The future of energy generation and storage

[SirRumpole]

Not having a go personally but it's pretty much a given that anything from an anti-hydro organisation is going to argue that hydro isn't good. And it's not likely the Guardian are going to say anything positive about gas (or hydro or nuclear).

I'll argue that what's needed is the consistent application of science on a project-specific basis.

Because there are some places where hydro would be shockingly bad, others where it's pretty benign, and same can be said for the location of a nuclear plant or wind farm. The impacts aren't generic, it depends on the detail. Pretty much nobody other than those with hard line ideological views are today lamenting that Lake Eildon was created but the same can't be said for the damming of Lagoon of Islands - that was a serious mistake yes.

Much the same with nuclear. Sensibly located, properly designed, built and operated is one thing. Poorly designed, recklessly operated or located next to the ocean in a place prone to tsunamis is quite something else.

Unlike burning gas or diesel that does have a generic impact that's much the same anywhere and is essentially the baseline against which to compare alternatives. Anyone proposing hydro is, in the Australian context at least, proposing it as an alternative to gas or diesel so they're a relevant benchmark.

If you could think of one person in the country who should be in charge of a national grid, the electrical equivalent of the RBA governor, who would it be?

 

[Smurf1976]

If you could think of one person in the country who should be in charge of a national grid, the electrical equivalent of the RBA governor, who would it be?

I'm reluctant to pick names but if I had to name someone then I'd pick Kate Summers. Whether she'd be interested in such a job is of course another matter.

She's professionally competent (extremely so), not bad at public speaking and has a track record of calling it as it is and not being afraid to upset a few.

Bonus that personal attributes mean she's a difficult target especially for the Left and pretty thick skinned in the event anyone tries. That shouldn't be relevant, and it's not the primary reason, but it's not a bad bonus.

Only negative is nuclear advocates will say she's biased toward renewables by virtue of work history. But realistically it's pretty hard to be in the electricity industry without having involvement with a particular technology, so there's going to be a perception of bias no matter who it is.

More generally though if it were up to me I'd bring together an assortment of people encompassing engineering, strategic / national security, business, macroeconomics and real (scientific not political) environmental issues.