Nuclear power will solve our problems. We have endless supplies of uranium and thorium in Australia and nuclear has no emissions and is efficient as hell. In Finland they switched to nuclear and their power bills dropped by over 75 %.
Just make the project so big and take so long that no one will notice the vast amounts of money being stolen. It seems this ply book is used world wide.
The Parrahub to Melbourne via Canberra and Albury underground Japanese SC maglev that earns $2m per night with overnight container trains will reduce trucks and planes while leaving no lasting footprint and using the Snowy 2 power.
Didn’t National Parks fail to manage fuel loadings in these parks by not allowing hazard reduction burns to be conducted ? And in failing to do so this allowed extremely high fuel loadings and the last fire to absolutely destroy these fragile Alpine Forests and killing 1000’s of animals in the process? Bit of the old Pot calling the Kettle black going on here. NP has failed to manage the number of Brumbies in these areas as well.
@@andrewday3206 It's a fair and important point to raise. I expect this has had serious talk time behind closed doors. If I read things correctly at the NPAN Website, they claim that there has been other site assessments that would be better suited for pumped hydro projects external to national parks. I would need to check to be sure, but I don't think there would be any other sites that have the gross capacity that the Snowy Scheme would have. Plus have reservoirs already in place at suitable varying altitudes, which obviously would curtail project costs enormously. They are also not happy about the cloud seeding towers and practices that are employed either apparently. Yet at the same time they indeed clearly acknowledge that climate change is impacting the park. It's a dilema it would seem for NPAN and the Kosciuszko National Park, their support obviously and totally for national park objectives and values at this point.
It will make solar and wind baseload energy vastly improving those resources. Being able to store 350,000 MW/Hr of energy and being able to produce 2,200 MW on demand makes this a grid game changer.
What do you mean "work better than"? The reason the project exists in the first place, is to actually work in conjunction with excess wind and solar generation. To actually maximise solar and wind power generation availability and supply at times when solar and wind output may have dropped off. In other words, it actually enhances the viability of solar and wind power generation, by capturing generation capacity that would otherwise be wasted and lost. Just like andrewday explained.
Is that an intentional loaded question? I mean you could have so easily gone the Snowy 2.0 Project Web site and read their own description. Quote from the project information page................ "Water will be pumped to the upper dam when there is surplus renewable energy production and the demand for energy is low, and then released back to the lower dam to generate energy when electricity demand is high.
Why is anyone surprised that Snowy 2 is a dud, just look at who the sponsor was. Nothing Morrison touched has ever been a benefit to all Australians... What a waste of oxygen.
OK so this is the case 'against', now let's hear the case 'for'. Hydro is fantastic and so much better than wind and solar. If we want more people then we need more water storage and more electricity.
This project is absolutely fantastic. The amount of energy storage being built is a game changer for the nation. Having 350,000 MW/Hrs of storage is enough stored energy to power over well over 1 million houses for a week straight. Having 2,200 MW of ouput can will power well over 1 million homes. This project will turn wind and solar from intermittent sources into baseload 24/7 power without interruption. This turns wind and solar into a backbone of the electricity grid. This emissions free power will have almost as much output as 4 commercial nuclear reactors, without the nuclear waste issues.
@@forloop7713 It depends on what is meant by use of the term "better" I suppose. "Better" for who, what ,when and how. When you already have an ideal scenario existing, with reservoirs at suitable elevations separation within a huge mountainous catchment region, which is competing against national park objectives and values. No easy gig to sort that out to determine what is objectively "better" from all sides.
@@forloop7713 Granted that is the case. At the same time, lets not forget that all sorts of nation building infrastructure projects are very costly. The project is a revenue generating facility as well once it comes online. For the general public, we are not privvy to the full value proposition pros and cons at conception.
Doesn’t the NP allow Ski Field operators to operate in these fragile environments? Without these Ski Fields National Parks would lose how much in revenue every year?
This project should be reassessed, it’s inefficient and costly
It needs to be canned now!
Nuclear power will solve our problems. We have endless supplies of uranium and thorium in Australia and nuclear has no emissions and is efficient as hell. In Finland they switched to nuclear and their power bills dropped by over 75 %.
Politicians and friends lining their pockets
They all forget that “ The Landscape is The Lords “. The will eventually face Him and try to explain. Not a position I would want to be in 😢
Nonsense.
Just make the project so big and take so long that no one will notice the vast amounts of money being stolen. It seems this ply book is used world wide.
and they reckon Brumbies are a problem !!! WTF
The Parrahub to Melbourne via Canberra and Albury underground Japanese SC maglev that earns $2m per night with overnight container trains will reduce trucks and planes while leaving no lasting footprint and using the Snowy 2 power.
Devastating and unbelievable.
Didn’t National Parks fail to manage fuel loadings in these parks by not allowing hazard reduction burns to be conducted ?
And in failing to do so this allowed extremely high fuel loadings and the last fire to absolutely destroy these fragile Alpine Forests and killing 1000’s of animals in the process?
Bit of the old Pot calling the Kettle black going on here.
NP has failed to manage the number of Brumbies in these areas as well.
An absolute disgrace. This is how we treat one of our most precious National Parks? Stop the madness NOW! Tanya Plibersek DO SOMETHING!
NP can’t even manage there own backyard.
Too late, the damage is done. 😢
How about the enormous amount of zero pollution energy this project enables. This project makes fossil fuel energy unnecessary for so many people.
@@andrewday3206 It's a fair and important point to raise. I expect this has had serious talk time behind closed doors.
If I read things correctly at the NPAN Website, they claim that there has been other site assessments that would be better suited for pumped hydro projects external to national parks. I would need to check to be sure, but I don't think there would be any other sites that have the gross capacity that the Snowy Scheme would have. Plus have reservoirs already in place at suitable varying altitudes, which obviously would curtail project costs enormously. They are also not happy about the cloud seeding towers and practices that are employed either apparently. Yet at the same time they indeed clearly acknowledge that climate change is impacting the park. It's a dilema it would seem for NPAN and the Kosciuszko National Park, their support obviously and totally for national park objectives and values at this point.
Most likely work better than solar and wind
It will make solar and wind baseload energy vastly improving those resources. Being able to store 350,000 MW/Hr of energy and being able to produce 2,200 MW on demand makes this a grid game changer.
What do you mean "work better than"?
The reason the project exists in the first place, is to actually work in conjunction with excess wind and solar generation. To actually maximise solar and wind power generation availability and supply at times when solar and wind output may have dropped off.
In other words, it actually enhances the viability of solar and wind power generation, by capturing generation capacity that would otherwise be wasted and lost. Just like andrewday explained.
Probably would have been better to build more dams for
What is the power source for the pump system.
Is that an intentional loaded question? I mean you could have so easily gone the Snowy 2.0 Project Web site and read their own description. Quote from the project information page................
"Water will be pumped to the upper dam when there is surplus renewable energy production and the demand for energy is low, and then released back to the lower dam to generate energy when electricity demand is high.
Why is anyone surprised that Snowy 2 is a dud, just look at who the sponsor was. Nothing Morrison touched has ever been a benefit to all Australians... What a waste of oxygen.
We have no other way to store energy. And we are in problem of global prortions.
OK so this is the case 'against', now let's hear the case 'for'. Hydro is fantastic and so much better than wind and solar.
If we want more people then we need more water storage and more electricity.
This project is absolutely fantastic. The amount of energy storage being built is a game changer for the nation. Having 350,000 MW/Hrs of storage is enough stored energy to power over well over 1 million houses for a week straight. Having 2,200 MW of ouput can will power well over 1 million homes. This project will turn wind and solar from intermittent sources into baseload 24/7 power without interruption. This turns wind and solar into a backbone of the electricity grid. This emissions free power will have almost as much output as 4 commercial nuclear reactors, without the nuclear waste issues.
It will help for sure. But there must've been better sites to build such a plant
@@forloop7713 It depends on what is meant by use of the term "better" I suppose. "Better" for who, what ,when and how.
When you already have an ideal scenario existing, with reservoirs at suitable elevations separation within a huge mountainous catchment region, which is competing against national park objectives and values.
No easy gig to sort that out to determine what is objectively "better" from all sides.
@@BrentonSmythesfieldsaye I think it's bad more in terms of the economical aspect. The tunnels are just very long and expensive
@@forloop7713 Granted that is the case. At the same time, lets not forget that all sorts of nation building infrastructure projects are very costly. The project is a revenue generating facility as well once it comes online. For the general public, we are not privvy to the full value proposition pros and cons at conception.
Doesn’t the NP allow Ski Field operators to operate in these fragile environments? Without these Ski Fields National Parks would lose how much in revenue every year?
Yeah , you're right. The bulldozers these people use for skying are easily as as destructive as what S2.0 is doing.
@@christophermay4540 the land had to be cleared in the first place and the roads and infrastructure had to be dug into the land. 🤦🏼♂️