The future of energy generation and storage

[rederob]

Interesting today I thought I heard mention of nuclear on the radio, I can't find mention of it in the media, does anyone have an update?

Did this article get close: "Australia planned to buy US nuclear submarines, Peter Dutton says."

I think we can hook them into the grid - @Smurf1976 can help work out to do it. Or, maybe park a few in Talbingo Reservoir where all the wiring will be in place by 2026.

 

[sptrawler]

@SirRumpole I see the leading article on the AFR today, is Snowy 2.0 is delayed and going to cause fossil fuel to be used longer and possible jepordise the Governments commitment to reduce emissions by 43% before 2030.

Funny that considering many say Snowy 2.0 isn't required, including one on here.
Funny how things work out isn't, a lot of these problems become self resolving, now the critics are in the project is required by them as well.
Problem resolved, it is required after all, as you and I said it would be.

Shock Snowy 2.0 delay stirs energy mess

Chris Bowen said the former government’s flagship solution to faltering coal power is “not in great shape” as fresh delays push back its start date for years.

www.afr.com

From the article:
The Australian Financial Review has learnt that a series of issues involving contractors and construction at the former Coalition government’s flagship solution to the accelerating collapse of coal power mean project owner Snowy Hydro is being forced to delay the start date for power generation by as long as 19 months, or to around 2028.
The setback has stunned the new Labor government as the $5.1 billion pumped hydro scheme – one of the world’s most ambitious engineering projects, and currently under construction high in the Snowy Mountains wilderness in southern NSW – was originally commissioned to offset the closure of crumbling power stations such as AGL Energy’s Liddell in the Hunter Valley, which shuts down next year.
As energy prices soar, the need for pumped hydro has become more urgent, not least because of Origin Energy’s shock announcement in February that it will bring forward the closure of Australia’s biggest coal-fired plant, Eraring in NSW, by seven years to 2025.

The Snowy 2.0 setback further complicates this week’s energy ministers’ decision to ramp up a national capacity mechanism, potentially forcing states led by Victoria to temper their political opposition to an ongoing interim role for gas and coal.
The delay means Australia’s energy industry is likely to release more carbon in the short term, making the government’s election promise to cut emissions by 43 per cent this decade more challenging, and raising fresh fears from businesses and households counting on an orderly transition to renewable energy.

“It’s disappointing to find that this is the case, given this was an alleged signature initiative of the previous government,” Mr Bowen told the Financial Review on Thursday.

“I’ll be working as closely as possible to try and get it back on track, but the harsh reality is that it is way behind par.

“The bottom line is Australians will be waiting longer than they were led to believe for the start of the new energy to flow.”
Speaking about the delay to Snowy 2.0, Mr Bowen indicated it would have consequences for Australia’s energy transition as well as power security “in an unstable environment” and carbon emissions.

“We supported Snowy because it does have a role to play in energy security. It does have a role to play in providing that stability to the system because, ultimately, it’s a form of storage,” he said.


It might also have alleviated gas price hikes that have triggered nationwide alarm and forced the new Labor government into crisis mode.

“If it was on board and fully operating and connected last week, it would have made a material difference,” Mr Bowen said. “But we’re going to be waiting a substantial period longer than we were told by the previous government for it to play that role.”

Snowy 2.0 involves construction of a huge power station 800 metres below ground in a 15-storey-high cavern and 27 kilometres of tunnel in a delicate national park ecosystem to link existing remote reservoirs. When operational, the system will be able to power the equivalent of 500,000 homes for a week without releasing carbon.

Announced by former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull in 2017, the project was originally slated to begin producing power in 2021. Snowy Hydro’s website on Thursday afternoon said first power was expected in 2025 as the first of six generating units came online, ahead of completion in 2026.

It is understood the current estimated delay is 19 months, but work is being done with contractors to see whether that can be reduced to 13 months.

The company declined to comment on Thursday.


Asked whether the delay means coal will be needed for longer, Mr Bowen said: “The more renewable energy we have and storage we have on board through things like the Snowy, the smoother the transition will be.

“And the longer it takes, and the lumpier something like the Snowy is, the lumpier and more difficult it will be.

“It’s a renewable energy source and if it’s not there, then the alternative has got to come from somewhere.”

 

[sptrawler]

From the same article but on a different subject, it is amazing how the narrative is shifting, as the manure accelerates toward the fan.
The Grattan Institute, on the subject of a capacity mechanism, or standby allowance to simplify it.

Shock Snowy 2.0 delay stirs energy mess

Chris Bowen said the former government’s flagship solution to faltering coal power is “not in great shape” as fresh delays push back its start date for years.

www.afr.com

From the article:
Alinta Energy CEO Jeff Dimery said on Thursday that the energy market was “tightly balanced at the moment” and insisted every fuel and technology would play a role in keeping the lights on.

“We do need coal and gas to be included in a capacity market because, for example, if you were to exclude the roughly 60 per cent of supply provided by the Latrobe Valley in Victoria, there wouldn’t be much capacity left to call on.”

Australian Energy Regulator chairwoman Clair Savage told the Financial Review on Thursday in Melbourne that coal and gas were important sources of dispatchable capacity and that the transition would be more difficult in their absence.


“It’s easier with them in,” she said. “We need dispatchable capacity. There are options on how you could build a capacity market with coal and gas in or without them. Essentially, we will be asking stakeholders for their views. We will give a final design to ministers at the end of this year.”

Grattan Institute energy program director Tony Wood said he had never heard of a capacity mechanism that did not include coal and gas, and that referring to the policy tool as a “Coalkeeper” was “bull****”.

“The one in the UK even includes diesel,” he told the Financial Review. “You can’t firm up renewables with renewables. It’s got to be something available on demand. Solar is not: you can’t get solar at night. You can’t get wind when the wind is not blowing.”

 

[sptrawler]

Did this article get close: "Australia planned to buy US nuclear submarines, Peter Dutton says."

I think we can hook them into the grid - @Smurf1976 can help work out to do it. Or, maybe park a few in Talbingo Reservoir where all the wiring will be in place by 2026.

Ah the "Subs", another of those self resolving issues, let's see if the new Government cancels them, if not problem resolved.
Then you will have to move on to find yet another lost cause, as is being proven with Snowy 2.0, which you staunchly argued isn't required. Obviously those that matter don't agree with you, yet again. ?

 

[rederob]

Funny that considering many say Snowy 2.0 isn't required, including one on here.

I am all for firming capacity as it's essential to energy transition.
I was never keen on the economics of Snowy2. It's too late, too expensive and overkill.
Dozens of smaller projects could have been funded and would now be available for dispatch.

The previous "pricing" policy was always going to be a disaster waiting for opportunity. And here we are!

What's even funnier is we now have AEMO as a player in the game - buying gas - rather than just the umpire making sure the game was fair.

 

[rederob]

Then you will have to move on to find yet another lost cause, as is being proven with Snowy 2.0, which you staunchly argued isn't required. Obviously those that matter don't agree with you, yet again. ?

Go back and read this thread.
I have said from the outset that storage capacity - CAPACITY - just to repeat myself, was needed with renewables in the mix. I have also said that we should have borrowed from other nations that required a storage component to be built alongside any approved renewables project.

I have been very critical of the former government's lack of policies that were essential to our energy transition, and which used "price" to determine what the market had to put in place.

Eastern Australia has dodged a few bullets in recent years, having La Niña weather patterns prevailing which did not overstretch summer electricity needs. Once we are back into El Nino weather patterns there is every chance heat records will be broken and we won't have Snowy2 saving us.

 

[Smurf1976]

The previous "pricing" policy was always going to be a disaster waiting for opportunity. And here we are!

What's even funnier is we now have AEMO as a player in the game - buying gas - rather than just the umpire making sure the game was fair.

Totally agree but I'll point out that the policy in question isn't confined to either side of politics.

As someone who's seen quite a bit and who's asked enough questions and read enough reports to fill in the blanks, the genesis of the current situation goes back a lot further than most seem to realise.

If I were to take it to the extreme then the earliest relevant decision I'm aware of was made in 1963 with a series of decisions over the next 45 years making today's situation inevitable. Politically, the list of shame is a long one indeed.

This has all been a very long time coming and could be compared to someone who's in poor health, obese and so on. It didn't happen overnight, the loss of fitness took years to occur with successive poor choices.

From there I'll simply point out that any effective fix at this point requires some pretty drastic measures. On that I think it's too early to judge the new government but I'll note that anyone would need to be pretty strong minded to withstand the political pain it'll come with.

 

[SirRumpole]

Totally agree but I'll point out that the policy in question isn't confined to either side of politics.

As someone who's seen quite a bit and who's asked enough questions and read enough reports to fill in the blanks, the genesis of the current situation goes back a lot further than most seem to realise.

If I were to take it to the extreme then the earliest relevant decision I'm aware of was made in 1963 with a series of decisions over the next 45 years making today's situation inevitable. Politically, the list of shame is a long one indeed.

This has all been a very long time coming and could be compared to someone who's in poor health, obese and so on. It didn't happen overnight, the loss of fitness took years to occur with successive poor choices.

From there I'll simply point out that any effective fix at this point requires some pretty drastic measures. On that I think it's too early to judge the new government but I'll note that anyone would need to be pretty strong minded to withstand the political pain it'll come with.

Would you like to detail the drastic measures required ?

 

[ghotib]

Interesting today I thought I heard mention of nuclear on the radio, I can't find mention of it in the media, does anyone have an update?

I heard Ted O'Brien, the new Shadow Minister for Energy and Climate Change, on the radio some tme last weekend arguing for small nuclear generators.

The Opposition position is discussed in this article from the website of the Australian Energy Council: https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/opposition-changes-tack-on-energy

 

[Smurf1976]

Would you like to detail the drastic measures required ?

The basic problem is that in the short term, we have:

No prospect of new deep storage plant being commissioned (the Snowy 2.0 delay).

Very little gas available, to the point that even maintaining historic levels of gas-fired generation is problematic.

The imminent exit of coal fired generation at Liddell (2023) and Eraring (2025).

Put all that together and it creates an energy, not just a peak power, problem during the winter months especially and before we're realistically going to have proper replacements actually built.

Batteries will address the peak power problem but they won't address the energy problem that arises during periods of low wind + solar yield.

Physically possible short term options:

Get more gas either by means of LNG imports, local production or redirection from exports in Qld.

Noting that reducing export beyond a fairly minor amount involves a breach of contract and resultant diplomatic fallout with China, Japan and/or South Korea so government won't likely be keen.

Delay the closure of coal plant. Stretching out Liddell would be technically problematic, it would be possible to keep it going through winter 2023 but that's basically it, but Eraring could certainly be extended several years if needed. Economically problematic but technically it's doable.

A much smaller option is Redbank. The plant's sitting idle but could be run. Only 151MW but it's not nothing.

The other option is to use oil-based fuels as an alternative to gas in existing and new plant. That's not about price, it's just a workaround to physical limits on gas availability noting that liquid fuels are logistically far easier to import and transport to the site. Only problem being that not all gas-fired stations are set up to use them but some are.

Any of the above will upset someone somewhere. Politically none are easy, they all get caught up in a combination of economics, environmental issues and politics. They are however all likely to be less unpopular than shivering in the dark....

Getting my crystal ball out, my expectation is very much of some "quiet" deals being done regarding the above with a minimum of public announcements. Plus some leaning on railways and the like to ensure that coal going to power stations is their top priority and gets delivered no matter what.

 

[Smurf1976]

Adding to the above, the issue with Snowy 2.0 delay being that the original commissioning schedule for the generating units was:

Two in operation for summer 2025-26

Four in operation for winter 2026

All six in operation for summer 2026-27 and beyond

Eraring closure nominally August 2025

Hence the link between the delay and a possible extended operation of Eraring.

 

[DB008]

Get more gas either by means of LNG imports, local production or redirection from exports in Qld.

Local production

WA has it right. 15% of extracted gas has to be distributed to the domestic market. This is in their legislation. QLD stuffed up by not doing the same with the 3 gas plants at Gladstone (APLNG, QCLNG, QGC)

https://www.wa.gov.au/government/publications/implementation-of-the-wa-domestic-gas-policy​

I worked at Wheatstone during construction Train 1, Train 2 and Dom Gas. Massive plants. I remember an engineer tell me that there is enough natural gas in Australia to run everything (cars, homes, businesses) for the next 100 years+++ Yet we have shafted ourselves. Australia should be energy independent.

 

[basilio]

The issue of why Australia allowed international energy companies to effectively appropriate our gas resources to sell overseas to make them a bucket load of money has been discussed at length. The shining light in this discussion was the decision by WA to ensure 15% of their gas resources were held for local consumption.

There is an excellent article on the ABC quoting the previous Liberal leaders of WA who brought in this policy. Well worth a read and raises the point of national interest in the mining of our resources vs the commercial interest of the mining companies.

'The gas belongs to us' say former Western Australian premiers despairing at energy crisis over east​

By energy reporter Daniel Mercer
Posted 56m ago56 minutes ago, updated 56m ago56 minutes ago

WA is one of the world's largest LNG producers yet still affords to quarantine 15 per cent for locals.(ABC News: Michael Franchi)
Help keep family & friends informed by sharing this article


For former Western Australian premier Colin Barnett the reaction at international meetings first came as something of a surprise.
But pretty soon he began to expect it.
After a while, he could even see the dark humour involved.

"During my travels as premier I had governments internationally — and I'm talking about national governments — just basically laughing … that Australia is crazy not preserving some of its gas," Mr Barnett said.

"They weren't laughing at me," he said of WA's quite singular Australian state policy of quarantining 15 per cent of gas for its own market.

Colin Barnett, who was WA premier from 2008 to 2017, says Australia is alone in its gas insecurity.(AAP: Richard Wainwright)
It is a stance that saw WA labelled hillbilly by the east coast press, and saw another WA premier labelled "a wrecker" by former Liberal minster Ian Macfarlane — now chief executive of the Queensland Resources Council — at energy forums.

'Stupid' gas policies led to energy crisis in eastern states, say former premiers

With WA's policy of quarantining 15 per cent of gas for its local market bearing fruit, former rivals and premiers Alan Carpenter and Colin Barnett say the east coast gas crisis was avoidable.

www.abc.net.au

 

[DB008]

'Stupid' gas policies led to energy crisis in eastern states, say former premiers​

For former Western Australian premier Colin Barnett the reaction at international meetings first came as something of a surprise.​

​

But pretty soon he began to expect it.​

​

After a while, he could even see the dark humour involved.​

​

"During my travels as premier I had governments internationally — and I'm talking about national governments — just basically laughing … that Australia is crazy not preserving some of its gas," Mr Barnett said.​

​

"They weren't laughing at me," he said of WA's quite singular Australian state policy of quarantining 15 per cent of gas for its own market.​

​

It is a stance that saw WA labelled hillbilly by the east coast press, and saw another WA premier labelled "a wrecker" by former Liberal minster Ian Macfarlane — now chief executive of the Queensland Resources Council — at energy forums.​

​

Mr Barnett, who served as a Liberal premier between 2008 and 2017, cast his mind back to the discussions with global leaders as debate raged this week about Australia's lack of gas security.​

​

He was joined by the architect of WA's domestic gas reservation policy, former Labor premier Alan Carpenter, in a display of political unity between the two former rivals.​

​

Amid warnings that spiralling gas prices on Australia's east coast could send some manufacturers broke and spur an outbreak of food price inflation, Mr Carpenter and Mr Barnett decried what they labelled the "stupid" decisions of successive governments.​

​

Companies 'don't own the gas'​

Under WA's policy, 15 per cent of gas reserves within the state's jurisdiction are quarantined for the local market where the fuel makes up more than half its energy needs, including about 40 per cent of its power generation.​

​

Mr Barnett said Mr Carpenter "quite correctly" formalised the policy to look after the interests of the people who ultimately owned the gas.​

​

"The gas doesn't belong to the companies," Mr Barnett said.​

​

"The gas belongs to Australian citizens through their governments.​

​

"The gas is not owned by the companies – that's the bottom line.​

​

"Some of them behave as though it is.​

​

"Australia has got every right to expect some of that gas to be preserved for the Australian economy."​

​

According to Mr Barnett, gas projects were often majority foreign-owned, including by sovereign governments and major gas users such as Japan and China.​

​

He said this often placed an inherent tension between the gas producers and Australia's interests because the companies wanted every molecule available for export.​

​

While supporting foreign investment in Australia's natural resources, he said the eastern states' experience showed what can happen when safeguards for domestic consumers were not built in.​

More on the link below...

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06...-former-western-australian-premiers/101143558


.​

 

[sptrawler]

"The gas doesn't belong to the companies," Mr Barnett said.

​

"The gas is not owned by the companies – that's the bottom line.

​

"Some of them behave as though it is.​

​

.​

Well some Australians agree with the companies, but that is usually the reason we end up in a mess anyway, way too much butt kissing and palm greasing goes on in Australia.

 

[Belli]

I know other areas of Australia are feeling, or will feel, the effect of price rises for electricity but I think it was lucky the Government in Canberra legislated in 2016 the objective of being 100% renewable. That was achieved back in 2020. It involved contracts with three solar farms, sourcing electricity from renewable generators, such as solar and wind, encouraging household solar instillations and batteries, preventing gas instillation in new suburbs and for infill developments. The proposal was not popular in some quarters due to the costs involved.

However, it seems it has paid dividends as it appears there will be a reduction in electricity prices in this jurisdiction.

As for me, it is darn cold here at the moment but I do have a ducted recycle system and I'm not afraid to use it! I actually leave it on overnight at it's lowest setting of 16C and in the morning it's 18C in the house even when it's effectively -4C or more outside. Cost is minimal as the data I have downloaded indicated the overnight consumption is in the order of 0.02 kWh @ $0.22c per kWh. Whether or not the provider has recorded that correctly I don't know but I assume with a smart meter it is. Double glazing and heavy block out blinds and curtains would assist as well.

 

[mullokintyre]

'Stupid' gas policies led to energy crisis in eastern states, say former premiers​

For former Western Australian premier Colin Barnett the reaction at international meetings first came as something of a surprise.​

​

But pretty soon he began to expect it.​

​

After a while, he could even see the dark humour involved.​

​

​

"They weren't laughing at me," he said of WA's quite singular Australian state policy of quarantining 15 per cent of gas for its own market.​

​

It is a stance that saw WA labelled hillbilly by the east coast press, and saw another WA premier labelled "a wrecker" by former Liberal minster Ian Macfarlane — now chief executive of the Queensland Resources Council — at energy forums.​

​

Mr Barnett, who served as a Liberal premier between 2008 and 2017, cast his mind back to the discussions with global leaders as debate raged this week about Australia's lack of gas security.​

​

He was joined by the architect of WA's domestic gas reservation policy, former Labor premier Alan Carpenter, in a display of political unity between the two former rivals.​

​

Amid warnings that spiralling gas prices on Australia's east coast could send some manufacturers broke and spur an outbreak of food price inflation, Mr Carpenter and Mr Barnett decried what they labelled the "stupid" decisions of successive governments.​

​

Companies 'don't own the gas'​

Under WA's policy, 15 per cent of gas reserves within the state's jurisdiction are quarantined for the local market where the fuel makes up more than half its energy needs, including about 40 per cent of its power generation.​

​

Mr Barnett said Mr Carpenter "quite correctly" formalised the policy to look after the interests of the people who ultimately owned the gas.​

​

"The gas doesn't belong to the companies," Mr Barnett said.​

​

​

"The gas is not owned by the companies – that's the bottom line.​

​

"Some of them behave as though it is.​

​

"Australia has got every right to expect some of that gas to be preserved for the Australian economy."​

​

According to Mr Barnett, gas projects were often majority foreign-owned, including by sovereign governments and major gas users such as Japan and China.​

​

He said this often placed an inherent tension between the gas producers and Australia's interests because the companies wanted every molecule available for export.​

​

While supporting foreign investment in Australia's natural resources, he said the eastern states' experience showed what can happen when safeguards for domestic consumers were not built in.​

More on the link below...

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06...-former-western-australian-premiers/101143558


.​

The ownership of resources and minerals is not arguable, its part of the constitution.
The question is , how much does the government contribute to the exploration and setting up of all the infrastructure required to extract the minerals and petroleum products.
There have been far more non productive wells spudded than have been gushers.
It seems governments are happy for private enterprise to do all the dirty work, and then wait for the royalties, and now insistence that some of the output be kept local.
The time frame for these projects can be years if not decades, so the entities may need some sort of assurance that the rules wont change half way thru.
Can see both sides of the argument have merit.
Mick

 

[sptrawler]

The ownership of resources and minerals is not arguable, its part of the constitution.
The question is , how much does the government contribute to the exploration and setting up of all the infrastructure required to extract the minerals and petroleum products.
There have been far more non productive wells spudded than have been gushers.
It seems governments are happy for private enterprise to do all the dirty work, and then wait for the royalties, and now insistence that some of the output be kept local.
The time frame for these projects can be years if not decades, so the entities may need some sort of assurance that the rules wont change half way thru.
Can see both sides of the argument have merit.
Mick

Absolutely that is why it has to be negotiated at stage where exploration, becomes agreement to extract the resource, as happened in W.A.
From memory Ireland had the same issue, a large oil field was discovered but agreement on royalties couldn't be reached Ireland told them to spud it and sod off.
One hopes the ICAC bodies in Australia, start and check what happened in Queensland, when all the export permits were issued.
Nothing like have more people on the train and no one checking tickets. Lol

 

[Smurf1976]

The time frame for these projects can be years if not decades, so the entities may need some sort of assurance that the rules wont change half way thru.
Can see both sides of the argument have merit.

An issue is the mentality of getting the gas out of the ground ASAP.

From a long term national interest perspective, the "correct" approach is often to simply say no, we're not going to develop that now at all in fact we're doing to leave it 30 years very intentionally because that's when we'll need it. That is, you have an exploration and production industry focused around supplying what the nation needs with the understanding that only if sufficient discoveries are made so as to bring about a genuine long term surplus will export be permitted.

Going back to the late 1970's - early 1980's quite a bit of work was done on all this with separate studies by multiple parties all reaching the same basic conclusion that long term supply was inadequate in the south-eastern states (NSW, Vic, SA, Tas collectively) and that future gas discoveries either within those states, or anywhere else in Australia, needed to be seen in that context.

The SA, Victorian and Tasmanian state governments all separately reached that conclusion. So did AGL. So did Esso who know rather a lot about the subject.

There was also another major study, CSIRO from memory but not certain on that point, which reached the same conclusion and proposed a pipeline from the WA gas fields to Moomba (far north-east of SA), thus connecting to the existing Moomba - Adelaide and Moomba - Sydney pipelines. That wasn't about poaching WA's 15% reserved gas but rather, it was about using the other 85% or at least a good portion of it to supply the future needs of Australia rather than exporting it. That study dates from the 1970's.

Esso circa late-1990's came up with an alternative variation on that plan, their idea being to source the gas from PNG with a pipeline from there to ultimately serve the same purpose. Notable given that Esso operates the Bass Strait fields so knew exactly where it was all heading in due course.

Then along came the technology to extract coal seam gas and the associated discovery of substantial reserves in Queensland. Against that backdrop, and bearing in mind that the Queensland fields are by far the closest source to Moomba indeed there's already a pipeline link from there to Queensland anyway, it's pure madness that this gas hasn't been kept and made available to supply Australian industry and homes indeed it isn't even available to industry in Brisbane.

The problem ultimately comes down to the "get rich quick" mentality of wanting to get the gas out of the ground ASAP rather than seeing it as a necessary feedstock for industry, homes etc and that having a good reserve inventory that'll take the next however long to use is exactly the situation that's desirable.

The real economic benefit comes from using the gas, not from simply extracting it and loading it onto ships.

 

[Smurf1976]

The real economic benefit comes from using the gas, not from simply extracting it and loading it onto ships.

To highlight that difference in how different groups will see it (not actual quotes from anyone but to illustrate):

Big industrial company wanting to build a factory etc: "We're making a huge investment in machinery etc that has a working life of at least 30 years and we need an assured supply of energy to underpin that".

Engineers assessing options for a new power station: "No point building a power station if there isn't going to be fuel available to run it with. Whatever option we go with, it has a long working lifespan and we need to ensure there's fuel available, economically, for that duration".

Gas company: "We don't make money having 50 years worth of gas sitting in the ground, we make money by selling it ASAP".

Therein lies a huge conflict.

To a big energy user or someone focused on maintaining supply well having an abundance of gas in reserve is exactly what you want. You don't commit to using what's not there since that represents an unnecessary risk.

Hence if we look at the historic power developments in Australia, they were all based on proper measurements of coal reserves, water resources (hydro) and so on. They didn't build Loy Yang without drilling a lot of holes in the ground to determine that there was in fact coal where they thought there was coal. Meanwhile the hydro developments were based on decades worth of river flow data in many cases and where that wasn't available proper estimates, itself a major piece of work, were done to ensure that the overall scheme was in fact based on a resource that really does exist. End result is the coal and hydro schemes worked as intended, they had available the expected resource over the life of the facility which is decades.

That a new mine was developed, at huge expense, for Loy Yang rather than using coal from the already in production Yallourn or Morwell mines was for precisely that reason. Whilst it would've worked initially, the coal available from those existing sources wasn't going to be sufficient for the life of the station and was needed for the remaining life of those already built.

A big problem with all this energy stuff is the different timescales involved when compared to most business.

When you're talking about projects taking 10+ years to build and then being in operation for half a century or more and which are based on decades worth of collected data, this really isn't something where short term thinking works.

As a case in point, it was 1918 when Victoria committed to power generation at Yallourn and it'll be 2028, so 110 years later, when it ends. That sort of thing just doesn't fit at all well within the model of anyone seeking to just dig the coal up for a quick $.

This is intended as comedy but sadly it's also factually correct and remains so today, 5 years after it was made: