[Schroedingersat]

> The whole point of Australia's storage plans is to even out solar energy's daily output.

...which it can do by curtailing or releasing the dispatchable energy in tumut 2 if tumut 3 needs to adjust

also the 'trickle' is an entire watershed, not surface precipitation

In all practical senses, over the time scales for which seasonal storage is required, snowy 2 adds 240-350GWh of load shifting. Your sleight of hand doesn't work I already know where the ball is.

[Manuel_D]

A solar heavy grid mostly depends on cyclic storage, not seasonal storage. The non-cyclical storage potential is acceptable for the kind of storage that isn't needed.

Looping back to my battery analogy. The extra 7 Kwh of non-cyclical storage could come in hand if you needed to use it for an extended period of time if the power goes out. But it's not useful if you need to use it every day. Australia, California, and plenty of other energy markets need cyclical storage that is used every day/night cycle to smooth out the duck curve[1].

If you had clarified that most of Snowy 2's storage capacity is not suitable for cyclical storage from the outset, this whole tangent could have been averted. Cyclical storage is the kind of storage that it's in demand, so it's important not to present non-cyclical storage that has a very limited recharge rate as equivalent to a lithium battery.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve

[Schroedingersat]

Nice backpedal, blaming other for your not reading or knowing anything about what you are attacking. What part of 2GW, 240-350GWh says diurnal to you, can you not divide?

[Manuel_D]

The part where I'm responding to a commenter talking about a storage system that "turns non-disparchable [sic] power into dispatchable." Cyclical storage could effectively turn solar power into dispatchable power. If you have enough storage to store half the solar energy you generate and release it at night you've effectively turned solar energy into a dispatchable source. Seasonal storage does not do this. So it's pretty clear that this [1] comment is talking about cyclical power.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33636358

[Schroedingersat]

The word is diurnal storage, and it provides this for the same 2 GW it provides week long storage for.

It can diurnally cycle around 7% of australia's electricity production, it can provide several days power (about 5) at times when the dams are slightly lower (ie. The only time it is needed) and has the capability to provide a week of power (at the same 7%) if circumstances are not par for the course. It can regenerate any water it needs to expel in such a situation in a few weeks using Tumut 2's regular output. Only in conditions of severe drought does its capacity stay down at the 240GWh range.

Anyone with the ability to use arithmetic and basic logic can infer this from the diagram you linked.

Also there is plenty of precedent for something called a battery where using the full nameplate capacity has a high cost and is not easily reversible. It's called a lead acid battery and was one of the most common chemistries for the better part of a century

[Manuel_D]

> It can regenerate any water it needs to expel in such a situation in a few weeks using Tumut 2's regular output.

But it regenerates this very slowly. It'd take over a month to recharge. Again, you can't compare a pumped storage reservoir with a precipitation-based reservoir (aka a dam). With the former you put energy in and energy is stored. With the latter you just have to wait for the rains to fall. This is not useful for cyclical, or as you insist we word it, diurnal storage. Anyone with a solid grasp of logic can see that, too.

> Also there is plenty of precedent for something called a battery where using the full nameplate capacity has a high cost and is not easily reversible. It's called a lead acid battery and was one of the most common chemistries for the better part of a century

Lead acid batteries only last ~300 cycles so you'd have to replace them every year if used for cyclical storage. This is why lithium based battery chemistries are used.

[Schroedingersat]

> But it regenerates this very slowly. It'd take over a month to recharge. Again, you can't compare a pumped storage reservoir with a precipitation-based reservoir (aka a dam). With the former you put energy in and energy is stored. With the latter you just have to wait for the rains to fall. This is not useful for cyclical, or as you insist we word it, diurnal storage. Anyone with a solid grasp of logic can see that, too.

The refill comes from tumut 2. And again, it's a 2GW storage that provides diurnal, five day, and seasonal. Do try to comprehend basic concepts like 'water that goes through a dam goes to the lower reservoir'.

> Lead acid batteries only last ~300 cycles so you'd have to replace them every year if used for cyclical storage. This is why lithium based battery chemistries are used.

This doesn't matter. It's called a battery and you can't typically use nameplate capacity. It's exactly the thing you keep acting outraged about. It's also probably the thing most associated with the word battery other than single use cells.