I thought everyone had smart meters already? And our retail prices aren’t set like that - yet...
Printable View
I thought everyone had smart meters already? And our retail prices aren’t set like that - yet...
I was changed to a smart meter last September without consultation with me - also told that after 6 months I will have to go onto another tariff (no doubt more expensive). Likewise they switched me to a monthly billing cycle from my preferred 3 months again without consultation.
Really not much choice here in the ACT - only one supplier ACTEW and other providers are just resellers.
Hi Phil. Not a hater of Pumped Hydro !Quote:
Originally Posted by PJJ
2 billion- Now may be 10 billion
4 years- Now at 5 years and unlikely inside 10 years
No cost to taxpayers- 1.75 billion and counting
No power price hikes- Transmission costs likely to go up 100%
Head need to role?
Five years on, Snowy 2.0 emerges as a $10 billion white elephant Link
Disappointing at so many levels [bighmmm]
I reckon that article is pretty biased though, I'll add I'm not an expert but to me the following stands out without doing any research:
Noxious fish - the story makes out that there will be mass distribution of carp across the snowy lakes that are stocked with...Trout, another introduced species.
Environment al damage - Yes, but its not like the snowy scheme hasn't done this already and the world didn't end, the area is far from virgin country, similarly with the transmission lines , the snowy is already criss crossed with high tension lines, what's a couple more
The transmission links to Sydney and Melbourne are hardly relevant to the Snowy project, If you are increasing storage capacity then why do you need more distribution lines - sounds like an add on which would be why Snowy don count them as in scope. Also why would Snowy hydro be in the business of building distribution networks anyway?
The claim that the energy used to pump electricity is not renewable seems a little vague to me. Power in the grid is dependant on the capacity of renewables to provide power. If you chose to pump in the night on a dead calm night this might be true but switching to renewable energy is as simple as choosing when to take advantage of excess generating capacity from renewable sources when it is unused.
The cost blowouts may be correct but that is par for the course for any large infrastructure project.
Sounds like a beat up tailored to grab clicks to me....
Regards,
Tote
Yeah .. same here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tote
My gripe with the story is on the efficiency of the system.
losing 25% of power during cycling.
What I assumed is the basis of the system was that during times of excess power generation from either wind or solar, instead of asking industry to turn everything on(or shutting parts of the grid down, to not blow it to pieces) ... it'd be a better solution to bank that excess power in a less inefficient manner by pumping water back up the hill so to speak.
If that is supposedly what the idea of pumped hyrdo is supposed to be, does the actual efficiency numbers(power in vs power back out) matter?
Or do we just go on our merry way in wasting another limited resource(eg.. lithium) and build more useless tesla fire stations ... oops, I meant ... battery banks that only allow a few minutes of reserve power?
If heads had to roll over every cost blowout, every ill advised large scale project ... nothing would have ever been built, and/or not a single governmental head would still be intact over the course of the past 200+ years!
Do we really find it surprising that the build was 'under reported' in every aspect of the job?