The future of energy generation and storage

[rederob]

The only bit I disagree with is the references to "the last decade" which implies it's all the doing of the previous government.

Suffice to say the fundamental flaws in the market date back to the 1990's.

Isn't the point here that we knew what had to be done, that there were plans available to make it happen, but the imperative was price over practicality, so it was not done.
Your point is a bit like knowing your engine oil needed replacing over 10 years ago, but despite this knowledge nothing was done to replace it. That is, it could have been fixed but wasn't, so it blew up in our faces.
The tail needs to be pinned on the donkey once and for all.

 

[sptrawler]

Rather than use the current situation as a political stage, I read this article and thought it gave a great summary of the situation facing the East Coast, it is terrific that at last quality reporting is starting to be allowed on the issue IMO. A great article but quite long.

Where did all the power go? What caused the east coast energy crisis

A combination of forces has sent energy prices soaring. And now there’s talk of blackouts too. How did it come to this?

www.theage.com.au

The spike in gas prices has been variously described as “apocalyptic” and “a perfect storm”.

And now the market operator has been forced into a rare intervention to prevent winter blackouts by forcing energy producers to fire up. On June 15, it took the extraordinary step of taking control of the wholesale electricity market.

But Australia’s energy troubles didn’t come from nowhere.

A confluence of short-term and longer-term economic, geopolitical, political and even weather-related forces have sent prices soaring.

The consequences for households and businesses are now unavoidable.

Why have prices skyrocketed? And is there anything that can be done?

 

[SirRumpole]

And is there anything that can be done?

Sure there is and we have been saying it for a while.

Put a volumetric export tax on gas and coal and use the proceeds to either rebate consumers on their power bills (really that's just pi$$ing money up a wall) or incentivising consumers to go solar PV and hot water which will give a long term benefit.

 

[rederob]

Rather than use the current situation as a political stage,...

The article makes it clear that political decisions underpin this mess.
What version of history are you going with?

 

[sptrawler]

The article makes it clear that political decisions underpin this mess.
What version of history are you going with?

I'm going with the version that all sides of politics are as much to blame as each other, on a Federal and State level.
But on balance I think the issue with both electricity and gas is more of a State Governments stuff up, if it could be laid at the Feds feet 100%, then W.A would be in the same boat and they aren't.
The answer is becoming apparent and what I have been saying for a very long time, change the generation over to gas fired turbines and retire the coal generators, then continue to install renewables, batteries and pumped hydro until the gas turbines are no longer needed.
The renewables especially grid size storage has only been readily available over the past 5-7 years, even solar panels are constantly improving in design and efficiency, it was only 2009 that Australia's solar panel manufacturing in Sydney was closed down. So to say that grid compatible inverters panels and associated equipment was a viable alternative to replace fossil fuel 10 years ago, is just fanciful nonsense.
S.A led the charge hell for leather into the renewable sunset and if it wasn't for the fact it had backup from the other States it would have ended up in tears, they had the opportunity to take owner of North power station and have it as reserve generation until they settled their system configuration. They didn't and it very nearly caused them massive problems.
NSW has been offered Eraring power station, they have said no, so who is to blame for any resultant shortage problems when it closes.
The States should take the opportunity to take back the coal power stations and then work out a way to close it, as W.A is doing.

 

[rederob]

I'm going with the version that all sides of politics are as much to blame as each other, on a Federal and State level.

You think that a politician that has no role in making a decision is equally responsible!
Now I get where you are coming from.

 

[sptrawler]

You think that a politician that has no role in making a decision is equally responsible!
Now I get where you are coming from.

This has been in the making for a very, very long time and to name one politician or even one side of politics is immature and shows a complete lack of understanding, one politician hasn't caused the issue, one side of politics hasn't caused the issue.
The only thing that can be changed is where they go from here and I think it will be exactly where the last Federal Govt was heading, gas fired recovery.
Where and how they get the gas is a completely seperate issue, that can be solved, as is the case with most things.
The issue at the moment is the coal generators are being made to perform a function they aren't designed to perform, therefore there are two options, one let them operate as per design or two close them in an orderly manner.
With renewables it will take a fairly long time to reconfigure the system, install enough storage and build enough generation to completely remove at call fossil fueled generation.
So the problem is the private sector no longer want to be responsible for the maintenance, fuel costs and running of the coal fired stations, as they are no longer worth it.
So the options are bribe the coal generators to keep running them, take them over, or install enough gas turbines so that the worst performing coal stations can be closed.
It is either that, or have expensive and unreliable electricity, until renewables can sustain the system. This Fed Govt has got the same problems the last Fed Govt had, the issues haven't changed.
We are putting in renewables as fast as possible, while reconfiguring transmission networks and designing systems and technology to accept the penetration, in most ways we are a World first in a lot of this stuff and are having to work things out as it evolves, it isn't an off the shelf install.
People's lack of understanding and unrealistic expectations of time frames, are the problem.

Australia leads world as solar sets global generation record

A new report published by UK-based energy think tank Ember shows that solar was the world’s fastest-growing source of electricity generation in 2021. Australia leads the world in its uptake, with PV generating 12% of the nation’s electricity last year.

www.pv-magazine.com

Allocating and managing grid connection risk

Connecting clean energy projects to the grid is the greatest challenge facing renewable projects. Coupled with rising supply chain costs and project delays, projects are facing significant hurdles to closing and delivering deals. In this article, we look at whether parties can rely on contracts...

www.holdingredlich.com

"Pace is extraordinary:" Advanced inverters take centre stage in roadmap to 100pct renewables | RenewEconomy

Roadmap put together by CSIRO and AEMO focuses on advanced inverters and new control rooms amongst the many technical needs of a zero emissions grid.

reneweconomy.com.au

From the article:

“Pace is extraordinary:” Advanced inverters take centre stage in roadmap to 100pct renewables​

Giles Parkinson 25 March 2022 49

Victoria Big Battery. Image supplied
69
Shares
Share69
Tweet
Advanced inverter technologies have taken centre stage in a detailed roadmap put together by the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator that plots a path to a zero emissions grid and a 100 per cent renewable electricity supply.
“The pace and scale of this transition is extraordinary,” said AEMO’s head of operations Michael Gatt. “It demands new approaches to power system operations including tools, technologies, process and platforms, which complement network planning, and market and regulatory reforms.”
Chief among these are advanced inverters, also known as “grid forming inverters”, which have the potential to provide many, if not all, the grid services currently the province of spinning fossil fuel generators.

 

[rederob]

This has been in the making for a very, very long time and to name one politician or even one side of politics is immature and shows a complete lack of understanding, one politician hasn't caused the issue, one side of politics hasn't caused the issue.

Nobody doubts that decisions in the distant past affect our present energy system.
You simply refuse to acknowledge that from 2013 when Abbott got rid of the price on carbon there have been few decisions from the federal government - that's the one where the Coalition was in charge of energy policy - that were consistent within the NEM framework wrt securing the inevitable energy future, which was then and is now going to be dominated by renewables.
Labor has had no say in NEM and associated national energy policies for the past 10 years, and if you believe that it was impossible for the Coalition to have put something in place during that period then we are poles apart.
You only need to read the submissions to AEMO that screamed for decisions from government that would enable them to invest in building the necessary capacity. It went on year after year, and we got nothing. That history is publicly available to anyone who wants to go there.

 

[sptrawler]

Nobody doubts that decisions in the distant past affect our present energy system.
You simply refuse to acknowledge that from 2013 when Abbott got rid of the price on carbon there have been few decisions from the federal government - that's the one where the Coalition was in charge of energy policy - that were consistent within the NEM framework wrt securing the inevitable energy future, which was then and is now going to be dominated by renewables.

No the reality is with minimal Government interference, we have actually achieved a huge penetration of renewables, the grid from my understanding is being reconfigured to accept even more renewables and Snowy 2.0 and the second Tassie link is being put in to increase long duration storage. So to say they have done nothing borders on idiotic.

Just because the transition isn't happening as fast as you deem acceptable, doesn't mean that it isn't happening, as with all your posts on most subjects, you want to make them into a political center piece, rather than just an informed debate.
I have already said I don't think Labor will do any better than the coalition, it will be a transition that has to be handled in a methodical way, that isn't driven by ideology, but by practical application, current technology, system development and financial caution.
The carbon tax Australia's own little home goal, as was said at the time, global warming is a global issue individual countries running their own little tax system would never work. A carbon tax needs to be an agreed global tax, that everyone recognises and adopts, but that wouldn't suit our little ego driven attention seekers would it.

I also said earlier that the leading technology as recently as 2017, was molten salt storage, that now has been found to need a lot more development, enthusiastically chasing brain farts, does nothing but cloud good judgements.
Yet you are dwelling on Tony Abbott back in what 2013, what about Labor allowing the solar panel industry to close in 2009, like that was a winner.
They would have been making a killing in 2013, when Gov subsidies for home solar panels were introduced

With the current issue Bowen didn't jump in lip first and handballed the decision making to the AEMO, so at least they appear to be take a more measured approach.
It will be interesting to watch how it unfolds over the next couple of years, I notice Labor haven't mentioned cancelling Snowy 2.0 you know the one that you say isn't required because E.V's are going to carry the transition, also no mention about Kurri Kurri yet.

So other than rambling on that we haven't got enough renewables, because of the last Government, maybe you could adopt a more positive outlook, you will only make yourself unwell dwelling on history and the last Government.?

In summary:
If there was not a lot of renewables installed already in the system, the coal generators wouldn't be having the trouble they are at the moment.
So to say the last Gov did nothing to encourage renewables is just nonsense.
Could they have done more, possibly, could the situation be more dire if they had? Also quite possible.
Will the new Govt do any better? Time will tell.

 

[rederob]

No the reality is with minimal Government interference, we have actually achieved a huge penetration of renewables, the grid from my understanding is being reconfigured to accept even more renewables and Snowy 2.0 and the second Tassie link is being put in to increase long duration storage. So to say they have done nothing borders on idiotic.

Just because the transition isn't happening as fast as you deem acceptable, doesn't mean that it isn't happening, as with all your posts on most subjects, you want to make them into a political center piece, rather than just an informed debate.
I have already said I don't think Labor will do any better than the coalition, it will be a transition that has to be handled in a methodical way, that isn't driven by ideology, but by practical application, current technology, system development and financial caution.
The carbon tax Australia's own little home goal, as was said at the time, global warming is a global issue individual countries running their own little tax system would never work. A carbon tax needs to be an agreed global tax, that everyone recognises and adopts, but that wouldn't suit our little ego driven attention seekers would it.

I also said earlier that the leading technology as recently as 2017, was molten salt storage, that now has been found to need a lot more development, enthusiastically chasing brain farts, does nothing but cloud good judgements.
Yet you are dwelling on Tony Abbott back in what 2013, what about Labor allowing the solar panel industry to close in 2009, like that was a winner.
They would have been making a killing in 2013, when Gov subsidies for home solar panels were introduced

With the current issue Bowen didn't jump in lip first and handballed the decision making to the AEMO, so at least they appear to be take a more measured approach.
It will be interesting to watch how it unfolds over the next couple of years, I notice Labor haven't mentioned cancelling Snowy 2.0 you know the one that you say isn't required because E.V's are going to carry the transition, also no mention about Kurri Kurri yet.

So other than rambling on that we haven't got enough renewables, because of the last Government, maybe you could adopt a more positive outlook, you will only make yourself unwell dwelling on history and the last Government.?

In summary:
If there was not a lot of renewables installed already in the system, the coal generators wouldn't be having the trouble they are at the moment.
So to say the last Gov did nothing to encourage renewables is just nonsense.
Could they have done more, possibly, could the situation be more dire if they had? Also quite possible.
Will the new Govt do any better? Time will tell.

You have conveniently sidestepped the fact that for the past 10 years nothing was done to move us into a renewable future except for Turnbull's white elephant.

It's irrelevant what was done with minimal interference, as you put it, because what had to be done by the Coalition never was!

Your references to State actions is not relevant to the NEM or national energy policy. That's why we are here today.

You don't get it do you? When industry wanted to do what was needed, they want some certainty they would not be left with stranded assets, or at least assets that could not be amortised within transitional timeframes. They wanted to build, but wanted to know their commercial risk was going to be covered. As I said, read what went on.

 

[sptrawler]

You have conveniently sidestepped the fact that for the past 10 years nothing was done to move us into a renewable future except for Turnbull's white elephant.

It's irrelevant what was done with minimal interference, as you put it, because what had to be done by the Coalition never was!

Your references to State actions is not relevant to the NEM or national energy policy. That's why we are here today.

You don't get it do you? When industry wanted to do what was needed, they want some certainty they would not be left with stranded assets, or at least assets that could not be amortised within transitional timeframes. They wanted to build, but wanted to know their commercial risk was going to be covered. As I said, read what went on.

You see the issue from an administration, policy and political perspective, I look at it from a practical, technical and hands on background, this is due to our different careers.
You aren't impressed because a policy and money wasn't thrown at it.
I am impressed by how much has been done, considering the technical, practical and logistical constraints.

We just see it differently, you think more could have been done, I think it is amazing in such a short period of time, how much has been done.

You obviously worked in Government administration.
I always worked in power generation, from 15 to 55, from apprentice, technician,, construction, project management in power station and HV transmission construction and thermal generation operations .

So we are just looking at it from a different perspective, same with E.V's, you think incentives should be focused on making them cheaper, I think the money should be spent on charging infrastructure.
There isn't a right and wrong, just a different perspective on the issue.

What I'm looking forward to is the acceleration that happens with Govt intervention, which obviously Labor are going to do.
It will be interesting to see if more haste makes less speed.
No matter how much money you throw at projects, there are constraints outside of your control, that affect the timeframe and cost.
It will be an interesting journey, I hope the white elephant is there to save the day.

My guess is gas will save the day, in the transition to renewables, as I said a long time ago.
I'm just grateful that the media doesn't live in W.A, or we would have the same mess as is happening over East.

 

[sptrawler]

It's irrelevant what was done with minimal interference, as you put it, because what had to be done by the Coalition never was!

That is a succinct point, who pays for the dead space between renewables being able to deliver and fossil fuel stopped?
We are fast approaching that point and if Labor run true to form, the taxpayer will pay and pay heaps, as with the NBN.

The telecommunications companies got a taxpayer funded optical upgrade, so they could charge twice as much for an internet connection, the media were happy because now it is live and FREE, with the new taxpayer funded NBN it will be live and cost you very soon.
Yep another brain fart.
IMO the best option for a bumpless transition, is the States buy back the coal power stations and let the private operators sort out the transition, but regulate the gas as being a transition fuel.
Otherwise IMO it will all turn to manure, especially if you let the loony tunes decide, the coal generators will screw the last drop of profit with no reliability and the grid will be in chaos.
Then it will be the NBN answer, who gives a $hit I don't care the cost, just do it.

And to clarify the cost issue, what did the NBN cost in the end $80b, to run a gas pipe from Karratha to Moomba gas field would cost about $7b apparently, what did we spend on jobseeker and jobkeeper? Just to put a perspective on things.?
Just googled it jobkeeper easy it cost $10b, when I changed it to jobseeker it is difficult to get a cost, surprise, surprise.

 

[sptrawler]

It sounds to me that Labor are going to get what they wished for. It's great when a plan falls into place.

BHP retains Mt Arthur coal mine, plans earlier closure as buyers walk

The move ups the pressure on the NSW and federal governments reeling from the east coast energy crisis because environment groups don’t want coal and gas projects extended.

www.afr.com

​

 

[Smurf1976]

Your point is a bit like knowing your engine oil needed replacing over 10 years ago, but despite this knowledge nothing was done to replace it. That is, it could have been fixed but wasn't, so it blew up in our faces.
The tail needs to be pinned on the donkey once and for all.

Whilst true, it would be pure politics to blame only the recent Coalition government given the problem with the NEM design goes right back to the start and was noted at least as early as 1993 that I'm aware of.

Both sides have failed miserably with this just as they've failed with housing or manufacturing as other examples.

In more recent times we've had Morrison handing around glazed lumps of coal and we had Gillard's government thinking the aim was to close coal-fired stations in Victoria and replace them with gas-fired CCGT.

Both sides are problematic but that said, credit where it's due. Albanese thus far looks to be the best PM we've had, at least on this issue, in a very long time.

 

[Smurf1976]

2013 when Abbott got rid of the price on carbon there have been few decisions from the federal government - that's the one where the Coalition was in charge of energy policy - that were consistent within the NEM framework wrt securing the inevitable energy future, which was then and is now going to be dominated by renewables.
Labor has had no say in NEM and associated national energy policies for the past 10 years

Politics versus action.

9 years is more than enough to put policies in place yes.

It's not enough time to do the real work of implementation however unless a "crash through" approach is adopted.

A lot depends on perspective.

A politician will see that legislation passing through both houses of parliament means the work is now done.

An engineer or project manager will see the same action as meaning the work can now commence.

A tradie or other construction worker will see the same action as meaning there's some work going to be starting a couple of years from now.

All are correct from their own perspective.

Key point being it's many years from something going through parliament to it becoming physical reality on the ground. Whatever Albanese gets done, he almost certainly won't be PM by the time it's physical reality.

As I've said to many, time's running short in terms of the closure of existing generating capacity.

It's too late now to consider nuclear as a replacement for all but the last coal plants to close.

For some it's too late now to consider coal as a replacement even if we wanted to do it.

It's too late to consider 100% renewable as a replacement unless a "crash through" approach is adopted to pumped hydro and transmission projects.

Hence why we've got Andrew Forrest, Origin Energy, Santos, Alinta, Viva Energy, Vopak, Energy Australia, APA Group, Venice Energy and others all lining up to collectively spend $ billions on gas. They know full well that the politicians, of any political persuasion, are highly unlikely to move quickly enough to remove the need for it.

Personally well if it were up to me then I wouldn't be building gas no. But then I'm not a politician, I don't have to play the game to win an election and I'd probably upset a few people by doing things without spending years doing community consultations and so on.

 

[Smurf1976]

What I'm looking forward to is the acceleration that happens with Govt intervention, which obviously Labor are going to do.
It will be interesting to see if more haste makes less speed.
No matter how much money you throw at projects, there are constraints outside of your control, that affect the timeframe and cost.

As I'm sure you're aware:

The slowest way to get a project built is to follow every rule and build a high quality project done cheaply.

At the other extreme there's a hard limit below which you cannot go.

In the middle are varying degrees of budgets blown to pieces and procedures shortcut.

 

[rederob]

Politics versus action.
9 years is more than enough to put policies in place yes.
It's not enough time to do the real work of implementation however unless a "crash through" approach is adopted.
A lot depends on perspective.

So here is some of the perspective:
When industry and States were dissatisfied with the federal response to their growing concerns, and the South Australian "blackout", an extraordinary meeting was convened in October 2016 by Coalition of Australian Governments (COAG) Energy Ministers. They agreed to an independent review of the national electricity market, and it was Chaired by Professor Alan Finkel.
Finkel presented his Blueprint for the Future Security of the National Electricity Marketin June 2017.
Finkel set out the energy future and made this assessment:

"Australia needs to increase system security and ensure future reliability in the NEM. Security and reliability have been compromised by poorly integrated variable renewable electricity generators, including wind and solar. This has coincided with the unplanned withdrawal of older coal and gas-fired generators. Security should be strengthened through Security Obligations for new generators, including regionally determined minimum system inertia levels. Similarly, reliability should be reinforced through a Generator Reliability Obligation implemented by the Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) and the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) following improved regional reliability assessments. These obligations will require new generators to ensure that they can supply electricity when needed for the duration and capacity determined for each NEM region.​

​

The reliability of Australia’s future electricity system will be underpinned by an orderly transition that integrates energy and emissions reduction policy. All governments need to agree to an emissions reduction trajectory to give the electricity sector clarity about how we will meet our international commitments. This requires a credible and durable mechanism for driving clean energy investments to support a reliable electricity supply. Governments need to agree on and implement a mechanism as soon as possible. Ongoing uncertainty is undermining investor confidence, which in turn undermines the reliable supply of electricity and increases costs to consumers."​

You don't have to be Einstein to work out that little of his blueprint came to fruition, just as Finkel's plans for a hydrogen future were put on a go slow process.

You see the issue from an administration, policy and political perspective, I look at it from a practical, technical and hands on background, this is due to our different careers.
You aren't impressed because a policy and money wasn't thrown at it.

Without a policy that supports what should happen, it won't!
"Nothing" in this case is the practical outcome.
You can talk about anything extraneous you like, but there is a very simple bottom line. The levers that needed to be pulled when we were given a Blueprint for action, were not.
Industry had the money necessary to move us into our energy future, so the government did not have to "throw" any, as you suggest. I can only repeat that all this is a matter of public record.

Either you don't understand some of my points or you don't read what I write. On EVs for example I have consistently said that incentives are not well targeted, and made many suggestions about how less well off people could to buy them. In fact I even suggested that incentives could be applied to vehicles at such low price points that none presently sit there. I understand the need for better EV infrastructure is a concern but both federal and State governments have already committed monies. That's apart from the rollout being actively pursued by the private sector. This is another case of to little too late for early adopters, and no practical policy nor adequate funding for "blackspots".

I am clearly critical of the Coalition, but my posts often explain why and have an alternative to inaction or poor policy. As @Smurf1976 notes, Labor so far seems to be making the right moves. However, we might need to buy a very expensive band aid and hope it lasts long enough to see us into the inevitable transition to a renewables future with appropriate dispatchable storage backup (which I hope by 2030 will be hydrogen).

 

[sptrawler]

So here is some of the perspective:
When industry and States were dissatisfied with the federal response to their growing concerns, and the South Australian "blackout", an extraordinary meeting was convened in October 2016 by Coalition of Australian Governments (COAG) Energy Ministers. They agreed to an independent review of the national electricity market, and it was Chaired by Professor Alan Finkel.
Finkel presented his Blueprint for the Future Security of the National Electricity Marketin June 2017.
Finkel set out the energy future and made this assessment:

"Australia needs to increase system security and ensure future reliability in the NEM. Security and reliability have been compromised by poorly integrated variable renewable electricity generators, including wind and solar. This has coincided with the unplanned withdrawal of older coal and gas-fired generators. Security should be strengthened through Security Obligations for new generators, including regionally determined minimum system inertia levels. Similarly, reliability should be reinforced through a Generator Reliability Obligation implemented by the Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) and the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) following improved regional reliability assessments. These obligations will require new generators to ensure that they can supply electricity when needed for the duration and capacity determined for each NEM region.​

​

The reliability of Australia’s future electricity system will be underpinned by an orderly transition that integrates energy and emissions reduction policy. All governments need to agree to an emissions reduction trajectory to give the electricity sector clarity about how we will meet our international commitments. This requires a credible and durable mechanism for driving clean energy investments to support a reliable electricity supply. Governments need to agree on and implement a mechanism as soon as possible. Ongoing uncertainty is undermining investor confidence, which in turn undermines the reliable supply of electricity and increases costs to consumers."​

You don't have to be Einstein to work out that little of his blueprint came to fruition, just as Finkel's plans for a hydrogen future were put on a go slow process.


Without a policy that supports what should happen, it won't!
"Nothing" in this case is the practical outcome.
You can talk about anything extraneous you like, but there is a very simple bottom line. The levers that needed to be pulled when we were given a Blueprint for action, were not.
Industry had the money necessary to move us into our energy future, so the government did not have to "throw" any, as you suggest. I can only repeat that all this is a matter of public record.

Either you don't understand some of my points or you don't read what I write. On EVs for example I have consistently said that incentives are not well targeted, and made many suggestions about how less well off people could to buy them. In fact I even suggested that incentives could be applied to vehicles at such low price points that none presently sit there. I understand the need for better EV infrastructure is a concern but both federal and State governments have already committed monies. That's apart from the rollout being actively pursued by the private sector. This is another case of to little too late for early adopters, and no practical policy nor adequate funding for "blackspots".

I am clearly critical of the Coalition, but my posts often explain why and have an alternative to inaction or poor policy. As @Smurf1976 notes, Labor so far seems to be making the right moves. However, we might need to buy a very expensive band aid and hope it lasts long enough to see us into the inevitable transition to a renewables future with appropriate dispatchable storage backup (which I hope by 2030 will be hydrogen).

Well the new Government were fully aware of the issues and they have committed to a larger reduction in 2030, so by your reasoning they should have a policy and the answers ready to roll.
This last week didn't inspire me with any confidence that they had the answers, or they would have rolled them out, it was the perfect opportunity, wouldn't you say.
Let's be honest, you appear to have the answers, so they should also have them ready to go.
I guess the carbon tax we are so badly lacking will be first cab off the rank, I mean that is already written up and by what you said earlier should never have been thrown out.
By the way nice last line caveat on your post, just in case they blow up.
However, we might need to buy a very expensive band aid and hope it lasts long enough to see us into the inevitable transition to a renewables future

 

[rederob]

Well the new Government were fully aware of the issues and they have committed to a larger reduction in 2030, so by your reasoning they should have a policy and the answers ready to roll.

Labor laid out their policy and have made clear statements about the mess we are in which they had no say in for the past 9 years.

This last week didn't inspire me with any confidence that they had the answers, or they would have rolled them out, it was the perfect opportunity, wouldn't you say.

Read the ISP - it's all mapped out there and it's the best industry has come with given Morrison's mob did sfa.

Let's be honest, you appear to have the answers, so they should also have them ready to go.

I think you need to read what I wrote earlier about the ISP being available as a roadmap, and stop you personal point scoring attempts that I don't buy into.

I guess the carbon tax we are so badly lacking will be first cab off the rank, I mean that is already written up and by what you said earlier should never have been thrown out.

A price on carbon has been internationally agreed as the most effective means of moving away from fossil fuels and re-applying those monies towards transition.

By the way nice last line caveat on your post, just in case they blow up.
However, we might need to buy a very expensive band aid and hope it lasts long enough to see us into the inevitable transition to a renewables future

It's the price we - collectively - have to pay when governments put ideology before a plan to prevent a problem from rearing its ugly head.
Anyone following this issue saw it coming before the extraordinary COAG meeting in 2016, and knew it could not be avoided when Finkel's Blueprint was paid lip service.

 

[sptrawler]

Joint press conference at Parliament House with the Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Minister for Climate Change and Energy Chris Bowen | Ministers for the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources

Press conference discusses energy, climate change, Nationally Determined Contribution, National Cabinet meeting, healthcare funding, National Energy Market and renewables.

www.minister.industry.gov.au

It is funny that you go on and on about the last 10 years, then post up as proof a roadmap written in June 2017, which is 5 years ago.

I'll watch from afar and make no further comment on the issue, there you go.