Not magic, not free and not necessary

Some of the state’s energy plans don’t stack up, explains Keith Underwood

REPEATED references by Tasmanian Energy Minister Guy Barnett of generalities like “Battery of the nation” and “Pumped Hydro schemes” does not make them the right solutions. So, let’s get down to detail. Battery of the nation “The battery of the nation” has no commercial viability. If you want a battery put it on the mainland where the problem is. Without huge wind-farm investment and an upgrading of our network, Tasmania doesn’t have the capacity to charge it anyway. The reality is, it does not matter where it comes from, the $5 billion investment required will, ultimately, be paid for by consumers and taxpayers. I would have thought the Liberal Party would be interested in the commercial rates of return and consumer costs. What drives them to the solution Mr Barnett is advocating is a mystery to me. A second Basslink? Basslink as it exists now always averages a net import every year. We do not generate surplus energy now and will not any time soon. We currently import electricity generated from Victoria’s coalfired power stations to make up the shortfall of Tasmania’s consumption. You can perhaps get some private investors to invest in wind farms, but it will be the consumers who ultimately pay (we pay for cost plus profit which is fair).

To consider a second Basslink is ridiculous. It will cost between $1 billion and $2 billion and will do nothing until our average power production from renewable resources is many times what it is now. Pumped Hydro? It’s not magic, it’s not free and it’s not necessary: you pump the water up to a reservoir when you have excess renewable power and run it down into the hydro-electric generation system when energy is needed. If it costs you 100MWh to pump it up the hill you only get 80MWh out when it flows back down through the turbine generators at the bottom of the hill. The round-trip costs you 20 per cent loss of energy every time.

What must not be forgotten is that a minimum of 6-10 per cent of energy each way is lost in transmission across the Basslink and then further distribution networks. If you import it from the mainland when they have excess and then send it back later because they need it, you now have a total energy loss in the order of 20 per cent from pumped hydro plus 20 per cent from transmission.

Let’s hope you never have to send or receive power from or to Queensland.

A saving grace is that Tasmania has such a huge hydro infrastructure, even with increased renewable generation, it would hardly ever need “pumped hydro” — so, more dollar savings.

We have very few detailed facts.

I would like to see some detailed documents and information released about the studies referred to, including:

Guiding parameters and restrictions of the modelling;

Cost benefit analysis of the proposals including all the alternatives considered;

Who will be the investors and owners of infrastructure?

Who pays for the various infrastructure construction and maintenance costs; and

What will the consumer have to pay for this future?

What Mr Barnett is talking about is the future of energy policy for a long time to come, so it will seriously affect the bottom line of power costs to consumers. The National Energy Guarantee, or NEG, now being debated is only a very small part of this. Any potential consumer gains through the NEG could be wiped out in a heartbeat by Mr Barnett’s plan. We need details, not slogans.

Tasmania’s Keith Underwood is an electrical engineer and project manager who has been engaged in design, construction and operation for 45 years.