The future of energy generation and storage

[sptrawler]

Absolutely, the nonsense going on with the power generators is ridiculous, hopefully the government does step in, then at least it will put a regulated generator in the mix to keep prices down IMO.

 

[Smurf1976]

I'll simply say that the situation has been coming for a very long time. The warning have been loudly sounded by many over the past 27 or so year now.

The good thing is the problem is recognised and the task has commenced.

The bad thing is that as with most problems, there's no quick way out of this.

I liken it to the overweight and terribly unfit person. The good news is they've realised they've got a problem. The bad news is that it's going to take years to get their risk of an early death down to where it should be and in the meantime bad things may well happen.

2023 is a significant date for reasons best explained by saying that:

Torrens Island A (SA, gas, 480 MW) closes 2 units in 2020, one in 2021, final one in 2022. Each is 120 MW.

Mackay (Qld, oil-fired gas turbine, 34 MW) closes in 2021.

Liddell (NSW, coal, 1680 MW) closes 1 unit in 2022 and the other 2 in 2023. Each is 420 MW (derated from original capacity of 500 MW each).

Also an assortment of minor sources, landfill gas etc, closing in the near future in various states.

The problem with building gas turbines as a solution though is best explained by pointing out that there's a number of gas fields which are currently projected to run dry sometime during, you guessed it, 2023.

It's not that the privately owned companies are incapable with this stuff (well, one possible exception there......) but that the policy environment surrounding it is a major hindrance at best and those at the top politically simply haven't grasped that there's even a problem despite the repeated warnings of everyone from big business to unions.

To that end I'll give the present government some credit for grasping that there's actually an issue. There's a quarter century of neglect to address though and that won't be sorted quickly.

 

[sptrawler]

To that end I'll give the present government some credit for grasping that there's actually an issue. There's a quarter century of neglect to address though and that won't be sorted quickly.

Well they have certainly but a rocket up the generators, it makes a lot of sense for the government to own a major station, it gives the flexibility to underpin the grid while the private generators get their crap together. There will be a period where the renewables/storage can't supply the system and the fossil fuel generators are inadequate or unreliable, someone has to build something for this period IMO.
It is all great to keep saying shut everything down, but it isn't the same people who wear the fallout when the system collapses, the media needs to get on board rather than winding up the ranters and chanters.
This appears to be a good article, explaining the current problem, which smurf has been highlighting for years, generating plant is getting old and unreliable.

'Time to get on with it': Taylor stares down gas industry complaints

A new gas-fired power station will go ahead under federal government plans to stare down industry complaints, with Snowy Hydro declaring it is ready to build it.

www.smh.com.au

From the article:
A new gas-fired power station will go ahead under federal government plans to stare down industry complaints about a sweeping intervention, with Snowy Hydro declaring it will take on the energy "oligopoly" to build the project.

"The companies have had years to commit and they can still commit until April next year," Mr Taylor said. "They've had a lot of time – now it's time to get on with it."

The commonwealth's wholly-owned energy provider, Snowy Hydro, also declared it was ready to scale up a gas-fired power project in NSW to break the "oligopoly" formed by AGL, EnergyAustralia and Origin Energy.

"Having us in the marketplace as a stalking horse to keep competitive pressure on the market is a good thing," said Snowy Hydro chief executive Paul Broad.

At issue is the government demand for a new gas-fired power station to replace AGL's Liddell coal-fired power plant when it closes in 2023 and withdraws 1000MW from the east-coast electricity grid.


Australian Energy Council chief executive Sarah McNamara delivered a swift rebuff to the government's scheme on Tuesday on behalf of energy generators and retailers, saying there was no reliability threat to justify the new intervention.
"For more than a decade we have been warning of the dampening effect state and federal government interventions have on investor confidence," Ms McNamara said.

"There are no material reliability concerns that would warrant this kind of interventionist approach, and there are already mechanisms in place to address any shortfall identified."

Ms McNamara cited the Australian Energy Market Operator's estimate that NSW faced a potential shortfall of only 154MW, but Mr Taylor said the industry argument failed to consider the impact on prices.
"AEMO only assesses reliability on very strict technical grounds – they make no assessment of price impacts," Mr Taylor told The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
"Our assessment is that there is a problem with reliability but the bigger problem is with price – because prices will go up if you take 1000MW out of the market and you don't replace it.
"More supply means lower prices – that's Economics 101. Less supply means higher prices."

Behind the government argument is the suspicion that energy companies want Liddell to shut without a significant replacement so prices and profits will rise, as they did in Victoria after the closure of the Hazelwood power station in 2017.

Labor leader Anthony Albanese accused the government of failing to secure gas supplies in the past but he and his colleagues did not reject the idea of a new gas-fired power station despite the concerns of the environmental movement.

AEMO welcomed the government plan and said the country would need 6 to 19GW of new "dispatchable" power over the next two decades.

 

[SirRumpole]

To that end I'll give the present government some credit for grasping that there's actually an issue. There's a quarter century of neglect to address though and that won't be sorted quickly.

Yes, but they don't acknowledge that it was the failed Howard/Costello asset recycling scheme that forced the sale of the public generators and created the problem in the first place.

 

[sptrawler]

Yes, but they don't acknowledge that it was the failed Howard/Costello asset recycling scheme that forced the sale of the public generators and created the problem in the first place.

Yes another brain fart by another government, unfortunately brain farts aren't party specific either, but that was definitely a bad one.
By the way W.A didn't go down that track and incurred penalties for it, but it has proven to have been a very wise move and both sides of W.A politics agreed with it.
I guess the other States, could have adopted the same policies, but then the pork barreling would have been problematic.
Australia's recent history, is littered with them and it will take generations and a lot of money to overcome them.
Some that come to mind are the Lima agreement, then the introduction of tarrif reductions to expose our manufacturing to cheap overseas competition, which supported the Lima agreement.

 

[SirRumpole]

Billionaires may have another solution for Liddell replacement.

It's a bit airy fairy at the moment, but a damn big battery or lots of smaller ones would be needed to replace Liddell.

Australian billionaire called Elon Musk after hearing the Prime Minister's energy challenge

When tech entrepreneur Mike Cannon-Brookes heard Scott Morrison challenge the private sector to come up with an alternative to a new gas-fired power station yesterday, he called up Elon Musk.

www.abc.net.au

 

[basilio]

Billionaires may have another solution for Liddell replacement.

It's a bit airy fairy at the moment, but a damn big battery or lots of smaller ones would be needed to replace Liddell.

Australian billionaire called Elon Musk after hearing the Prime Minister's energy challenge

When tech entrepreneur Mike Cannon-Brookes heard Scott Morrison challenge the private sector to come up with an alternative to a new gas-fired power station yesterday, he called up Elon Musk.

www.abc.net.au

Basically he is saying "What are the financial/supply parameters required for this dispatchable power supply" Put them on the table and he (and/or others) can go about addressing the issue with an appropriate renewable option. And of course if the Government is including some underwriting or grant to the project then that needs to be part of the equation.

Wouldn't be fair otherwise, would it ?

 

[basilio]

This project looks exceptionally clever and practical. Combines pumped hydro and solar power in a very neat, simple package.

Something’s Up With Solar Panels, Hydropower, & Energy Storage, Too

September 14th, 2020 by Tina Casey


Energy developers have begun to pepper hydropower dams with solar panels, and some interesting twists are already beginning to bubble up in that area. In Germany, the company Vattenfall is adding pumped hydro energy storage to the mix. And, if a team of US researchers has their way, rafts of floating solar panels will enable Brazil to avoid building new hydropower dams.

Something's Up With Floating Solar Panels And Hydropower

Floating solar panels can piggyback on other infrastructure to provide for clean kilowatts with low impact, and perhaps some benefits, too.

cleantechnica.com

 

[moXJO]

This project looks exceptionally clever and practical. Combines pumped hydro and solar power in a very neat, simple package.

Something’s Up With Solar Panels, Hydropower, & Energy Storage, Too

September 14th, 2020 by Tina Casey


Energy developers have begun to pepper hydropower dams with solar panels, and some interesting twists are already beginning to bubble up in that area. In Germany, the company Vattenfall is adding pumped hydro energy storage to the mix. And, if a team of US researchers has their way, rafts of floating solar panels will enable Brazil to avoid building new hydropower dams.

Something's Up With Floating Solar Panels And Hydropower

Floating solar panels can piggyback on other infrastructure to provide for clean kilowatts with low impact, and perhaps some benefits, too.

cleantechnica.com

View attachment 109270

Seems like a good idea.

I'm not sold entirely on renewables being reliable enough at this stage (California was having issues). Battery longevity and price still has a way to go.
But The framework definitely should start to be laid out with future advances in mind.

I'm not sure if its just an Australian thing, but tech advances in this area seem to be lacking the last 5 years. I suppose its all in development and we will see an explosion in tech in the near future.

Its the same in the home renewables market. I'm not seeing a lot come through. There were some big promises 15 years ago that all came to nothing.

 

[sptrawler]

It looks as though low emission technology is going to get a shot in the arm, as you say @moXJO, the next few years should see some amazing advancements.

'Unlocking new tech': $1.9 billion for low-emission energy projects

An extra $1.9 billion will be pumped into driving new technology to lower emissions in Australia's manufacturing, transport and agriculture sectors.

www.smh.com.au

A $1.9 billion investment in next-generation energy technologies will target Australia's emissions-intensive manufacturing, transport and agriculture sectors to meet the federal government's aim to reach net-zero emissions in the second half of the century.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison will on Thursday commit an extra $1.62 billion for the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, as well as promise to expand the focus of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to invest in new and emerging energy sources, including carbon-neutral and negative emissions technologies.

The reforms will enable both agencies to support the creation of a hydrogen industry, as well as invest in technologies like soil carbon sequestration, production of low carbon steel and aluminium, as well as reducing emissions from industry.
The new package will include more than $300 million towards pilot carbon capture projects, grants for businesses for hydrogen, electric and bio-fuelled vehicles, new microgrids in regional and remote communities and a sector-specific grant program for hotels to increase energy productivity.

 

[basilio]

Angus taylors proposal to build the governments "own" gas fired power station to protect energy supply has so many whiskers on it, it should be the circus.
Simon Holmes a Court dissects the many shades of stupidity of this idea.

The federal government’s increasingly desperate and ideological energy market interventions are costing us all

Angus Taylor's gas plan is an astoundingly bad idea, on so many levels | Simon Holmes à Court

The federal government’s increasingly desperate and ideological energy market interventions are costing us all

www.theguardian.com

 

[Smurf1976]

Yes, but they don't acknowledge that it was the failed Howard/Costello asset recycling scheme that forced the sale of the public generators and created the problem in the first place.

I'll go a step further and say that we went 35 years without a PM who really grasped it and in most states at least a quarter century without a Premier that grasped it really.

They all saw energy as akin to iron ore or someone running a shop, a resource to be exported and a business to be run, and simply failed to grasp that it's the ultimate enabler. If you don't have energy well then pretty much everything else grinds to a halt and that reality puts the power grid, gas supply and liquid fuel supplies right up there with banking and defence in terms of things of national importance.

In contrast, well if the Sydney Harbour Bridge falls down or the PM has a heart attack well that's unfortunate definitely but it's a comparatively minor problem compared to having no energy supply. Can't build bridges or run hospitals without energy and for that matter fire fighting and food supply doesn't go too well without it either so it's critical yes.

 

[Smurf1976]

I'm not sold entirely on renewables being reliable enough at this stage (California was having issues).

I'll quote myself here from another (offline) place:

The big problem with renewable energy is that as soon as you mention it, the first thing most think of is how cheaply they can get away with it. Building it down to a price, not up to a standard, is the very first thing that enters the minds of most.

In contrast, those very same people don't drink the cheapest wine they can find, they don't live in the cheapest suburb in town, they don't seek out the cheapest medical treatment regardless of quality and so on.

There's the problem. Do it properly and it can and does work but most of the time someone's looking to do the minimum they can get away with and then wonders why it fails. Everyone from shack owners to governments try and get away with that one. Even the environmental movement isn't unknown for shooting itself in the foot by encouraging that approach then lamenting the fossil fuel plant that gets built in due course.

Do it properly though, actually design it to work and build it accordingly, and it can be done.

 

[Smurf1976]

Basically he is saying "What are the financial/supply parameters required for this dispatchable power supply" Put them on the table and he (and/or others) can go about addressing the issue with an appropriate renewable option. And of course if the Government is including some underwriting or grant to the project then that needs to be part of the equation.

Wouldn't be fair otherwise, would it ?

There's two problems which government doesn't want to admit.

1. Timing.

Snowy 2.0 is happening, there's zero question about that. Equipment's been ordered, construction machinery is physically turning up, it's happening and don't anyone doubt that for a moment.

It was however left too late and there's no chance it'll be running by the time it's needed in late 2023, indeed it'll need to all go really well to get it done before 2025.

That creates a gap between the closure of existing generation and it coming online.

Needless to say the fossil fuel lobbyists, both those who are acknowledged as such and those who disguise themselves with various "green" sounding names, will be more than happy to see a few gas buggies built and locked in for the next 50 years as a solution.

2. Markets.

Lack of supply puts the lights out that's a given and unavoidable as such. Inadequate generation to meet demand = no alternative other than to cut load, there's no way around that. All that's negotiable is what load is cut and how (forced or voluntary etc).

Unfortunately however we also have a market situation where a lack of supply puts the price up and by that I mean it goes up rather drastically. All of a sudden $60 per MWh turns into $15,000 per MWh and I mean that literally - we're talking a drastic increase not just a minor one and at that level in NSW alone electricity becomes a roughly $200 million per hour industry. That's a pretty good way to smash the economy to pieces and do so rather quickly. Anyone exposed to the spot market cops it there and then but even households are ultimately paying.

Looking at solutions though, well there's basically four options. Listed in order of simplicity:

1. Extend the life of Liddell power station until Snowy 2.0 is up and running.

2. Build the new gas-fired station the government is talking about or an alternative.

3. Accept blackouts and price spikes.

4. A more complicated approach involving:

4.1 - Accelerate construction of the SA - NSW line to get it done by the end of 2023. It's going to be built anyway so just drop the charade about consulting people and so on and build it. We're in a serious challenge economically with the pandemic, we have a problem with energy supply and we have a problem with emissions and this helps with all three. Cut the polite niceties and put the towers up.

4.2 - Retain in service the Torrens Island A and Osborne stations in SA until completion of Snowy 2.0. Politically easy since they're non-controversial, most don't realise the latter even exists, and they're not in the way of building something else as is the case with Liddell.

4.3 - Recommission the Redbank power station in NSW. It's a small coal plant sitting idle but ultimately it would make the numbers add up and is the only option for doing so which doesn't involve building something new or retaining Liddell.

Personally I'd go with the latter more complicated approach for some fairly simple reasons. The core expenditure is going to happen anyway and it has lasting value. Getting it done early means we can stop wasting wind and solar in SA sooner so it brings an emissions reduction as soon as it's up and running and it's also a project that puts people to work straight away which is relevant given the broader economic situation.

Extending the two gas-fired plants, total 660 MW, in SA should be a non-issue. They'll only need to run on rare occasions when demand is simultaneously high in NSW and SA and there's not much wind and then only until Snowy 2.0 is built. A non-issue there really, in all seriousness pretty much nobody's going to find a problem with that in terms of environment etc.

Redbank would probably be more controversial since it's coal but rationally it shouldn't be. It's 150 MW, versus 1680 MW at Liddell, so it's not exactly a major operation by any means. As part of a plan which avoids building 1000 MW of new gas-fired plant and which boosts the output of existing renewables then it's a winner overall on "green" terms as part of a broader plan. It's also a cheap option given it's already sitting there doing nothing. If anyone objects well that's being ideological, they oppose coal in principle and I get that, but from a purely practical perspective and looking at the actual emissions levels involved well then it shouldn't rationally be a reason for concern given the small scale of it and the overall context and alternatives.

That plan delivers exactly 1000 MW by the way. 850 MW from SA and 150 MW from Redbank. Along with the other already proposed actions (see below) it would make the numbers add up until Snowy 2.0 is completed.

Other actions already proposed:

QNI upgrade = additional 190 MW transmission from Qld to NSW.

Bayswater upgrade = additional 100 MW from the existing Bayswater power station (coal).

Liddell batteries = 200 MW battery storage at the Liddell power station site.

Newcastle power station = 252 MW gas-fired peaking plant to be built.

Put Redbank back into use and get the line to SA built quickly and along with the above it's a direct alternative to the new 1000 MW gas-fired plant and with the major investment items all having ongoing long term value.

Note that I'm not really trying to persuade anyone here, just putting forward a technically viable alternative which would do the job in full. It's another way of achieving the end result.

 

[Smurf1976]

Getting it done early means we can stop wasting wind and solar in SA sooner so it brings an emissions reduction as soon as it's up and running and it's also a project that puts people to work straight away which is relevant given the broader economic situation.

To give an example of what I'm on about, there's 195 MW of wind generation shut off in SA right now. Nowhere for it to go and that situation's not unusual, quite a bit does go to waste (meanwhile plenty of coal is burned elsewhere).

Hence my enthusiasm for the SA - NSW transmission line and seeing that, as the key part of an alternative to building new gas-fired generation in NSW, getting it done with all haste is something I could live with even if that means by-passing normal due process to make it happen in time.

 

[Smurf1976]

Taking a hundred steps back and thinking about all this, the big problem is that it has been drastically over complicated in terms of the average person's understanding and the associated politics.

As a few dot points:

*AC power, which is what's in the grid and what your appliances run on, cannot itself be stored. We can store other forms of energy with which to operate a machine that produces AC power but AC power itself is not storable. Just like sound or light isn't storable - we can store a means of producing it but you can't store actual sound or light itself.

*Because it can't be stored, it must be produced in real time to exactly match consumption. Fail to get that balance right and bad things happen - potentially really bad and worst case is a system collapse from which a complete restart is required (which as an order of magnitude would take more than a day). That prospect, a system collapse, scares the proverbial out of engineers, operators and everyone else involved. So keeping supply and demand in balance is really, really important.

*If supply and demand can't be balanced then turning some load off, that is blackouts, is the last resort workaround. Cut part of the system off to save the rest is what it amounts to.

*Consumption varies constantly but is predictable with the daily peak usually just after 6pm and with temperature being a strong influence. Peaks at other times of the day are usually directly caused by abnormal weather - eg a heatwave with a cool change at 2pm and things like that will produce a peak at a time other than 6pm. Exception is Tasmania where the absolute peak is about 8 - 8:30am, the difference being due to climate compared to the other states and heating loads.

*Every generator, transmission line, transformer and so on will have a limited capacity that it's designed to operate up to. There's a lot of serious engineering in calculating what that limit is, but once calculated it's expressed in numbers anyone can understand. Eg 600 MW - don't worry about the MW and detail, just focus on it being able to produce 600 of them.

*Lots of moving parts in a power station means there's a lot to go wrong. Periodic shutdowns for maintenance are needed and it's a reality that breakdowns will occur. Therefore it's necessary to have more generators than are actually needed, since we can't count on them all working at once. There are proper ways to calculate it but as a rough ballpark figure, add 20% on top of peak demand and that'll be pretty close to right in terms of what's required.

Armed with that knowledge and a list of power stations and their capacity, it's just basic maths beyond that. Add up the capacity of all the power stations in the region, plus anything that's available via transmission from another region, and compare that to peak demand. If you've got a 20% safety margin then as a generic rule of thumb you should be right. An engineer will do it more precisely but as a rule of thumb for public discussion that's pretty close, it gives an answer that's in the ballpark of what's required.

Beyond that it's all about other things really:

Economics noting that facilities which are cheap to operate tend to be expensive to build and vice versa, meaning that for reasons of minimising cost most grids include multiple generation technologies. High capital cost / low running cost plant for constant running, low capital cost / high running cost plant for peaks and as backup is the usual arrangement.

Environmental impact of different methods of generation noting that CO2 emissions are a major issue but certainly not the only one.

Other considerations. For example a preference to use local resources for reasons of supply security or creating local employment or having an agricultural use for the water diverted by a hydro scheme may lead to a particular option being preferred even if it otherwise isn't the cheapest etc. That's not a problem so long as it does meet the electrical requirements.

Plus additional to the above, a realisation that electricity isn't the only form of energy. Most oil is used as petrol and diesel etc not for power, in most states that's also the case with gas most isn't used for power, and even with coal there's a bit used for other purposes.

That's it really. There's no rocket science, just that the whole thing has been massively over-complicated in terms of how it has been approached politically and explained to the public. Explained simply, pretty much anyone can grasp the numbers involved. Demand peaks at x, the sum total of the capacity of the power stations (which includes batteries discharging etc) is y. At that basic level there's no rocket science involved.

 

[basilio]

Tesla battery day is fast approaching and there is intense speculation on the advances that are anticipated in battery power, capacity and cost. This preview adds some background to the size of the electrification market.

Will Tesla Signal The Death Of The Internal Combustion Engine At Battery Day?

Will Tesla Signal The Death Of The Internal Combustion Engine At Battery Day? - ShareCafe

Corporate Connect research analyst Di Brookman takes us on the EV Journey, explains why all eyes and ears are poised for Tesla Battery Day, and how truly exciting times might be ahead for the sector.

www.sharecafe.com.au

 

[SirRumpole]

To give an example of what I'm on about, there's 195 MW of wind generation shut off in SA right now. Nowhere for it to go and that situation's not unusual, quite a bit does go to waste (meanwhile plenty of coal is burned elsewhere).

Hence my enthusiasm for the SA - NSW transmission line and seeing that, as the key part of an alternative to building new gas-fired generation in NSW, getting it done with all haste is something I could live with even if that means by-passing normal due process to make it happen in time.

So if I can ask a direction question, from a purely technical perspective disregarding politics, should the proposed gas generator be built , or are there better options ?

 

[sptrawler]

There's two problems which government doesn't want to admit.

1. Timing.

Snowy 2.0 is happening, there's zero question about that. Equipment's been ordered, construction machinery is physically turning up, it's happening and don't anyone doubt that for a moment.

It was however left too late and there's no chance it'll be running by the time it's needed in late 2023, indeed it'll need to all go really well to get it done before 2025.

That creates a gap between the closure of existing generation and it coming online.

That's an interesting observation smurf, there is a strong green lobby group against the building of Snowy 2.0 and from memory even you said it wont be required until the early to mid 2030's.
But you said it is better to get on with it, than risk having a change of political enthusiasm and it not get started at all.
What has caused the change, that now it has been left too late?

 

[Smurf1976]

there is a strong green lobby group against the building of Snowy 2.0 and from memory even you said it wont be required until the early to mid 2030's.
But you said it is better to get on with it, than risk having a change of political enthusiasm and it not get started at all.
What has caused the change, that now it has been left too late?

There’s a distinction between Snowy 2.0 as a specific project versus simply building anything at all.

Prior to at least 2029 batteries and small pumped storage schemes, those with a few hours worth of storage, are a viable alternative.

With a lot of fossil fuel plant still operating, the only issues are meeting the actual peak and raising the minimum load around midday. But if the sun doesn’t shine that day then we could certainly charge the batteries with power from coal at off peak times, hence no real need for the large storage capability of Snowy 2.0, a much shorter duration storage system would do the job.

That however requires that such a system is actually built since whilst the long duration storage isn’t needed soon, the peak capacity it provides certainly is.

Or in other words we need the 2000 MW from Snowy 2.0 but we don’t yet need the ability to be able to constantly discharge it for days on end. Batteries with a few hours worth of storage would do the job.

2029 to 2036 however sees a huge amount of fossil fuel plant closing and at that point either we need some very serious storage, since the certainty of recharging at off-peak times will no longer be there and we’re literally dependent on the weather, or alternatively new fossil fuel (or nuclear) plant is required. At that point Snowy 2.0 is highly valuable and batteries aren’t an alternative to it.

So we could have developed short duration pumped hydro or batteries now and completed Snowy 2.0 circa 2020 as the next step. Both are needed but the argument is a purely economic one about the order of building them.

It’s all a bit like saying that a couple who ultimately has 5 kids could hold off buying the people mover and 6 bedroom house until they’ve actually had enough children such that it’s needed. Buying it now isn’t a problem though, it does the job, but an accountant would argue that it would be better financially to have kept the Mazda 3 in the meantime given it’s adequate and cheap.

There’s a need to replace Liddell in 2023, Vales Point 2029, Yallourn progressively 2029 - 32 and so on. Ultimately we need large storage hydro as part of that as well as batteries and small hydro but we could have started with the relatively cheap and easy batteries first then done Snowy 2.0 second.

Politics however made that a very high risk approach so doing Snowy 2.0 upfront is rational in that sense. Downside is it’s not going to be ready in time.

In short - ultimately Snowy 2.0 or a direct equivalent is crucial but it didn’t have to be the first thing built, we could have started with the short duration storage first. Both are needed, it’s about the order of building them and politics has made the most rational approach far too risky.