6 ms·

It will particularly in Victoria, which has highest number of residential gas connections (90%). However, the primary dispatchable electricity generation comes

It will particularly in Victoria, which has highest number of residential gas connections (90%). However, the primary dispatchable electricity generation comes from gas fired power plants. To say, Australia has a dependance on gas is an understatement. Unfortunately, there has been considerable in-action and lack of investment mainly due to the main political parties having competing energy policies. The conservatives previously had a "gas led" generation plan, but due to the gas crisis they have switched to a nuclear-led proposal (Australia has no nuclear power plants, and no expertise in them). The current government is pushing renewables and storage, however progress has been slow due to land owners being unwilling to allow new transmission lines and environmental concerns about offshore wind infrastructure. Meanwhile about half of Australia's energy comes aging coal power plants, whose live has been extended, all of which are due for phased retirement in the near future.

toomuchtodo 2y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40808618 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40808618 ("Australia electricity grid with 100% renewables and 120GWh batteries") https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-07/end-of-coal-power-in-australia-means-a-boom-for-battery-makers-like-tesla https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-07/end-of-co... | https://archive.today/2owbd https://archive.today/2owbd ("Australia’s rapid shift from coal-fired power to cleaner alternatives is underwriting a boom in battery projects able to store solar and wind energy. The country has at least 250 planned battery developments with a potential capacity of almost 130,000 megawatt-hours, a pipeline that’s second only to China, data compiled by BloombergNEF show. While Australia still relies on coal for more than half of its electricity generation, many major plants are set to close in the next decade.") https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/energy/resources/other-renewable-energy-resources/solar-energy https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/energy/resources/oth... ("Australia receives an average of 58 million PJ of solar radiation per year, approximately 10,000 times larger than its total energy consumption. However, Australia's current use of solar energy is low with solar energy accounting for only about 0.1 per cent of Australia's total primary energy consumption.")
- guidedlight 2y ago
  Yep. This is the current direction. As I said, investment uncertainty due to the alternative nuclear proposal, issues with transmission lines, and environment issues for wind projects are the main barriers.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    > investment uncertainty due to the alternative nuclear proposal I think it is a stretch to say that the nuclear proposal is creating any investment uncertainty. What is there to be uncertain about? Optimistically the coalition has to win government then the plant will take >10 years to be designed and constructed (probably much longer assuming that something goes wrong politically). The power produced by such a plant will almost certainly be expensive. Unless Labor makes more supportive sounds it'd be quite reckless to invest in the project as a private investor. That is far enough out and a small enough commercial risk that it probably doesn't change the investment landscape in the here and now. We could see any number of similar policies as we feel the political backlash from mismanaging our energy infrastructure.
    - stubish 2y ago
      The coalition Nuclear plan comes with dropping 2035 targets and international climate agreements. This creates a lot of uncertainty. Polluting plants and factories remain viable until 2050 (unless a future government walks back), making a lot of investment a crap shoot. Australian industries may find themselves locked out of international trade or subject to tariffs, making export markets uncertain. Nobody believes that the Nuclear power will be as cheap as the government claims, given all the experts and industry representatives say it is bollocks or relies on technology that does not yet exist, creating a lot of uncertainty. So not so much a problem with Nuclear, but the diversion of funds from other projects needed to meet existing 2035 targets. Still, if the leader of the coalition is able to invent viable small nuclear reactors, bring that much capacity online in such a short time, and produce cheaper electricity than 2037 tech solar/batteries or wind/batteries in the vast, sun drenched plains and deserts of Australia, he probably deserves his Nobel prize and a seat on the board of Westinghouse or similar. After all, taxpayers need to pay for the nationalized generation since no corporations seem willing to invest in this amazing opportunity with its achievable deadlines and budget.
DaoVeles 2y ago
At least Victoria is finally starting to make some moves by banning future development of residential uses of it. https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/guides-and-resources/strategies-and-initiatives/victorias-gas-substitution-roadmap https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/guides-and-resources/strateg... It is firmly in the camp of, government bans a thing, let the market solve it. For better or worse...

toomuchtodo 2y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40808618 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40808618 ("Australia electricity grid with 100% renewables and 120GWh batteries") https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-07/end-of-coal-power-in-australia-means-a-boom-for-battery-makers-like-tesla https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-07/end-of-co... | https://archive.today/2owbd https://archive.today/2owbd ("Australia’s rapid shift from coal-fired power to cleaner alternatives is underwriting a boom in battery projects able to store solar and wind energy. The country has at least 250 planned battery developments with a potential capacity of almost 130,000 megawatt-hours, a pipeline that’s second only to China, data compiled by BloombergNEF show. While Australia still relies on coal for more than half of its electricity generation, many major plants are set to close in the next decade.") https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/energy/resources/other-renewable-energy-resources/solar-energy https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/energy/resources/oth... ("Australia receives an average of 58 million PJ of solar radiation per year, approximately 10,000 times larger than its total energy consumption. However, Australia's current use of solar energy is low with solar energy accounting for only about 0.1 per cent of Australia's total primary energy consumption.")

guidedlight 2y ago
Yep. This is the current direction. As I said, investment uncertainty due to the alternative nuclear proposal, issues with transmission lines, and environment issues for wind projects are the main barriers.
- roenxi 2y ago
  > investment uncertainty due to the alternative nuclear proposal I think it is a stretch to say that the nuclear proposal is creating any investment uncertainty. What is there to be uncertain about? Optimistically the coalition has to win government then the plant will take >10 years to be designed and constructed (probably much longer assuming that something goes wrong politically). The power produced by such a plant will almost certainly be expensive. Unless Labor makes more supportive sounds it'd be quite reckless to invest in the project as a private investor. That is far enough out and a small enough commercial risk that it probably doesn't change the investment landscape in the here and now. We could see any number of similar policies as we feel the political backlash from mismanaging our energy infrastructure.
  - stubish 2y ago
    The coalition Nuclear plan comes with dropping 2035 targets and international climate agreements. This creates a lot of uncertainty. Polluting plants and factories remain viable until 2050 (unless a future government walks back), making a lot of investment a crap shoot. Australian industries may find themselves locked out of international trade or subject to tariffs, making export markets uncertain. Nobody believes that the Nuclear power will be as cheap as the government claims, given all the experts and industry representatives say it is bollocks or relies on technology that does not yet exist, creating a lot of uncertainty. So not so much a problem with Nuclear, but the diversion of funds from other projects needed to meet existing 2035 targets. Still, if the leader of the coalition is able to invent viable small nuclear reactors, bring that much capacity online in such a short time, and produce cheaper electricity than 2037 tech solar/batteries or wind/batteries in the vast, sun drenched plains and deserts of Australia, he probably deserves his Nobel prize and a seat on the board of Westinghouse or similar. After all, taxpayers need to pay for the nationalized generation since no corporations seem willing to invest in this amazing opportunity with its achievable deadlines and budget.

DaoVeles 2y ago

At least Victoria is finally starting to make some moves by banning future development of residential uses of it. https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/guides-and-resources/strategies-and-initiatives/victorias-gas-substitution-roadmap https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/guides-and-resources/strateg... It is firmly in the camp of, government bans a thing, let the market solve it. For better or worse...