:06 That sounds very expensive 😧 And what happens the next day!!
Wind and solar charges it up during the day, and it is operational during the night. So they dont need to actually run it for 24 hours, and presuming they are able to charge it during the day power should be reliable and available all the time. Its like a daily energy balancing battery. Solar tends to give alot of surplus energy in the middle of the day, which will become a problem especially considering the massive movements and investment ongoing into getting more solar energy.
The solar and wind replenish the battery (move the water back into the original water resovoir) to do it all again the next day
@@joshuacoppo2900 😆yer, thanks, but it was obviously a joke.
@@JohnDoe-tx8lq maybe it was, but given all the current disinformation around renewables, you may want to look up Poe's Law.😄
@@thedamnedatheist "maybe it was" - no, it was. Obviously.
How about nuclear?
It would cost more, take longer, and provide more expensive power.
Australia has no skilled workers or experience in building nuclear.
The time to build nuclear was decades ago. Unfortunately, the ARPANS Act of 1998 prohibits nuclear power. The Coal- ition had plenty of opportunity to rescind the Act in the last decade, but failed to do so, probably because nuclear has always been the greatest threat to fossil fuels companies who make so many lovely donations. To now champion nuclear as a viable alternative is disingenuous and shows their ethical bankruptcy.
nuclear could still work, but since we're so late it'd be better to just wait for fusion nuclear. It's been proven in the past year to be viable irl not just on paper but now just figuring out how to make em big enough to power cities
@@tobenweston1687 Sorry if I fail to share your optimism. Fusion has been 'almost here' for decades. It may breakthrough tomorrow, or it may never breakthrough. You cannot hang public safety on what might happen tomorrow.
All efforts to provide power will be continually negated by more people wanting more energy. The root cause, increasing population, fuelled by excessive rates of immigration, needs to be addressed - otherwise all else is futile.
There are definitely some root causes we need to look at - we can’t afford to endlessly increase demand. That said, I don’t think blaming immigration is entirely fair - climate change is a global problem and if people aren’t consuming electricity here, they will be doing so elsewhere
@@reubenm.d.5218 … it’s not about blaming immigration - it’s about the level of immigration (the numbers) that’s the issue.
Local solar, bi directional or isolated grids and local infrastructure for the next big battery tech…….
We have large supplies of the worlds best coal. It is a very efficient and cheap power generation option. We dont need to spend anywhere near the capital they are planning. Let the rest of the overpopulated world worry about renewable energy generators. This plan will be like a drop in a bucket when considering the rest of the world but it will cost us dearly. The money being spent could provide a modern reliable and cheap network of coal generation. The people are seeing insane power prices now because we have not got enough coal power plants. What will the cost of electricity be when this project blows out? I predict it will be so high that people will be cutting down trees to burn in household inprovised fire places just so their family does not freeze in winter. Make coal great again!
One of the ironies is that coal production has continued, it is simply exported along with the associated pollution. The revenue from overseas may be very helpful for our balance of payments but it does seem like a very inefficient use of resources.
@@billedifier8584 What, using a mountain of fossil fules to move fossils fuels to countrys that are and the rear-end of using clean(er) technologies? Ones that the UN is trying to bankrupt the 'rich' countries by making them pay for the rest of the world to clean up their act? While the people really making the money get to make profit from both sides? What could possibly be wrong with that?
Everyone realises that if they get another drought like in 2003 here, that it would probably end up shutting down the pumped hydro? As they are using the existing dam as the lower reservoir, at some point they will need to decide on whether pumped hydro is more or less important then domestic supply, or, heaven forbid, irrigation.
It re-uses the water, it goes out and then back again, nothing is lost. Can't say the same for domestic supply or irrigation, THAT water ain't coming back.
@@roidroid Yes, but. Firstly, the bottom reservoir is the existing one that's used for domestic consumption, environmental flows and irrigation. Secondly there is loss due to evaporation, etc.
My point is that the political reality of now having a 'hard line' that you can't go below without endangering being able to fill up the top reservoir (plus having this change over time due to silting) is exactly the kind of thing that governments are notorious for stuffing up.