The future of energy generation and storage

[SirRumpole]

So what if the 5GW base load was supplied by nuclear, the variable component supplied by renewables + batteries and the upper 4GW supplied by hydro? That would be 100% emission free generation.

Meanwhile if in the future if new technology permits renewables to replace the nuclear, you close the nuclear down, doesn't seem like too much of a stretch of the imagination.
All the technologies are currently available, to become emission free, if that is the end game.

What if a large part of the baseload could be supplied by renewables in certain conditions ?

This is the problem isn't it? The most expensive energy(nuclear) is being used when the cheapest would suffice.

That's why the inflexibility of nuclear becomes a problem in a system that aims to provide the cheapest energy.

At least, that's the way I understand it.

Meanwhile if in the future if new technology permits renewables to replace the nuclear, you close the nuclear down, doesn't seem like too much of a stretch of the imagination.

That's one very large investment to write off. You may as well use coal instead.

 

[qldfrog]

What if a large part of the baseload could be supplied by renewables in certain conditions ?

This is the problem isn't it? The most expensive energy(nuclear) is being used when the cheapest would suffice.

That's why the inflexibility of nuclear becomes a problem in a system that aims to provide the cheapest energy.

At least, that's the way I understand it.

Meanwhile if in the future if new technology permits renewables to replace the nuclear, you close the nuclear down, doesn't seem like too much of a stretch of the imagination.

That's one very large investment to write off. You may as well use coal instead.

And do not forget fusion, not there yet but not as far fetched as 20y ago, there are now dozen of experimental reactors..this might popup anytime, so do we still buy lithium batteries and 15y lifetime solar panels
for nuclear noone mentioning thorium reactor, would that put the Green at ease?

 

[sptrawler]

What if a large part of the baseload could be supplied by renewables in certain conditions ?

That is the problem, it can't, because it is intermittent, as you said "in certain conditions", it can do that already, as long as people can accept that in certain conditions it can't.

What the loonies have got to get their head around, is energy density, but that is beyond normal coversations.

We can still manage with just horses as transport, we just have to realise that life will be different, if people can accept that fine go back to horses no more vehicle pollution.

Like I keep saying if it's about getting rid of coal and that is the main issue, it isn't a problem just use gas.

If it's about emissions, well using gas through a turbine to make electricity and still give off emissions, well that is a waste.
When it can be done emission free with a hugely powerful clean source.

The down side with the clean source is it has some nasty side issues, but so does using gas, gas keeps the warming issue going, nuclear has waste to be dealt with.

As long as you keep the nuclear to a minimum, you keep the waste to a minimum and it isn't causing the global warming.

Money really doesn't come into it, who gives a $hit really, just look at the house prices.
If people have a choice between being cooked alive due to emissions, or spending more on clean energy and living, my guess is they will say "why the flck didn't we spend the money".

IMO at the moment base load is a no brainer for nuclear, I'm not convinced it is the best way forward for the variable load, renewables and batteries IMO would make a lot more sense and topping up for the poor renewable generation periods hydro seems like the best idea.

 

[sptrawler]

And do not forget fusion, not there yet but not as far fetched as 20y ago, there are now dozen of experimental reactors..this might popup anytime, so do we still buy lithium batteries and 15y lifetime solar panels
for nuclear noone mentioning thorium reactor, would that put the Green at ease?

Absolutely.
Obviously 20MW wind turbines aren't that far away, that would be a game changer 5 x 20MW wind turbines is some serious grunt, compared to 20 x 5MW wind turbines.

Everything changes, 30 years ago the internet was trash, now look at it, 10 years ago solar and batteries were crap, now look at it.

I'm sure in 100years time there wont be fission nuclear and there wont be huge solar farms and massive battery banks, but at the moment we need to have a sensible approach without the politics and the emotion.

 

[qldfrog]

That is the problem, it can't, because it is intermittent, as you said "in certain conditions", it can do that already, as long as people can accept that in certain conditions it can't.

What the loonies have got to get their head around, is energy density, but that is beyond normal coversations.

We can still manage with just horses as transport, we just have to realise that life will be different, if people can accept that fine go back to horses no more vehicle pollution.

Like I keep saying if it's about getting rid of coal and that is the main issue, it isn't a problem just use gas, if it's about emissions well using gas through a turbine to make electricity and still give off emissions, well that is a waste. When it can be done emission free with a hugely powerful clean source.

The down side with the clean source is it has some nasty side issues, but so does using gas, gas keeps the warming issue going, nuclear has waste to be dealt with.

As long as you keep the nuclear to a minimum, you keep the waste to a minimum and it isn't causing the global warming.

Money really doesn't come into it, who gives a $hit really, just look at the house prices.
If people have a choice between being cooked alive due to emissions, or spending more on clean energy and living, my guess is they will say "why the flck didn't we spend the money".

I bet the reaction will be:
we are paying 3 times as much for power than anywhere else, can not afford running AC and are cooking, we are 100% co2 neutral but it did not change a thing as the Chineses/indians did nothing anyway,
(And maybe even once science is back: it is now proven CC was not due to co2)
But even if i am wrong on the later, everything else is true:
the scenario remains
So our grandchildren will be:
Who where these ******* Millennials?
We have blackouts daily, we can not afford power so are boiling
And we are too broke to build the new "free power" fusion plants ...
The fun..

 

[sptrawler]

I bet the reaction will be:
we are paying 3 times as much for power than anywhere else, can not afford running AC and are cooking, we are 100% co2 neutral but it did not change a thing as the Chineses/indians did nothing anyway,
(And maybe even once science is back: it is now proven CC was not due to co2)
But even if i am wrong on the later, everything else is true:
the scenario remains
So our grandchildren will be:
Who where these ******* Millennials?
We have blackouts daily, we can not afford power so are boiling
And we are too broke to build the new "free power" fusion plants ...
The fun..

I think the general public is onto this it isn't rocket science, it is only the tribalism that is keeping the debate going, after the next election there will be a lot of changes of position in politics IMO.

Many of the old guard will move out to pasture and a new paradigm will form IMO.

The younger generation aren't as accepting of being told what is right and what is wrong, as is being seen by the mainstream media, they are more informed through social media and less inclined to believe what their elders are telling them.

As Bob would say "Times are a changing".
One verse resonates and it was the last real period of social change.

Come mothers and fathers throughout the land
And don't criticize what you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command
Your old road is rapidly aging
Please get out of the new one if you can't lend your hand
'Cause the times, they are a-changin'

 

[SirRumpole]

I think the general public is onto this it isn't rocket science, it is only the tribalism that is keeping the debate going, after the next election there will be a lot of changes of position in politics IMO.

Many of the old guard will move out to pasture and a new paradigm will form IMO.

The younger generation aren't as accepting of being told what is right and what is wrong, as is being seen by the mainstream media, they are more informed through social media and less inclined to believe what their elders are telling them.

As Bob would say "Times are a changing".
One verse resonates and it was the last real period of social change.

Come mothers and fathers throughout the land
And don't criticize what you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command
Your old road is rapidly aging
Please get out of the new one if you can't lend your hand
'Cause the times, they are a-changin'

The times may be changing, but maths, physics and economics don't, usually.

 

[sptrawler]

The times may be changing, but maths, physics and economics don't, usually.

Exactly, if the conversation can keep to those basic principles we can't go wrong and also we wouldn't have had to write off $30billion recently on the NBN, which the telco's were meant to contribute to.

That was last emotional brain fart, by the way I do think I mentioned way back when, that this would likely happen even before Musk and Starlink.
If you remember Rumpy.

Inside the bloody political war that led to a $31b NBN blowout

The NBN has cost a lot more public money than Labor promised back in 2009 but the Coalition’s meddling was largely to blame for a decade of misguided spending.

www.afr.com

The oldest son contacted Telstra for the NBN, he has got Starlink and is happy.

Telstra Signs Deal With Elon Musk's Starlink | Canstar Blue

Telstra has announced it will partner with Elon Musk's Starlink to offer satellite internet plans in rural Australia. How will this service compare to NBN?

www.canstarblue.com.au

We just have to look at the big picture and move on from blind faith, fortunately the kids are.

 

[sptrawler]

It isn't about nuclear, it isn't about gas, it isn't about renewables, it isn't about cost.

It's about what we can do to achieve a sensible outcome that delivers clean electrical generation, with the least amount of social and economical disruption and with economical disruption I mean loss of industries.
If we stuff this up, we are toast, I've said that a lot of times and it still is true.
This is make or break for Australia IMO.
Also I hope Labor get in next election, because, it is far better to have a short and sharp shock, than a protracted one and after 3 more years the answers will be obvious.
Whereas if they don't get in, the question will always be, what if.

Just my take on it.

 

[SirRumpole]

It isn't about nuclear, it isn't about gas, it isn't about renewables, it isn't about cost.

It's about what we can do to achieve a sensible outcome that delivers clean electrical generation, with the least amount of social and economical disruption and with economical disruption I mean loss of industries.
If we stuff this up, we are toast, I've said that a lot of times and it still is true.
This is make or break for Australia IMO.
Also I hope Labor get in next election, because, it is far better to have a short and sharp shock, than a protracted one and after 3 more years the answers will be obvious.
Whereas if they don't get in, the question will always be, what if.

Just my take on it.

So as an insider , what is your ideal system?

 

[sptrawler]

So as an insider , what is your ideal system?

Well I will get bagged whatever I say and I'm only talking from my personal experience, which is mainly from a generation point of view.
I was never involved in the power system control, which is a completely seperate field of expertise and @Smurf1976 is your man for that.

But just from a generation perspective I would look at the overall situation and what we are trying to achieve and talking about the Eastern States (W.A has a completely different problem and the W.A Govt has just signed up gas for 50 years).

To me the issue is trying to stop burning fossil fuels, which is causing global warming apparently, so we have to work with what technology is available to us right now, not what might be available in 20 years.

So at the moment I would be working toward using nuclear to cover base load, that is load that isn't going to change, therefore the steam plant could run flat chat 24/7

The variable load I would be looking at covering with renewables and batteries, spread over the Eastern States, so that there is minimal chance of having no generation anywhere, remembering the base load nuclear generators are supplying inertia.

I would be putting in hydro storage for the peak periods, due to their reliability and longevity, but you wouldn't want to use them 24/7 due to the uncertainty of storage renewal. (As Tassie found out a few years ago).

I'm sure down the track technology will change and nuclear will become redundant, it has to because it is a finite source also.

This is what people have to get their head around, this isn't a 10 year thing or a 20 year thing, or a 50 year thing, if humans are to survive we have to stop using $hit and become a recycling, renewable species, otherwise we will run out of $hit to use.
Sooner or later.

That is the problem with gas, it is a terrific fuel, probably the best and most versatile we have, yet we can't wait to use it, that is just dumb.
Gas should be the last choice, not the first choice ATM, when it's gone it's gone and we don't have anything better at the moment to replace it.

So in a nutshell, put in nuclear to cover 24/7 base load and keep putting in renewables and subsidies batteries and hydro to soak up excess generation, then on sell the excess storage power to industry to support their growth.

Eventually renewables will be in a position to displace the nuclear, much the same as eventually satellite internet will replace the NBN IMO.

Some will say, "I'm a dumb ar$e because we will need to burn gas and even 4 nuclear units for 5GW will require 10-15 years of gas burning and that's true, but if it is found in 10 years time that we need 4-5GW of nuclear, that will be 20-35 years of gas burning.

So there really isn't an easy answer, it will be a case of being careful to make the correct choice IMO and politics really shouldn't be in the decision, it really is a nation building issue, not an ego trip.

 

[SirRumpole]

Government approves HumeLink transmission project connecting Snowy Hydro 2.0 to grid​

Government approves transmission project linking Snowy Hydro 2.0 to grid

A major transmission project that will connect Snowy Hydro 2.0 to the energy grid has received final government approval, taking the total cost of the pumped hydro scheme to almost $17 billion.

www.abc.net.au

 

[qldfrog]

Government approves HumeLink transmission project connecting Snowy Hydro 2.0 to grid​

Government approves transmission project linking Snowy Hydro 2.0 to grid

A major transmission project that will connect Snowy Hydro 2.0 to the energy grid has received final government approval, taking the total cost of the pumped hydro scheme to almost $17 billion.

www.abc.net.au

No real choice here, better be able to connect it if /when built
Thankfully there was no sacred site or rare golden salamander on the location .
It is expensive as is anything Australia built but at least a useful functionally, safe from cyclone , should age well , and could still be useful in 100y.Thanks Costello?
Forgot to mention but however we throw billions in this, still a bargain vs lithium batteries !

 

[SirRumpole]

To me the issue is trying to stop burning fossil fuels, which is causing global warming apparently, so we have to work with what technology is available to us right now, not what might be available in 20 years.

Yes, but the power industry is 25% of GHG emissions, and there seems to be no strategy to reduce the output from other sources like agriculture, mining, transport and forestry which needs to be addressed.

 

[qldfrog]

Yes, but the power industry is 25% of GHG emissions, and there seems to be no strategy to reduce the output from other sources like agriculture, mining, transport and forestry which needs to be addressed.

Does it? Do we really need to go back to the stone age on fake sciences?
That co2 creating CC is at the same level as tobacco is healthy claims in the 50s, or margarine is better than butter pushed in the 1980s.. science for a lobby....
FFS, we are still using non electrified diesel trains all over Australia.and people are now suggesting lithium battery trains
Just making a modern efficient economy, infrastructure , insulated proper houses with light coloured roof, could at least reduce waste and pollution.
Regardless what i or anyone say, we are heading into a wall of ultra expensive 10 to 15y life expectancy degrading assets ensuring us a never ending dependency on new OS masters and ongoing poverty
Please let's not spread that plague much further and limit the damages to the grid..
Better poor but fed than poor and starved as this is where this is going.

 

[Smurf1976]

What i mean is that, in Australia, we have reached the point where our peak demand is AC and TV/oven at family dinner, not factory shift changes at 8AM or 2PM
You have better figures than me mr @Smurf1976 but in most if not all of the rest of the civilised/developed world, there is a huge industrial usage, ongoing, regular often 24/7, smoothing demand.
Our current power price forbids us from any sizable industrial development and our grid is balanced toward suburban family usage.
What is the link with the debate?

Looking at the economics of all this, some very important relationships exist.

Residential has a rather costly load profile due to the evening peak that you mention. Consumption is highly concentrated and not only that, it's concentrated at a time of day that solar isn't much help with and wind often isn't either.

General business is somewhat better since, apart from restaurants etc, it mostly operates either entirely outside the peak (eg anything "9 to 5") or it runs during the peak but also runs during the off-peak (anything open long hours eg supermarkets, petrol stations).

What really helps though is off-peak loads and this is so for a number of reasons.

Take off-peak water heating for example. What's the effect of having it as an electrical load versus not having it (eg using gas water heating instead)? Well there's two things it does and one it doesn't, all of which are beneficial.

1. It raises minimum load on the system, thus enabling the addition of more generating plant that is continuously fully utilised. With the key benefit that means more low cost plant running throughout the day, it effectively transfers some of the intermediate and peak load to base load plant due to that raising of minimum load enabling its economic construction and operation.

2. More electricity sold, so fixed costs are spread over a greater volume = lower cost per unit sold.

3. Adds nothing at all to peak demand, it doesn't require any additional capacity at all. It's just making more use of existing capacity, and enabling a shift from peaking plant to lower cost means of generation.

Eg if we take a system with a peak load of 3500MW, average load of 1500MW and minimum of 900MW then with that arrangement high capital cost, low running cost plant can generate 60% of total supply, meaning the other 40% is necessarily coming from higher cost intermediate and peaking plant. But if we add electric off-peak water heating, and raise the minimum load by 300MW whilst increasing average load by 100MW, then now we can generate 75% of total production from low cost plant, leaving only 25% to come from intermediate and peaking plant. Meanwhile we're now spreading all fixed costs over a 6.66% greater volume so less cost per unit sold.

Industry is similar but not quite. Assuming we're talking about large scale heavy industry with an interruptible (in emergencies only) contract then what does it do?

Well it raises the minimum system load and thus enables more low cost plant to be installed. It does however also raise routine daily peak demand, so it does also mean some more operation of other generating plant too.

It doesn't however require more generation to be built due to the interruptible nature of it. On the rare occasions when it's 45 degrees outside, that's when the factory gets interrupted in order to maintain supply to residential etc. Due to that it also brings another change - the peaking plant is being used more often, it can now be built as intermediate plant instead of actual peaking plant, lowering the cost per unit of output.

Likewise with transmission, the additional investment required to supply major industry is disproportionately low relative to its energy consumption due to being a 24/365 but interruptible load. Its existence thus lowers the overall cost of supply to all consumers on a price per unit basis.

The underlying economics there is much the same as any business. If you need staff then the cheapest option per unit of labour is to employ full time permanent staff and keep them fully utilised. Anything else costs more - overtime, casual, contractors are all more expensive per unit, and needless to say anything that results in your staff sitting around doing nothing is a dead loss financially.

Now if you have a highly variable workload then employing permanent staff is problematic, due to that sitting around issue, so you might decide on a few permanent staff and meeting the peaks with some combination of paid overtime, casual workers and contractors.

Buti if you could find some other paid work to fill the gaps when you're not busy, then what that would enable you to do is employ more permanent staff and keep them fully utilised. And since it's only adding work during the slow periods, it's not adding work during the busy periods, those permanent staff replace the role you previously paid overtime, casuals or contractors to do. End result is you've lowered your labour cost per unit and you've also grown the business in total. Excellent - you've just discovered the business equivalent of off-peak hot water.

Another business concept you might find useful is having some long term contracts for supplying whatever you sell to someone but with the bonus that you get some flexibility as to when you supply it, you can avoid having to do anything for them when you're flat out serving others (like the pre-Christmas rush) as long as this is only under those limited circumstances as per the contract. So you get consistent revenue, but you can shift those staff and equipment to serve others when demand's unusually high, thus avoiding the need to spend money on additional staff or equipment. Excellent - you've just found the business equivalent of a major industrial power contract.

This isn't radical in any way. There's lots of examples of businesses that have a core business that's quite variable then look for ways to put staff and equipment to use during the slow periods. For one obvious example major CBD hotels worked out long ago that the business conference market mostly operates outside the peak tourist season, meaning it's a very nice way to get people into the hotel during the rest of the year when it would otherwise be partly empty. Lots of examples like that in all sorts of businesses where the demand for the core business is variable, so the owners seek to put equipment and staff to use during the quieter days of the week or season of the year.

None of this is rocket science and it's not ideology. It's just fundamental economics that if the demand for the product can be smoothed then that increases capacity utilisation and reduces cost per unit of production. Nothing radical there, lots of businesses have that dynamic so it shouldn't be controversial. Trouble is, you'd be amazed at how many are unable to grasp it.....

 

[qldfrog]

Looking at the economics of all this, some very important relationships exist.

Residential has a rather costly load profile due to the evening peak that you mention. Consumption is highly concentrated and not only that, it's concentrated at a time of day that solar isn't much help with and wind often isn't either.

General business is somewhat better since, apart from restaurants etc, it mostly operates either entirely outside the peak (eg anything "9 to 5") or it runs during the peak but also runs during the off-peak (anything open long hours eg supermarkets, petrol stations).

What really helps though is off-peak loads and this is so for a number of reasons.

Take off-peak water heating for example. What's the effect of having it as an electrical load versus not having it (eg using gas water heating instead)? Well there's two things it does and one it doesn't, all of which are beneficial.

1. It raises minimum load on the system, thus enabling the addition of more generating plant that is continuously fully utilised. With the key benefit that means more low cost plant running throughout the day, it effectively transfers some of the intermediate and peak load to base load plant due to that raising of minimum load enabling its economic construction and operation.

2. More electricity sold, so fixed costs are spread over a greater volume = lower cost per unit sold.

3. Adds nothing at all to peak demand, it doesn't require any additional capacity at all. It's just making more use of existing capacity, and enabling a shift from peaking plant to lower cost means of generation.

Eg if we take a system with a peak load of 3500MW, average load of 1500MW and minimum of 900MW then with that arrangement high capital cost, low running cost plant can generate 60% of total supply, meaning the other 40% is necessarily coming from higher cost intermediate and peaking plant. But if we add electric off-peak water heating, and raise the minimum load by 300MW whilst increasing average load by 100MW, then now we can generate 75% of total production from low cost plant, leaving only 25% to come from intermediate and peaking plant. Meanwhile we're now spreading all fixed costs over a 6.66% greater volume so less cost per unit sold.

Industry is similar but not quite. Assuming we're talking about large scale heavy industry with an interruptible (in emergencies only) contract then what does it do?

Well it raises the minimum system load and thus enables more low cost plant to be installed. It does however also raise routine daily peak demand, so it does also mean some more operation of other generating plant too.

It doesn't however require more generation to be built due to the interruptible nature of it. On the rare occasions when it's 45 degrees outside, that's when the factory gets interrupted in order to maintain supply to residential etc. Due to that it also brings another change - the peaking plant is being used more often, it can now be built as intermediate plant instead of actual peaking plant, lowering the cost per unit of output.

Likewise with transmission, the additional investment required to supply major industry is disproportionately low relative to its energy consumption due to being a 24/365 but interruptible load. Its existence thus lowers the overall cost of supply to all consumers on a price per unit basis.

The underlying economics there is much the same as any business. If you need staff then the cheapest option per unit of labour is to employ full time permanent staff and keep them fully utilised. Anything else costs more - overtime, casual, contractors are all more expensive per unit, and needless to say anything that results in your staff sitting around doing nothing is a dead loss financially.

Now if you have a highly variable workload then employing permanent staff is problematic, due to that sitting around issue, so you might decide on a few permanent staff and meeting the peaks with some combination of paid overtime, casual workers and contractors.

Buti if you could find some other paid work to fill the gaps when you're not busy, then what that would enable you to do is employ more permanent staff and keep them fully utilised. And since it's only adding work during the slow periods, it's not adding work during the busy periods, those permanent staff replace the role you previously paid overtime, casuals or contractors to do. End result is you've lowered your labour cost per unit and you've also grown the business in total. Excellent - you've just discovered the business equivalent of off-peak hot water.

Another business concept you might find useful is having some long term contracts for supplying whatever you sell to someone but with the bonus that you get some flexibility as to when you supply it, you can avoid having to do anything for them when you're flat out serving others (like the pre-Christmas rush) as long as this is only under those limited circumstances as per the contract. So you get consistent revenue, but you can shift those staff and equipment to serve others when demand's unusually high, thus avoiding the need to spend money on additional staff or equipment. Excellent - you've just found the business equivalent of a major industrial power contract.

This isn't radical in any way. There's lots of examples of businesses that have a core business that's quite variable then look for ways to put staff and equipment to use during the slow periods. For one obvious example major CBD hotels worked out long ago that the business conference market mostly operates outside the peak tourist season, meaning it's a very nice way to get people into the hotel during the rest of the year when it would otherwise be partly empty. Lots of examples like that in all sorts of businesses where the demand for the core business is variable, so the owners seek to put equipment and staff to use during the quieter days of the week or season of the year.

None of this is rocket science and it's not ideology. It's just fundamental economics that if the demand for the product can be smoothed then that increases capacity utilisation and reduces cost per unit of production. Nothing radical there, lots of businesses have that dynamic so it shouldn't be controversial. Trouble is, you'd be amazed at how many are unable to grasp it.....

True
We could also remove some need altogether:
For 20y on a solar Edwards thermal solar, hardly even switched on booster and ensured all washing machines, dishwasher were hooked on hot water..not always easy to find right appliance
And previous house, just switch normal electric heater on solar PV....
Current off grid is having a hws on thermal solar, hardly ever using booster
I have the belief much of hws in Australia could be passive solar wo issue.

 

[Smurf1976]

So as an insider , what is your ideal system?

My view = crunch the numbers.

Take a hard headed look at the whole thing based on facts and credible scenarios, not ideology, and act accordingly.

Facts = costs, engineering and things like a proposed site genuinely being the only known habitat for whatever species.

Credible scenarios = weather within known bounds plus a margin of safety. Plus things like relying on any foreign country that doesn't like us being risky.

Ideology = generic dislike of nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, transmission lines or whatever regardless of the attributes of any particular project. Another is insistence on any particular ownership or administrative arrangement. Another is being fine with something being done as long as it's not done locally - NIMBY.

My argument's for facts and science over ideology and emption. Because as others have said, we're all stuffed if this goes wrong.

 

[sptrawler]

I'll avoid personal comments but this is a key issue.

At the global level about 10% of known gas reserves are in Western countries. As for the rest, the big problem is most of it's in places that could be considered extremely problematic from a Western perspective.

People really do seem to be having a problem understanding the gas issue @Smurf1976 , you have been mentioning the gas issue for a number of years, yet a lot of people seem to think it is just a matter of clicking their fingers and gas is miraculously found.
Gas is finite.

In today's paper.

 

[qldfrog]

People really do seem to be having a problem understanding the gas issue @Smurf1976 , you have been mentioning the gas issue for a number of years, yet a lot of people seem to think it is just a matter of clicking their fingers and gas is miraculously found.
Gas is finite.

In today's paper.

View attachment 189768

If you are not allowed to look, you are not going to find it, even if there
Australia..