The future of energy generation and storage

Smurf1976 said:

I don't advocate that the Feds get involved, I'm only pointing out that they do have the power in practice.

Click to expand...

Well I'm saying they should get involved.

Look after the whole country not just one State.

That's their job that we elected them to do.

Smurf1976 said:

I'll caution that we do need to sort out gas supply for use "as gas" though.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure I can go back and find figures from circa 2018 on the projected capacity of the Port Kembla Gas Terminal to supply 70% of NSW gas requirements.
$300 odd million investment in an already highly industrilized precinct. Push come to shove how long would it take to get gas to flow.
Serious planning for that project was obviously well advanced before messers Kunkle & Pearson (emphsis on the 'mess') were banging their tambourine for the Minerals Council in the Gas/Covid $SS$lush fest. Of which it's important to add no public scrutany is allowed. For those looking for a crock of crimanallity look no futher. Of course some saddly never will.
Currently MOU's for PKGT off take's are also well advanced.

It's hard not to imagine a near term future where Angus Taylor has gas being pumped out on one side of the wharf in Gladston and pumped in on the other. A perfectly in sync with his circular logic.
Australia is now the Largest Gas exporter on the planet. And the Federal Government recieves in royalties how much???


My only wish is that the Gas imported to PKGT was coming from East Timor, so I could pay a premium to make a small dent in the bad faith Australian governments have shown to that new neighbouring Nation.

SirRumpole said:

Well I'm saying they should get involved.

Look after the whole country not just one State.

That's their job that we elected them to do.

Click to expand...

The States are going to have to get involved in their predicament, every state has committed to zero emissions by 2050, they have to stand up to the plate and decide how they are going to do it, it isn't a flucking game which it seems they all think it is.
The Feds are funding Snowy 2.0, they are working with Tassie to install the second interconnect, it is about time the state Governments stopped trying to be film stars and started taking the issue seriously especially Uncle Dan IMO.
NSW, Qld, W.A and especially S.A are well on the way, Vic well they are different as usual, lot of posturing lot of waffle not much action.

sptrawler said:

The States are going to have to get involved in their predicament, every state has committed to zero emissions by 2050, they have to stand up to the plate and decide how they are going to do it, it isn't a flucking game which it seems they all think it is.
The Feds are funding Snowy 2.0, they are working with Tassie to install the second interconnect, it is about time the state Governments stopped trying to be film stars and started taking the issue seriously especially Uncle Dan IMO.
NSW, Qld, W.A and especially S.A are well on the way, Vic well they are different as usual, lot of posturing lot of waffle not much action.

Click to expand...

Uncle Dan is too busy holding a 3 year investigation on "Colonisation".

Major near-miss incident in SA on Friday.

A brief summary of the incident to enable anyone reading to counter the inevitable fake news on the subject which will no doubt emerge. Intentionally sticking to layman's terms here:

What happened?

Underlying cause is a fire broke out in the switchyard outside Torrens Island B power station late yesterday afternoon. Torrens Island, both the physical island and the power stations of that name, are located about 15km from the Adelaide CBD.

At the time of the incident Torrens Island B station units 2, 3 and 4 (capacity 200 MW each) were online but not operating at full capacity. Unit 1 was not in operation at the time.

Physically next to Torrens Island B station is Barker Inlet power station. This comprises 12 x 17.5 MW internal combustion engine driven generators. This was in operation at the time with 11 of the 12 generators available, the other being out of service for maintenance, and with the available units not being run to full capacity.

Also of relevance, one of the two AC transmission lines between SA and Victoria presently out of service for planned works with the other AC line plus the DC link remaining operational. That means power can still flow between the two states, but the capacity is reduced.

Immediately before the incident:

SA load (consumption) = 1879 MW. That's a bit above the long term average of 1500 MW but nowhere near the peak of 3400 MW. It's an unremarkable, routine level to reach and would ordinarily cause no concern.

Supply sources were:

Renewables:
Estimated output of all small solar systems (households etc) in SA = 349 MW
Large scale solar = 189 MW
All wind farms combined = 351 MW

Plant affected by the fire:
Torrens Island B power station = 355 MW
Barker Inlet power station = 89 MW

Others:
Pelican Point power station = 204 MW
Quarantine power station = 37 MW
Hallett power station = 32 MW
From Victoria = 275 MW

All plant not mentioned above, including large batteries, was not generating or charging at the time.

At 17:38 SA local time fire occurred at the Torrens Island B switchyard and caused an electrical trip of all generation at the (physically right next door) Barker Inlet power station.

Torrens Island B station remained in operation at this time, and ultimately remained in operation throughout the entire incident, but for obvious reasons there was major concern that it may be put out of action at any time.

A further issue, one that was entirely as expected by nonetheless not helpful in regard to timing, is that solar output rapidly declines at that time of day and on this particular day wind farm output was also falling. Wind output reaching a low of just under 15 MW at 9pm. Solar output was, of course, zero by this time.

Response was to put into operation everything that was available. That is, maximise the output of other power stations already in operation and bring online an assortment of gas turbines, some of which are modern plus a few "old clunkers", plus diesel engines and also the "big battery" was heavily utilised.

That response did not result in Torrens Island B station being completely shut down, indeed that was not the aim unless that became unavoidable, but by 9:40pm supply available from other sources had increased to the point that the system was officially back in a secure state. Any forced shutdown (or outright failure) of Torrens Island B after that would not have put the lights out. Achieving that situation was the goal and reason for bringing other available plant into use.

Shortly after midnight the fire was out and it had been determined that there was no reason, in terms of danger or damage, to not return the three units online at Torrens Island B to normal unrestricted operation. Barker Inlet has not operated since the incident however.

Now before anyone throws any renewables versus coal sort of stones, the basics there are that the fault occurred in the electrical switchyard immediately outside the power station not in the power station itself. The fault and fire does not relate to the method of generating power but is an electrical failure which could occur at any site involving a 275kV (275,000 Volts) switchyard. The method of generating the power is completely irrelevant to that point.

Now bring on the politicians with their fake news.....

Interesting article.

I'll leave comment on it to the experts in this area.

SirRumpole said:

Interesting article.

I'll leave comment on it to the experts in this area.

Click to expand...

Yes i read that article earlier in the day and it seemed to say exactly what we have been saying, coal plant doesn't like being cycled, gas at this stage is the obvious go to at call generation and renewables are the cheapest to run, but can't supply the load 24/7 for 365 days a year.
I did think he pulled a bit of a long bow saying S.A having the lowest power prices and inferring it was because of the high percentage of renewables they have, I think they would have different power prices if they weren't connected to the East coast grid and can import when required.
But hey, that isn't the message they are pushing is it?

SirRumpole said:

Interesting article.

I'll leave comment on it to the experts in this area.

Click to expand...

Like much comment on this subject, it's mostly true but is guilty of omitting some key points, the omission of which puts a definite slant on the conclusions a reader is likely to draw.

Northern Power Station in SA was a 546 MW (2 x 273 MW) coal-fired plant using coal from the Leigh Creek mine about 250km from the power station. Last operation of Northern PS was in May 2016 and the plant has since been completely demolished (it's the one which was literally blown up with explosives).

Hazelwood power station in Victoria was a nominally 1600 MW (8 x 200 MW) coal-fired plant using coal from the Morwell mine next to the power station. Last operation of Hazelwood was at the end of March 2017 and the plant is now partially demolished.

Also relevant is that Anglesea power staiton in Victoria, a 160 MW coal-fired plant with its own mine, shut down at the end of August 2015 whilst the Morwell power station (190 MW, coal) in Victoria closed in September 2014 and Playford B in SA (240 MW, right next to Northern) in practice ceased operating in 2012.

So the removal of supply commenced prior to Hazelwood closing although obviously that was the big one.

In all cases the coal used is not of export quality and had no other use. So the cost of coal was the cost of mining and transporting it to the power station, it had no commodity value as such and accordingly the mines are now shut as with the power stations.

Looking at average prices on a financial year basis:

Victoria:
2014-15 = $40.85
2015-16 = $60.70
2016-17 = $86.71
2017-18 = $103.83
2018-19 = $129.05
2019-20 = $87.19
2020-21 to date = $45.27

SA:
2014-15 = $41.04
2015-16 = $64.63
2016-17 = $114.74
2017-18 = $120.54
2018-19 = $142.33
2019-20 = $78.43
2020-21 to date = $36.17

So yes it's correct that prices spiked, approximately tripled, following the closures and have since come back down to levels roughly the same as prior to the closures.

What's missing from that statement of course is that prices would need to fall to extremely low levels, and remain there for quite some time, in order to effectively repay that high price period back to consumers. That is, whilst prices have come back down, consumers remain out of pocket for that period.

The other piece of information missing is the impact of gas and oil prices. Whilst not a major power source, oil is relevant since the existence of oil-fired plant that can rapidly start does put a cap on what the owners of anything else can charge without immediately losing market share.

Gas however is a far more serious competitor there - even without actually running, even just sitting there it's still an effective cap on what anyone else can charge without prompting gas-fired plant to run and cause whoever bid the higher price to lose market share or, worse still, be shut down altogether.

Now gas prices are roughly half what they were at the peak and that's a pretty major influence, at the height of the pandemic they were a third of the peak price. Likewise as is well known the oil price collapsed for a period and there were certain products the oil companies had an excess supply of, jet fuel most notably and that's most definitely a suitable fuel for gas turbines (which are in layman's terms jet engines sitting on the ground turning a generator).

So in short there, lower fuel costs for fast starting gas and liquid fueled plant have amounted to a gun pointed at the head of everyone else. If wind, solar, coal, hydro want to physically be dispatched then they need to come under that gas cost and every operator would be fully aware of what's happened with gas prices.

Then there's the demand side. The pandemic is one factor there, it has altered the demand profile, but more significant is the heat or rather the lack of it.

Adelaide recorded just two days this summer season with a temperature above 39 degrees and they were two months apart. In other words, there was no multi-day heatwave involving temperatures in the 40's and it's those which produce the major price spikes (not unusual to see prices topping $10,000 / MWh) and which are also associated with huge volume (demand in SA roughly doubles during a major heatwave). The lack of such weather is highly significant.

Victoria's been much the same. The odd random hot day but there just hasn't been an occurrence of the sustained multi-day heatwaves which drive demand and price. It simply hasn't happened, at all, this season. Not once. End result in both states is that at no point have we seen properly high demand and the associated prices and that goes a long way to explaining the low average price this financial year to date and the panic in the industry.

Note there that it's not mean temperatures which matter, it's the extremes. There's stuff all relevance to it being 32 degrees for example, even if it was that every day it wouldn't be hugely relevant. It's the seriously hot days where it's 38, 40, 42, 44 on consecutive days with comparably high overnight temperatures which does it and that simply hasn't occurred.

So the answer with all this is "it's complex". More wind and solar certainly does exert downward pressure on price, that's simple supply and demand economics at work, but cheaper fuel costs for fast starting generation (especially gas) likewise have that same effect and then there's the very major impact of the mild summer weather in Victoria and SA this season.

The article's correct but missing a big part of the story. Bias by omission - failing to point out that the thing claiming credit is really only one of several factors. It's akin to someone saying they lost weight by stopping drinking alcohol and failing to mention that they also stopped eating a bag of chips for breakfast and started going for a two hour walk every evening. What's said isn't untrue but it's not the full story.

Meanwhile on a related issue, the SA solar generation curtailment scheme was used for the first time over the weekend with a significant amount of small solar (households, businesses) forced offline in order to keep system load up.

I'll avoid the politics there and simply say that quite a few have been warning of this for years now. We've got large scale renewables going to waste during the middle of the day 3 out of the last 7 days and on one of them, Sunday, it came to the point of having to force small solar systems to reduce output. Prices at the time were in the order of $-500 per MWh for reference - that's negative prices and hugely so.

Solutions = load shifting especially of hot water and other non-time critical loads to the middle of the day along with building large scale storage and increasing interstate transmission.

For those into politics I'll simply point out that both majors, most other actual politicians and an assortment of lobby groups over the years have all done their bit to create the situation. Some might claim otherwise but their track record is the one I'm looking at.

An interesting concept:


I've nothing much to add, and know nothing about it beyond what's in the video, but if it works then it would have the benefit that it seems unlikely to harm anything (eg large birds).

Note in the comments that apparently Equinor have approved it. They're a credible company certainly so presumably they'd have gone through various checks and so on before giving it the nod.

Whether it stacks up economically in real world use is of course the big question.

Smurf1976 said:

An interesting concept:


I've nothing much to add, and know nothing about it beyond what's in the video, but if it works then it would have the benefit that it seems unlikely to harm anything (eg large birds).

Note in the comments that apparently Equinor have approved it. They're a credible company certainly so presumably they'd have gone through various checks and so on before giving it the nod.

Whether it stacks up economically in real world use is of course the big question.

Click to expand...

Been around 6 years now... Certainly looks intriguing. Despite many years of developments the company is still to reach commercialisation .
Frankly I have my suspicions. There have been many "you beaut" companies that in the the end prove non commercial or down right frauds.



From June 2015 Guardian

The real story here isn't the smelter, although as one of the relatively few things in Victoria that actually exports something of value it's rather important, but that AGL, Origin Energy and Alinta are all parties to the deal.

Go back even two years and that would never have happened, the feds would have sent the ACCC in at the mere suggestion of it, but now here we are.

As for the smelter itself, well ideally there'd be no need to subsidise it in the first place. Get the cost of supply down and that problem goes away but from a technical and economic perspective, well there's a huge value in having a great big load at a single point which can be (and is) tripped when required. It's subsidised as such but also lowers costs so there's a lot of double edged sword stuff there. Value adding is, of course, critical if we're ever going to move away from raw mineral exports including coal so there's another dimension to it.

But yes - AGL, Origin and Alinta all involved is the real news.

Expect considerably more of that sort of thing going forward.

Smurf1976 said:

Alcoa’s struggling Portland smelter secures lifeline with power deal, $160m in subsidies

The future of Victoria’s Portland aluminium smelter and the jobs of hundreds of its staff appear safer after Alcoa secured a power deal and further subsidies.

www.theage.com.au

The real story here isn't the smelter, although as one of the relatively few things in Victoria that actually exports something of value it's rather important, but that AGL, Origin Energy and Alinta are all parties to the deal.

Go back even two years and that would never have happened, the feds would have sent the ACCC in at the mere suggestion of it, but now here we are.

As for the smelter itself, well ideally there'd be no need to subsidise it in the first place. Get the cost of supply down and that problem goes away but from a technical and economic perspective, well there's a huge value in having a great big load at a single point which can be (and is) tripped when required. It's subsidised as such but also lowers costs so there's a lot of double edged sword stuff there. Value adding is, of course, critical if we're ever going to move away from raw mineral exports including coal so there's another dimension to it.

But yes - AGL, Origin and Alinta all involved is the real news.

Expect considerably more of that sort of thing going forward.

Click to expand...

Very similar scenario to the car industry, adapt, share common infrastructure and reduce the bottom line.
It really is an interesting time and the advent of renewables has forced a lot of stuck in the mud, blinkered industries, to rethink the end game.
Great times to be living in IMO, so much change over such a short period of time, amazing.
By 2030 I think everyone will be shocked by how different the power grid is.

sptrawler said:

Very similar scenario to the car industry, adapt, share common infrastructure and reduce the bottom line.
It really is an interesting time and the advent of renewables has forced a lot of stuck in the mud, blinkered industries, to rethink the end game.
Great times to be living in IMO, so much change over such a short period of time, amazing.
By 2030 I think everyone will be shocked by how different the power grid is.

Click to expand...

An example of what smelters can do, if they want to become 'green'.
From the article:
Emirates Global Aluminium (EGA) – who holds a long-standing supplier relationship with BMW – has entered in agreement with Dubai electricity and Water Authority (DEWA) to receive power for its aluminium smelter from the Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum solar park.
The current solar capacity of the park is 1013 megawatts – or more than 1 million kilowatts – of photovoltaic solar panel.

Saudi Arabia is getting serious about hydrogen production.
From the article:
Saudi Arabia, the world’s top crude oil exporter, has been active in embracing new energy revenue opportunities in recent years after it became painfully clear the world was changing and it would not be able to rely on oil for its sustained wealth forever. Now, the desert kingdom has set its sights on green hydrogen.
Saudi Arabia is an excellent candidate for green hydrogen: it has vast land resources that can accommodate the equally vast solar and wind power generation capacity that a large-scale hydrogen installation would need. It also has the water resources necessary for the process. It must have been a no-brainer then to plan a $5-billion green hydrogen facility at the site of its NEOM smart city project.

The project will use electricity produced by solar and wind farms with a total capacity of 4 GW, according to a Bloomberg report. Initially, it will produce some 650 tons of hydrogen daily. This will be turned into ammonia at the rate of 1.2 million tons annually. This ammonia will be bought by one of the three partners in the project—dubbed Helios. This company, Air Products and Chemicals, will then ship the ammonia overseas, convert it back into hydrogen, and sell it to end-users.
Cost is a significant issue with green hydrogen. Currently, electrolysis is a much less efficient process than producing hydrogen from fossil fuels—and less efficient means higher costs. Rystad Energy recently estimated that green hydrogen produced from an offshore wind farm in the North Sea would cost about $6.18 per kilogram (5.1 euro).

Even more scathing, a study by the International Council on Clean Transportation calculated the price of green hydrogen at $8.81 per kilo for a grid-connected electrolyzer.
For perspective, blue hydrogen—the kind produced from natural gas that includes carbon capture and storage—costs $2.36 per kilo. Given the fact that carbon capture is a complex, costly technology, it is impressive how much cheaper CCS-included blue hydrogen is.

Yet analysts expect the costs associated with the production of green hydrogen to drop substantially in the coming years and decades. According to BloombergNEF, the cost of green hydrogen produced in the Saudi desert could, in fact, fall to as little as $1.50 per kilo by 2030. If this happens, it would definitely place the Kingdom ahead of most—if not all—potential competitors in the hydrogen space. But first, it needs to build all that generation capacity that it has planned.
Europe will never be able to produce all the green hydrogen it will need locally, says the person in charge of the Helios project, former RWE chief executive Peter Terium.

“By no means will they be able to produce all the hydrogen themselves,” he told Bloomberg’s Ratcliffe. “There’s just not enough North Sea or usable water for offshore wind.”

There is no question Saudi Arabia has the resources to become a major hydrogen exporter. Yet price does remain an issue and could eventually become the trigger that exposes the discrepancy between facts and fiction when it comes to the energy transition.

And this 'blue' hydrogen agreement with South Korea.
https://www.maritime-executive.com/...bia-plan-hydrogen-production-and-co2-shipping

Well we are getting close to the point, where home solar batteries will have to be subsidised, to maintain solar growth and system stability .

The below article explains what smurf and others have been saying for years. Interesting read IMO.
From the article:
There are now more than 2.6 million households and small businesses with solar PV on their roofs, and the forecasts are that by 2030, some 6 million households – 50 per cent of us – will be using a distributed energy resource such as solar PV, batteries or electric cars to power our lives.

This is a fast, exciting and challenging pace of change when you consider that it took 20 years for Netflix to replace Blockbuster, and about 10 years for Spotify to dethrone iTunes as the music player of choice.

The trouble is that – unlike Netflix or Spotify – energy travels along real-life poles and wires, and not the virtual superhighway. And right now, it’s starting to look like peak hour.

The heart of the problem is that the power system was built in a different era. It was set up to get power to your home, not for your home to send power back the other way. Now that power is increasingly flowing both ways, we’re seeing new challenges emerge.
The heart of the problem is that the power system was built in a different era. It was set up to get power to your home, not for your home to send power back the other way. Now that power is increasingly flowing both ways, we’re seeing new challenges emerge.

If we don’t act to address them, households that want to export power to the network via their solar panels potentially face the “closed” sign in the future because the existing networks will simply be full.
The obvious solution is to build more poles and wires to accommodate everyone. But as anyone who lives in or visits an Australian city with toll roads knows, we will all pay for those new infrastructure networks either directly through tolls, or indirectly through our taxes. Big infrastructure costs money.

If our collective goal is to give everyone who wants solar the ability to earn a return and access the poles and wires, it’s clear the existing situation doesn’t work. First, all of our energy bills will rise if we limit the amount of cheaper renewable energy coming into the system – which would slow the decarbonisation of the sector too.
Second, spending up big on expanding the network will let more solar in, but there are issues of affordability, who pays, and what happens to those who can’t access or afford panels? Allowing some to use the solar highway while stopping others, even though everyone is paying for its construction, isn’t equitable.
The Australian Energy Market Commission believes the answer lies in thinking differently about the problem and using the power system in smarter ways. Today, we’ve released a draft package of reforms to address these “traffic jams” on the network.

We are seeking feedback on new measures that give power networks more incentive to offer export services that meet the needs of customers. Success would look like this: more people sending more power to the grid more often.
We’re also proposing that networks be allowed to develop two-way pricing schemes. What this might do is reward you for sending power to the grid when it’s most needed and charge you for sending power when it’s not. This helps ease congestion by spreading power usage out across the day. It makes better use of the highway and minimises the need to build more.

Each network would come up with its own pricing plan specific to its own circumstances and customers. It would probably look like a menu of options that customers can choose from. So, you would be able to decide what you value as a customer. You could choose to use the energy you generate to power your air-conditioning on a hot day, or you could trade it for additional income.

Some people fear this will mean they have to pay every time they export power. That’s not what this reform package is about. Depending on how solar owners respond to those incentives, many could actually earn more money. Networks could also choose not to charge for exporting power.
That’s why we haven’t mandated anything on prices. We want to allow flexibility. Any new plans the networks develop will have to be approved by the Australian Energy Regulator to ensure they are delivering for consumers.
More solar, batteries and electric vehicles are a good thing if we get the settings right. They can help us all decarbonise faster.
It will all take time – that’s why we have to start now. We can’t hold back the tide of change confronting the energy market, and we certainty can’t pretend it’s not happening.
Benn Barr is chief executive of the Australian Energy Market Commissio

sptrawler said:

Well we are getting close to the point, where home solar batteries will have to be subsidised, to maintain solar growth and system stability .

Home battery incentives proposed as way to bypass solar power traffic jams

The energy market rule-maker says new regulations are needed to stop customers copping bigger bills as the network is weighed down by more rooftop solar power.

www.theage.com.au

Fixing Australia’s solar traffic jam will make selling sunshine two-way street

Households will lose unless we fix the way energy flows from their solar panels to the electricity grid. Here’s a plan, writes the head of the Australian Energy Market Commission.

www.smh.com.au

Click to expand...

The absurdity of the situation continues.

Solar panels are great we were told, buy them and make money selling your power back to the grid.

It's all indicative that the system is being run by rent seekers not engineers as it should be.

I'm sure smurf would be able to say whether the companies were warned that an over supply situation might occur, and we may ask why the companies chose to not pass this onto the public.

SirRumpole said:

The absurdity of the situation continues.

Solar panels are great we were told, buy them and make money selling your power back to the grid.

It's all indicative that the system is being run by rent seekers not engineers as it should be.

I'm sure smurf would be able to say whether the companies were warned that an over supply situation might occur, and we may ask why the companies chose to not pass this on t the public.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, the companies should be made to offer batteries, to customers, much the same as happens with mobile phone plans.
It is a rort where they run down the system, buy rooftop generation from owners then sell it at a profit, then when there is too much throw their hands up and say not our problem. ?
The added benefit would be it would underpin companies to build batteries here, as there would be a constant demand and as the sector is growing so could the manufacturing size increase to facilitate it.
It really is a no brainer, but what is happening will be, the companies are be sitting back waiting for public opinion and the media to hammer the Government for taxpayers to subsidies the batteries. Well stuff them IMO, they get the benefit they should already be rolling out home batteries, as AGL and Origin have started to.
Same as car companies bitching they want subsidies, what so the taxpayer can subsidies their change over while maintaining their profit?

sptrawler said:

Absolutely, the companies should be made to offer batteries, to customers, much the same as happens with mobile phone plans.
It is a rort where they run down the system, buy rooftop generation from owners then sell it at a profit, then when there is too much throw their hands up and say not our problem. ?
The added benefit would be it would underpin companies to build batteries here, as there would be a constant demand and as the sector is growing so could the manufacturing size increase to facilitate it.
It really is a no brainer, but what is happening will be, the companies are be sitting back waiting for public opinion and the media to hammer the Government for taxpayers to subsidies the batteries. Well stuff them IMO, they get the benefit they should already be rolling out home batteries, as AGL and Origin have started to.
Same as car companies bitching they want subsidies, what so the taxpayer can subsidies their change over while maintaining their profit?

Click to expand...

Electricity supply is a regulated market, with demand facilitated by AEMO.
We are where we are today because we do not have "planned" market.
Instead we have a roadmap where the new roads to be built or being built are guided by a carrot and stick approach.
The technicals are in the "too hard" basket, along with who would pay.
The only certainty we seem to have regarding large scale future supply is Snowy2. And that's mooted mainly as "backup."

It's true that rooftop solar brings new system tweaking requirements, but why should that be problem when the investment being made to generate supply lies with householders? We, as taxpayers/consumers, recently paid for the gold plating of our wires and poles through decisions out of our hands and supposedly in our best interests. If the government can do that, and commit billions to the likes of Snowy2, then why can't it facilitate the infrastructure for distributed energy resources, seeing it's very much the way of the future?

Oh, and while on the subject of rooftop solar, most householder's wings were clipped to 5Kw output while commercial buildings can supply significantly more. The Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme for electricity supply should have been mothballed years ago, and feed-in rates - if any - determined as States saw fit.

The States and the Feds are tweaking the distribution system, the ones who are having a problem are the dispatchable generators especially coal units, those companies should accelerate their replacement with renewable and or gas generation and suitable storage, if not they will find themselves with not only stranded assets but lost customer base IMO.
As the AEMO has previously stated a large source of dispatchable generation is required in the near future, if it isn't installed by the private operators the Federal government will install it, this will mean more pressure on the private operators as new HEGT's are extremely efficient.
I think that the initiative by AGL and Origin to supply solar and battery packages to households, is a great move in the right direction and should be taken up by all the companies.
By the way in W.A I think 5Kw domestic inverters has been the case since the inception of the RECs system, also the feed in tarrif has changed considerably over the years, it is now around 7cents.

Here's the picture that suppliers see:

Clearly renewables are the way to go.
That's further backed up by future cost declines:

While new build renewable costs are low, without any carbon costs to factor in, and without an HVDC spine to tap into in order to even out the vagaries of wind and sunshine energy inputs, major private sector investments are going to remain thin.