The future of energy generation and storage

[SirRumpole]

Like i said 90% of the problem IMO, is the media coverage is based on political/ environmental bias and presenting flawed information.
The gas pipelines and gas turbines can be made to carry hydrogen at a later date, it is a great solution and ensures the reliability of supply, to paint turbines as being 'dirty' is crap, if they are run on H2 they are as clean as dispatchable generation gets.

As long as the hydrogen production process is 'green', yes.

 

[sptrawler]

As long as the hydrogen production process is 'green', yes.

Exactly and Australia is fortunate enough to have the land mass, topography and climate to achieve it, but do the press write that??
Absolute FW's IMO.

 

[sptrawler]

Yeah I agree.

Trouble is that there are too many people/businesses pushing their own lines to the detriment of others.

@Smurf1976 said it a long time ago, "anything that works".

This should not be a competition, but a cooperation between different alternatives that are all viable in certain circumstances.

Get the rent seekers out of decision making and turn it back to (unbiased) scientists and engineers.

The issue is, you have asked questions, got the underlying facts straight and can make valued judgements regarding generation and dispatch, why can't reporters?

 

[SirRumpole]

The issue is, you have asked questions, got the underlying facts straight and can make valued judgements regarding generation and dispatch, why can't reporters?

Because reporters are basically political these days.

The ABC and The Guardian works for Labor, (almost) everyone else works for Murdoch and the Coalition.

 

[Smurf1976]

Something I'll note regarding the issues in NSW, government proposals to build 1000 MW of gas turbines, the 4 Corners report and so on is this:

Government's on about 1000 MW.

AEMO puts the requirement at 154 MW.

That's a considerable difference and in short I'll take AEMO's rather precise figure over the government's big round number any day.

Now back to that 154 MW there are indeed options to plug that gap rather quickly and without building anything that might not be needed long term.

Redbank power station is currently sitting around doing nothing. It's a 151 MW coal-fired plant using fluidised bed boilers which in layman's terms means it has a lot of flexibility in terms of the fuel used. Good quality coal, poor quality coal, sawmill waste etc anything like that will do the job.

It's pretty small for a coal plant, 151 MW isn't much compared to Eraring at 2880 MW, but point is it's already built, it's sitting there right now.

Here it is: https://www.google.com.au/maps/plac...cf03fdc!8m2!3d-32.5800885!4d151.0718822?hl=en

It's a rather humble looking power station yes but zoom out on the map, have a look what's around it and it makes sense.

Now I'm not advocating that we go and build new coal plant. This one however is already there, it's in decent shape and could easily be put back in action. To me that's very much worthy of serious investigation as an option, noting that it fills 98% of the gap as identified by AEMO.

The other part of that is at Broken Hill where 2 x 25 MW oil-fired gas turbines are sitting there (Broken Hill is on the main grid). They're used only for local network support and outages, they're not centrally dispatched by AEMO and thus are not used to supply NSW as such. That means they're almost always not running even during peak demand.

Solution = put them on when supply is tight. Do it manually if need be - start them up and run them.

They're not cheap to operate given they're using liquid fuel but considering how many hours a year they'll actually need to run that's not a big deal really. This is about peak load not running 24/7.

Add Redbank and Broken Hill to things like the large battery installations that AGL and Origin are both planning plus Snowy 2.0 and getting the SA - NSW transmission line built and collectively that's an alternative plan.

The trouble with all of this is far too much political interference on one hand, and far too much political bias in media reporting and this the general public's understanding of it on the other.

That's not to say I'm outright against gas but there's a lot of politics being played in all this and I definitely am opposed to that aspect, the politics.

 

[sptrawler]

Something I'll note regarding the issues in NSW, government proposals to build 1000 MW of gas turbines, the 4 Corners report and so on is this:

Government's on about 1000 MW.

AEMO puts the requirement at 154 MW.

That's a considerable difference and in short I'll take AEMO's rather precise figure over the government's big round number any day.

Now back to that 154 MW there are indeed options to plug that gap rather quickly and without building anything that might not be needed long term.

Redbank power station is currently sitting around doing nothing. It's a 151 MW coal-fired plant using fluidised bed boilers which in layman's terms means it has a lot of flexibility in terms of the fuel used. Good quality coal, poor quality coal, sawmill waste etc anything like that will do the job.

It's pretty small for a coal plant, 151 MW isn't much compared to Eraring at 2880 MW, but point is it's already built, it's sitting there right now.

Here it is: https://www.google.com.au/maps/plac...cf03fdc!8m2!3d-32.5800885!4d151.0718822?hl=en

It's a rather humble looking power station yes but zoom out on the map, have a look what's around it and it makes sense.

Now I'm not advocating that we go and build new coal plant. This one however is already there, it's in decent shape and could easily be put back in action. To me that's very much worthy of serious investigation as an option, noting that it fills 98% of the gap as identified by AEMO.

The other part of that is at Broken Hill where 2 x 25 MW oil-fired gas turbines are sitting there (Broken Hill is on the main grid). They're used only for local network support and outages, they're not centrally dispatched by AEMO and thus are not used to supply NSW as such. That means they're almost always not running even during peak demand.

Solution = put them on when supply is tight. Do it manually if need be - start them up and run them.

They're not cheap to operate given they're using liquid fuel but considering how many hours a year they'll actually need to run that's not a big deal really. This is about peak load not running 24/7.

Add Redbank and Broken Hill to things like the large battery installations that AGL and Origin are both planning plus Snowy 2.0 and getting the SA - NSW transmission line built and collectively that's an alternative plan.

The trouble with all of this is far too much political interference on one hand, and far too much political bias in media reporting and this the general public's understanding of it on the other.

That's not to say I'm outright against gas but there's a lot of politics being played in all this and I definitely am opposed to that aspect, the politics.

I agree with what you are saying, but as we have discussed in the past, whether you put in 1 x 150 MW gas turbine ar 4 X 200 units, the stumbling block is getting in anything, as the backlash against building Snowy 2.0 is showing.
So the difference in reality is mainly the financial cost, the political cost is the same for both and the financial if they were in the same location wouldn't be 4 x the amount.
So if the plan is to shut down all the coal plant, in the next 10 - 15 years, the four units will probably be all that is required to cover the whole transition, seems sensible to me especially when the actual cost is miniscule when talking about the money being thrown around due to the virus last year.
Also it gives a huge amount of breathing space to install more storage around the country, being in W.A it doesn't concern me greatly, but having worked in the sector you are definitely better over building, than falling short or breaking even then running on luck.
But as you say, IF the AEMO says all that is needed is 154MW that's good, but it sounds a bit too precise a number for engineers to come up with from my experience.
In my experience, engineers give a range for worst case scenario, to best case scenario, 154MW sounds like a surgical number that someone has cherry picked.
Or it could be the shortfall with the closure of Liddel Power Station, but doesn't take into account the remaining coal stations being closed, where the 1,000MW may take the extra coal power station closures into account, this is the sort of things accurate reporting covers. These days you don't know if they are comparing apples with apples, or making it up as they go along IMO.
It will be interesting to see what Labor decide on, if they get in next year, that will give a more clear picture, because they wont want to wear any blackouts either.

 

[Smurf1976]

Or it could be the shortfall with the closure of Liddell Power Station, but doesn't take into account the remaining coal stations being closed

That's what it is yes - the near term requirement due to Liddell closure.

The number's precise simply because AEMO's quoted the output of a modeling exercise and hasn't rounded it. That modeling exercise is, of course, itself imprecise although on the other hand it's the same basis they'd be using if they said the shortfall were zero. Whether the modeling approach is right or not's another matter....

 

[sptrawler]

That's what it is yes - the near term requirement due to Liddell closure.

The number's precise simply because AEMO's quoted the output of a modeling exercise and hasn't rounded it. That modeling exercise is, of course, itself imprecise although on the other hand it's the same basis they'd be using if they said the shortfall were zero. Whether the modeling approach is right or not's another matter....

But there is talk of other coal station closures being brought forward, wouldn't that have to come into the reckoning, as I would expect that only one gas station would be built and utilise an existing site.
If a large one is built, it may well accelerate the closure of all the remaining coal stations, which would make the most sense, as then not only are you reducing emissions but you are also increasing flexibility and reliability.
Also you would be nationalising the fossil fueled generation component, which would allow the likes of AGL, Origin etc to concentrate on storage and renewable generation, rather than trying to keep old uncompetitive coal operating to meet their generating obligation and not having to build new dispatchable plant which will end up stranded.
I really can't see a better way of transitioning from fossil to renewables, but hey it's only my thoughts.

 

[sptrawler]

Interesting article about the rapid changes happening in the grid, as Australia careers toward a renewable grid and the difficulties in keeping up. I did say a while back that Australia is doing really well, when some were criticising the speed of uptake, well it is really picking up. Snowy 2.0 can't come soon enough IMO.
The part in bold, is the really complex bit, that can't be legislated, it is a massive technical undertaking.
Just being able to restore the load in a major blackout, using renewables, is a massive technical issue.
The 'Engineering Framework Report' is a great read for those interested.

AEMO calls for all hands to navigate “incredibly fast” transition to renewables

AEMO’s new engineering framework lays out “just how incredibly fast change is coming” via the wholesale shift to renewables and calls for collaboration from industry to keep up th…

reneweconomy.com.au

From the article:
The “incredibly fast” pace of Australia’s transition from a coal and gas plant based centralised energy system to one powered predominantly by distributed renewables has been laid bare in a new report from the Australian Energy Market Operator.

The AEMO has this week called for collaboration from all quarters of the nation’s energy industry as it navigates the massive and complex engineering challenge presented by the grid’s once-in-a-lifetime transition to distributed solar and wind.

The call comes with the release of the NEM Engineering Framework report, a 50-odd page document that the AEMO’s manager of future energy systems, Chris Davies, says aims to “chunk out” what future grid operations will look like and how they will best be managed.

The Framework does this, in part, by identifying 10 focus areas, each of these enormously technically complex on their own, including voltage control, system strength, distributed energy resources, system restoration and frequency balance.
“Together with industry, we’ll be working to identify possible future operational conditions for the NEM power system, understand current work underway to then collectively act to address the most urgent issues,” Davies said.

“Our March 2021 report is about setting a baseline for the Framework, so we can understand all the moving parts across industry and work out how they fit together, including future priorities for AEMO.”

And while the overall picture can appear daunting, Davies stresses that it’s also quite thrilling, as Australia navigates one of the world’s fastest and most bleeding-edge shifts to zero emissions grid.

“What the document lays out is just how incredibly fast change is coming, which is on one hand daunting, but also it is very exciting and we’re very quickly entering into a space that no country has gone into,” Davies told RenewEconomy on Thursday.

“So I think for Australia that is a really exciting thing, it’s a chance here to be really world leading. …And the really exciting thing here is, I think we have found a way to deconstruct that and make that accessible and less overwhelming, so you can you can chunk it out and you can really think through, okay, how do we actually plan for this?”
By “this,” Davies is talking about the neck-breaking speed at which a once coal and centralised power station-based electricity network has incorporated a 38% contribution of wind and solar (including rooftop PV) at any one point in 2018, and then a 52% contribution in 2020.

Meanwhile, minimum synchronous generation at a single point in time has decreased from 13.7 gigawatts (GW) in 2018 to 10.8 GW in 2020 across the NEM.

“The NEM is rapidly moving towards operating for hours at a time with a completely different mix of generation sources, which will be unique for any large power system in the world,” Davies said.

“Working together as an industry we can plan our way through these changes to provide a sustainable energy system that delivers affordable, safe and reliable energy for all Australians,” he said.

The key message from here, says Davies, is that teamwork will be key, as all of the different components of the new distributed renewable system are pieced together into one functioning National Electricity Market.

The other key message, Davies says, is that time is of the essence. Because change is happening, whether we’re ready or not.

“The speed of change and the size of our power system means we’re seeing these trends emerging really fast,” he told RE.

“There are a number of areas where Australia is at the forefront, as well, including trials of big batteries, grid forming inverters, trials of VPPs, those are very much world leading,” he said.

“This should be looked upon as a growth opportunity. This is the place where you want to be, right now, if you have any interest in the future of low-carbon energy systems.”

In the meantime, AEMO wants to hear from stakeholders about how they would like to be involved and is holding an open industry discussion in April, with targeted stakeholder discussions through May and June to help identify operational conditions and early priorities.

 

[Smurf1976]

But there is talk of other coal station closures being brought forward, wouldn't that have to come into the reckoning, as I would expect that only one gas station would be built and utilise an existing site.

What it really comes down to is a simple question.

What's the destination?

I'll use the analogy of a taxi and say that the driver can take you anywhere within reasonable distance so long as there's a road there.

Just one thing - you need to know where you want to go, either the actual address or at least some sort of description. Telling the driver that you want to go to the airport will be easy, saying you want to go to a street with a lot of restaurants will be not quite so easy, since in most cities there's more than one option, but still the driver should manage to take you to a place with a lot of restaurants.

Back to the power industry and the basic problem is that our taxi driver finds themselves with a car full of passengers all of whom are shouting but, and here's the problem, they don't know where they want to go. I don't mean they lack an address that could be worked out but rather, they really don't know if they're looking for the airport, nightclubs or a 24 hour supermarket.

In the context of electricity, what's missing is leadership from government to answer the basic question - what are we aiming for?

Is the aim to go 100% renewable?

Are we actually doing the Paris Agreement thing or not?

Is the aim to have some ongoing use of fossil fuels? If so, how much?

Or do we just do what's cheapest and nobody's really worried about this stuff?

And so on.

What's happening at the moment is that, broadly speaking, the investor-owned companies are scared of blowing their shareholders' funds on plant that turns out to be a political flop meanwhile the government-owned ones are either treading very cautiously due to fear of finding themselves a political target or, in the case of Snowy, are being actively directed by the feds anyway.

So there's quite a bit of paralysis basically. Not totally, but to considerable extent there is.

If that was resolved well then the answer as to whether to build gas, batteries or whatever would be far clearer.

As for the federal government and gas - my expectation is 750 MW. That's not a definite thing but it's the figure they've put on all the documentation regarding it.

Personally well I'm not saying gas is good or bad but I'd like there to be a proper plan behind all this. It's too important to have politicians running around decreeing that a gas turbine goes here and a battery goes there. That's really not the way to do it.

 

[sptrawler]

From what I have read the question of how much will be self resolving, as much as possible, the grid will become 100% renewables.
But then more and more renewables will be installed to produce hydrogen.
Going back to your taxi example @Smurf1976 it isnt a case of where to take the taxi, but how big the fleet of taxis will be in the end.
At the moment, no one knows, as the government says as soon as possible, if the major industries start and become generators, to mitigate their own footprint, the requirement of electrical generators to supply that load reduces, so it will happen faster.
It is all great to say 20, or 30 or 40 years, then it becomes like the vaccine rollout an albotross around your neck and a great target for the media. IMO
My quess is it will happen a lot faster than 2050.

 

[Smurf1976]

From what I have read the question of how much will be self resolving, as much as possible, the grid will become 100% renewables.

In principle I'm in the camp which sees that as the preferred outcome.

Practical problem however is the politics of it all. In short, so long as there's a lack of direction on that front and open conflict even within the same party, the companies are being cautious in how much they spend on new assets.

Worth noting in that context that the divide is more a federal versus state thing than being along party lines.

The Labor states and the Liberal states are on the same page apart from minor detail. They're all advocating renewables. Federal government is where the difficulty arises since they're at odds with the states, Liberal states included.

Beyond fairly limited amounts, the companies have thus far been reluctant to get caught up in the battle and are holding back investment. Problem is, the clock's ticking on the remaining life of existing plant and that's coming to the pointy end rather quickly hence the threats, panic and so on.

It's not so much a case of arguing for one policy or another but of needing the political battle to come to a halt and to achieve some certainty regarding policy.

 

[sptrawler]

In principle I'm in the camp which sees that as the preferred outcome.

Practical problem however is the politics of it all. In short, so long as there's a lack of direction on that front and open conflict even within the same party, the companies are being cautious in how much they spend on new assets.

Worth noting in that context that the divide is more a federal versus state thing than being along party lines.

The Labor states and the Liberal states are on the same page apart from minor detail. They're all advocating renewables. Federal government is where the difficulty arises since they're at odds with the states, Liberal states included.

Beyond fairly limited amounts, the companies have thus far been reluctant to get caught up in the battle and are holding back investment. Problem is, the clock's ticking on the remaining life of existing plant and that's coming to the pointy end rather quickly hence the threats, panic and so on.

It's not so much a case of arguing for one policy or another but of needing the political battle to come to a halt and to achieve some certainty regarding policy.

I can see the problem, but from the outside looking in, It appears to me that the States are on the same page, but aren't actually doing much, aside from S.A.
There seems to be a lot of noise coming from the states, but not much action and from what I read the States also seem to have minimal accountability or responsibility for the outcome, if it goes pear shaped.
Plants are being closed and or closures being brought forward and there is very little happening to cover the projected shortfall.

If the States want to be in charge of their section of the network, they should be demanding the operators show how they are going to cover that perceived shortfall, not just give lip service and hope it works out.

Again from just reading on the internet, it appears the Federal Government is the only one actively concerned about the problem and has told the private operators, who own the States generating equipment, one of you guys needs to install some dispatchable power or we will.
From a logical position, if the States want to go full renewable, they should be saying we are going to cover the problem by installing x,y &z renewable generation and storage facilities.

It is ok for the States to say we want to go renewables, and do nothing, then when the manure hits the fan blame the Federal Government who in reality are the only ones doing anything (again except for S.A). By installing Snowy 2.0 and funding HVinteconnects.

It is like everything else these days, everyone wants to tell you what to do, but do sod all themselves and take no responsibility, or accountability for the outcome.
The States need to man up, or hand it over to the Feds, rather than sniping from the side lines.
As was shown through the pandemic, they can stand on their own two feet when they have to and tell the Feds this is our turf, yet when a bushfire, or a media furore gets out of control, it is run to daddy.
Time the States grew up, they sold off the generation assets and spent the money, grow a pair and if you want renewables to replace them put them in, then a gas plant wont be required. The States can go back to owning generating infrastructure, but the problem is then the State pollies would be responsible and accountable for it again, and they wouldn't want that.
Like I've said just my opinion and being from W.A I don't actually give a rats either way, S.A and W.A seem to be the only States with balls.

 

[SirRumpole]

I can see the problem, but from the outside looking in, as W.A hasn't the same issues, It appears to me that the States are on the same page, but aren't actually doing much, aside from S.A.
There seems to be a lot of noise coming from the states, but not much action and from what I read the States also seem to have minimal accountability or responsibility for the outcome, if it goes pear shaped.
Plants are being closed and or closure being brought forward and there is very little happening to cover the projected shortfall.
If the States want to be in charge of their section of the network, they should be demanding the operators show how they are going to cover that perceived shortfall, not just give lip service and hope it works out.
Again from just reading, it appears the Federal Government is the only one actively concerned about the problem and has told the private operators, who own the States generating equipment, either one of you guys installs some dispatchable power or we will.
From a logical position, if the States want to go full renewable, they should be saying we are going to cover the problem by installing x,y &z renewable generation and storage facilities.
It is ok for the States to say we want to go renewables, and do nothing, then when the manure hits the fan blame the Federal Government who in reality are the only ones doing anything (again except for S.A).
Like I said it is like everything else these days, everyone wants to tell you what to do, but do sod all themselves and take no responsibility, or accountability for the outcome. The States need to man up, or hand it over to the Feds, rather than sniping from the side lines. As was shown through the pandemic, they can stand on their own two feet when they have to and tell the Feds this is our turf, yet when a bushfire, or a media furore gets out of control, it is run to daddy.
Time the States grew up, they sold off the assets and spent the money, grow a pair and if you want renewables to replace them put them in, then a gas plant wont be required.
Like I've said just my opinion and being from W.A I don't actually give a rats either way.

I may have said it before, but I"ll say it again.

The problem started when the Howard/Costello government basically forced the States to sell their power assets to private enterprise due to the asset recycling scheme.

Prior to that the States were competing with each other to offer the lowest power prices they could so they could attract business and industry to their State, and we had some of the lowest power prices in the world. Now we have some of the highest.

States owned the generators, the distribution network and the billing so they could cross subsidise and offer the best deals.

Now we have a complete stuff up, no one knows who is responsible for building generators, distribution or billing , States, Federal, private all just arguing with each other instead of getting on with it.

Power is an essential service, it's ultimately the government's job to deliver, never mind the ideological bull$hit about "market forces", either the Feds take it over or it's given back to the States like it was before.

A great example of ideology stuffing things up for the consumers, but of course those responsible won't admit it.

 

[sptrawler]

I may have said it before, but I"ll say it again.

The problem started when the Howard/Costello government basically forced the States to sell their power assets to private enterprise due to the asset recycling scheme.

Prior to that the States were competing with each other to offer the lowest power prices they could so they could attract business and industry to their State, and we had some of the lowest power prices in the world. Now we have some of the highest.

States owned the generators, the distribution network and the billing so they could cross subsidise and offer the best deals.

Now we have a complete stuff up, no one knows who is responsible for building generators, distribution or billing , States, Federal, private all just arguing with each other instead of getting on with it.

Power is an essential service, it's ultimately the government's job to deliver, never mind the ideological bull$hit about "market forces", either the Feds take it over or it's given back to the States like it was before.

A great example of ideology stuffing things up for the consumers, but of course those responsible won't admit it.

Absolutely, but now we are moving into a period where the whole electrical system dynamics are changing, there may not be room for big single generation utilities in the future.
With domestic solar and community batteries, BEVs and private industry investing in self sufficient renewable power, there actually may not be much but crumbs left over, then it will become a public service again the private operates will just pull up stumps.
The States and Federal Governments may well have to take over the electrical system again, as there may not be enough money in it, for private enterprise to make anything without cranking the price to the consumer to stupid heights.
So saying well 30 years ago they said sell it and we did and we spent the money, now we are just going to sit back and say I told you so, might work for you it sure as $hit wouldn't make me too happy.
Luckily in W.A the major supplier is the State Government and my guess is we will be gas/renewable by 2030 and full renewables by 2050.

Your comment about either the Feds take it over, or give it back to the States, seems to be exactly what is happening, the Feds have said to the operators which operate State generators, either you put some new $hit in to cover your aging rooted infrastructure, or we will.

The States could say, that infrastructure is ours we will make them upgrade, replace with renewables, or put renewables in ourselves.

From what I'm reading all the States(except S.A), are just riding the wave of public opinion in the media and actually doing sod all.

What has Victoria put in?, What has NSW put in? What has Qld put in? yet they are the ones that have the big coal generators and are saying we want to go renewables, but haven't said anything about the big generators closing down and how they are going to mitigate the loss of dispatchable at call generation.
The only ones with any plan seems to be the Feds, Snowy 2.0, Tassie battery interconnect, 1,000MW of dispatchable gas turbines, what are the States doing?

 

[sptrawler]

Beyond fairly limited amounts, the companies have thus far been reluctant to get caught up in the battle and are holding back investment. Problem is, the clock's ticking on the remaining life of existing plant and that's coming to the pointy end rather quickly hence the threats, panic and so on.

It's not so much a case of arguing for one policy or another but of needing the political battle to come to a halt and to achieve some certainty regarding policy.

The companies are holding back investment, because there is no ROI with fossil fuel and the very distinct possibility of stranded assets, so they need to invest in renewables, the Feds have said they want to get to carbon zero as fast as possible.
The States are responsible for their generation to a major degree, as has been shown by S.A, so unless the States get the generators to install something, what can the Feds do other than say we will put in firming generation if they don't?
Obviously there is a magic wand there, that if the Feds say we are going to be carbon neutral by 2050, something wonderful will happen.
Renewables are the cheapest to install and run, old plant is becoming unserviceable, unreliable, unprofitable and a liability, what certainty are we looking for? Someone to tell them to change their generation portfolio?

 

[Smurf1976]

what certainty are we looking for?

The big problem is actually illustrated by your comments, specifically:

the Feds have said they want to get to carbon zero as fast as possible.

Presumably that's what they're saying in WA?

In the eastern states they want gas, a "gas-fired recovery" as they call it, not zero emissions.

What the industry wants is a clear policy.

At present there's several companies which have specific proposals for new fossil fuel, pumped hydro and battery development. Some of those have gone as far as having obtained all required planning approvals, all equipment has been specified, contractors identified and so on. So those projects are "shovel ready" to go.

That they're not being built thus far largely comes down to uncertainty as to what government wants with all this. Few are keen to risk blowing their money if it turns out that government decides they built the wrong thing.

The issue needs to stop being a political "point of difference". Come up with a policy and get on with building things which fit within it, no politics required.

Much the same with any industry, those making the decisions to sign off on big $ investments want reasonable certainty as to government policy.

 

[Humid]

The big problem is actually illustrated by your comments, specifically:



Presumably that's what they're saying in WA?

In the eastern states they want gas, a "gas-fired recovery" as they call it, not zero emissions.

What the industry wants is a clear policy.

At present there's several companies which have specific proposals for new fossil fuel, pumped hydro and battery development. Some of those have gone as far as having obtained all required planning approvals, all equipment has been specified, contractors identified and so on. So those projects are "shovel ready" to go.

That they're not being built thus far largely comes down to uncertainty as to what government wants with all this. Few are keen to risk blowing their money if it turns out that government decides they built the wrong thing.

The issue needs to stop being a political "point of difference". Come up with a policy and get on with building things which fit within it, no politics required.

He has his LNP hat on
2050 or bust
MAGA
make australia gas again

 

[Smurf1976]

MAGA
make australia gas again

Like that one.

Seriously, the whole issue isn't so much a question of what the policy is but of getting some certainty.

The industry can live with a focus on gas and it could live with 100% renewables but there's real caution when it comes to the uncertainty and politics surrounding the whole thing.

What I'm really saying is that the whole thing's been too political for too long, that's doing far more harm than good at this point. It needs to be settled, get on with doing what needs to be done, and let politics focus on something else.

 

[sptrawler]

The big problem is actually illustrated by your comments, specifically:



Presumably that's what they're saying in WA?

In the eastern states they want gas, a "gas-fired recovery" as they call it, not zero emissions.

What the industry wants is a clear policy.

At present there's several companies which have specific proposals for new fossil fuel, pumped hydro and battery development. Some of those have gone as far as having obtained all required planning approvals, all equipment has been specified, contractors identified and so on. So those projects are "shovel ready" to go.

That they're not being built thus far largely comes down to uncertainty as to what government wants with all this. Few are keen to risk blowing their money if it turns out that government decides they built the wrong thing.

The issue needs to stop being a political "point of difference". Come up with a policy and get on with building things which fit within it, no politics required.

Ah I see the point, what I was focusing on was just the electrical grid from a generation perspective, i wasn't thinking from an industrial consumer perspective.
From W.A's perspective, nothing is being said, coal is being withdrawn and GT's are being installed, life moves on.
Then when the renewables and storage make the GT's obsolete they also will be withdrawn, Simple really.

But over East, obviously there is a bigger picture, because it is a bigger market and a bigger pot of money.
So all the vested interests want to maximise their outcomes, that is problematic, but how do the Feds pick a winner?
Sounds like they are just trying to cover their ar$e, which if you are working on the theory that the market will work it out, is probably from their perspective the best move.
If the market doesn't work it out, the Feds put in a big gas plant, to ensure supply.
While the market players thrash around with even less competitive plant and still wondering where they are going to make a profit.
If as you say market players have fossil fuel, pumped hydro and battery developments ready to go, why would gas be a problem, one it is a limited supply and two pumped hydro and batteries are cost positive as proven in S.A.