News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

[rev]

I am saying that none of the existing coal generators are proposing to build new coal plants in Australia, even though they could easily do so by piecemeal replacements of major plant. What do you know that they don't?

Why would they spend money on equipment that is being deliberately run out of business and told there is no futire market for them in a hostile environment such as Austrlalia?

I am saying that merchant banks won't provide finance for coal plants because the economics are risky. Can you disprove that?

India, China, Indonesia, Africa are building hundreds of the things. Just because a merchant bank wont lend money (banks which by the way are raking in billions in government renewable subsidies), doesn't mean a government cant weigh up risk, and fund the coal plants themselves. Obviously other countries are seeing the benefit/ necessity, so someone is funding them.-Are you denying there are hundreds of new coal plants under construction worldwide, when we were told the world is moving away from coal?

I'm saying that if new coal plants are built, to compare like for like economically, they too would cause a spike in prices. Why does that sound unreasonable to you? Building coal plants isn't cheap. Is it so hard to accept that price increases would be required were they to be built?

Coal and gas for that matter certainly do add to prices, as the market is set up to promote renewables, and penalise fossil fuel generation. The puzzle is, people are voting for this...but then seem surprised when prices are so high, and the East Coast market sometimes struggles to supply enough power.

People are voting for this because many of us can see that coal plants don't make economic sense. There was a coal favouring government in power for 9 years, and still the power generators weren't prepared to invest. There were even credible reports of Frydenberg putting pressure on AGL to extend the life of the existing plants. Plants which have failed each year since due to old age and decrepitude...costing AGL shareholders over a $100m in lost revenue each time. Alinta shut down Leigh Creek and the Port Augusta power stations, and made no attempt whatsoever to renew them. Something they could easily have done.

Finally, those governments guaranteeing coal plants being built are just accepting that taxes will have to go up to pay for them. When you add those costs to the power charges to get the total cost, you get the same answer: coal makes no economic sense. Now, by all means, if an honest case is made, and the total costs of coal are presented and people are ok with it, then you have a case at least. If neither the power generators nor the previous government were able to do that, didn't even try, then it's clear that the economic case sucked.

How doesn't it make economic sense? Please explain your theory, instead of just repeating what you've heard the so called "experts" repeatedly say.

You keep repeating this line, but there's no substance in your posts to back it up. You also ignore the realities that exist, that it's not about costs, but about the climate culturalists or cult as I call them pushing this, the global push at least in most western nations, to turn away from fossil fuels and turn to renewables instead.

You also ignore that while we've been largely de-industrialized, the countries that have industrialized with our manufacturing largely moving to their shores, are the ones building these new fossil fuel power plants. And they're polluting at a greater rate then we ever have given how large their populations are, and will do so for many decades to come.

[rubberman]

Why would they spend money on equipment that is being deliberately run out of business and told there is no futire market for them in a hostile environment such as Austrlalia?



India, China, Indonesia, Africa are building hundreds of the things. Just because a merchant bank wont lend money (banks which by the way are raking in billions in government renewable subsidies), doesn't mean a government cant weigh up risk, and fund the coal plants themselves. Obviously other countries are seeing the benefit/ necessity, so someone is funding them.-Are you denying there are hundreds of new coal plants under construction worldwide, when we were told the world is moving away from coal?



Coal and gas for that matter certainly do add to prices, as the market is set up to promote renewables, and penalise fossil fuel generation. The puzzle is, people are voting for this...but then seem surprised when prices are so high, and the East Coast market sometimes struggles to supply enough power.

People are voting for this because many of us can see that coal plants don't make economic sense. There was a coal favouring government in power for 9 years, and still the power generators weren't prepared to invest. There were even credible reports of Frydenberg putting pressure on AGL to extend the life of the existing plants. Plants which have failed each year since due to old age and decrepitude...costing AGL shareholders over a $100m in lost revenue each time. Alinta shut down Leigh Creek and the Port Augusta power stations, and made no attempt whatsoever to renew them. Something they could easily have done.

Finally, those governments guaranteeing coal plants being built are just accepting that taxes will have to go up to pay for them. When you add those costs to the power charges to get the total cost, you get the same answer: coal makes no economic sense. Now, by all means, if an honest case is made, and the total costs of coal are presented and people are ok with it, then you have a case at least. If neither the power generators nor the previous government were able to do that, didn't even try, then it's clear that the economic case sucked.

How doesn't it make economic sense? Please explain your theory, instead of just repeating what you've heard the so called "experts" repeatedly say.

You keep repeating this line, but there's no substance in your posts to back it up. You also ignore the realities that exist, that it's not about costs, but about the climate culturalists or cult as I call them pushing this, the global push at least in most western nations, to turn away from fossil fuels and turn to renewables instead.

You also ignore that while we've been largely de-industrialized, the countries that have industrialized with our manufacturing largely moving to their shores, are the ones building these new fossil fuel power plants. And they're polluting at a greater rate then we ever have given how large their populations are, and will do so for many decades to come.

It's really difficult debating with you if you won't argue in good faith. At the start of this, you were going on about how costs were important.

Now you say that "it's not about costs".

Then you ask me to explain the economics.

This is easily googleable.

So, you are not only completely changing the goalposts from the start of the discussion, you are contradicting yourself within this latest post, and then asking me to prove something that's easily googleable. Given that neither the previous pro coal government could make an economic case, nor can the private sector companies make an economic case for coal fired power, the balance of probabilities is so much in favour of you being wrong, you do some work.

Get a grip. You aren't arguing in good faith. You aren't prepared to do your own research. All you are doing is handwaving about some imaginary climate cult.

Let me put it a little more kindly. If you do the research, then you are likely to understand why things are happening and what the economic realities are. Or you can refuse to do that research and be pushed around by events you don't understand while you boil in anger. If you choose the latter option, I feel sorry, but find it difficult to feel sympathy.

[rev]

People are voting for this because many of us can see that coal plants don't make economic sense. There was a coal favouring government in power for 9 years, and still the power generators weren't prepared to invest. There were even credible reports of Frydenberg putting pressure on AGL to extend the life of the existing plants. Plants which have failed each year since due to old age and decrepitude...costing AGL shareholders over a $100m in lost revenue each time. Alinta shut down Leigh Creek and the Port Augusta power stations, and made no attempt whatsoever to renew them. Something they could easily have done.

Finally, those governments guaranteeing coal plants being built are just accepting that taxes will have to go up to pay for them. When you add those costs to the power charges to get the total cost, you get the same answer: coal makes no economic sense. Now, by all means, if an honest case is made, and the total costs of coal are presented and people are ok with it, then you have a case at least. If neither the power generators nor the previous government were able to do that, didn't even try, then it's clear that the economic case sucked.

How doesn't it make economic sense? Please explain your theory, instead of just repeating what you've heard the so called "experts" repeatedly say.

You keep repeating this line, but there's no substance in your posts to back it up. You also ignore the realities that exist, that it's not about costs, but about the climate culturalists or cult as I call them pushing this, the global push at least in most western nations, to turn away from fossil fuels and turn to renewables instead.

You also ignore that while we've been largely de-industrialized, the countries that have industrialized with our manufacturing largely moving to their shores, are the ones building these new fossil fuel power plants. And they're polluting at a greater rate then we ever have given how large their populations are, and will do so for many decades to come.

It's really difficult debating with you if you won't argue in good faith. At the start of this, you were going on about how costs were important.

Now you say that "it's not about costs".

Then you ask me to explain the economics.

This is easily googleable.

So, you are not only completely changing the goalposts from the start of the discussion, you are contradicting yourself within this latest post, and then asking me to prove something that's easily googleable. Given that neither the previous pro coal government could make an economic case, nor can the private sector companies make an economic case for coal fired power, the balance of probabilities is so much in favour of you being wrong, you do some work.

Get a grip. You aren't arguing in good faith. You aren't prepared to do your own research. All you are doing is handwaving about some imaginary climate cult.

Let me put it a little more kindly. If you do the research, then you are likely to understand why things are happening and what the economic realities are. Or you can refuse to do that research and be pushed around by events you don't understand while you boil in anger. If you choose the latter option, I feel sorry, but find it difficult to feel sympathy.

Well perhaps that's the difference, you're looking for an argument with people who aren't looking to argue but discuss?

With regards to costs, I'm talking about the costs to consumers.
I never commented that renewables contributed to the increase cost to consumers, or on the flip side that they helped reduce those costs.
You commented that in Germany there's been a 25% increase because they've restarted coal plants, I never disagreed, or agreed for that matter, but you've taken exception to me neither agreeing nor disagreeing (I assume?) and went on a rant for three posts about how I'm wrong. Wrong about what?

My gripe is with consumers being told that our cost of living will be brought down, that the cost of electricity will be brought down, and the opposite happening year after year.

So what do you disagree with and what do you think I'm wrong about.

1. That politicians and others should be held to account when they make a promise/pledge and fail to deliver?
2. That consumers have seen electricity costs go up?
3. That consumers will see electricity costs go up again by at least 20% in a few months time? The regulator has told us this. Why are you arguing with me about it? Go argue with the regulator, tell the regulator that you think renewables should be bringing the cost of electricity down because you found some links to support your argument on S-A.
4. That nearly a dozen countries in Europe have signed a new nuclear energy agreement for more nuclear power? Partly to sure up their baseload supply..That France is going to be speeding up construction of reactors and removing the 50% supply cap on nuclear energy?
5. The stats in the graph I posted? One stat being that electricity generated from coal is increasing and at it's highest?
6. That China is building more coal fired power plants then Australia has shut down?
7. That there's dozens of new coal fired power stations being built around the world?

Lets discuss, not argue, where I'm wrong on these facts.

[SBD]

Its gas driving the price rise of electricity in South Australia pure and simple.

Gas is a price leader/setter in the South Australian electricity market. If gas bids higher prices into the market then prices of renewables go up (Yes this is the way it works....the highest bidder sets the price and if their product is used this high price is passed onto lower bidders)

And South Australia eases its way to using less gas as a "foundation" for electricity network.

From Renew Economy

South Australia about to take another big step towards fossil free grid

...

The new connection to NSW is likely to lead to a significant increase in wind and solar capacity in the state, with several large projects already under construction, including the 412MW Goyder South wind farm, while the state’s big green hydrogen plans will also lead to a significant increase in wind and solar.
...

https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-austr ... free-grid/

Thanks PeFe.

I understand Goyder South is under construction.

Do we have any other wind or solar farms under construction or definitely committed to building in the near future? Ceres, Twin Creek, Palmer wind farms all seem to have gone back to the drawing board rather than on to procurement and construction. Pallamana solar farm got planning approval in 2019 and its website says that "Construction could commence in Autumn 2021". Have I missed any?

Several of the wind farm operators also own gas generators. If even 40MW of gas generation remains the price setter for the renewable energy, it is financially imperative for them to continue to bid as high as they can to ensure profitable wind generation. I don't understand how we ever get negative wholesale prices though - is that because excess coal generation which can't be slowed down as easily is being pushed from interstate?

[claybro]

Its gas driving the price rise of electricity in South Australia pure and simple.

Gas is a price leader/setter in the South Australian electricity market. If gas bids higher prices into the market then prices of renewables go up (Yes this is the way it works....the highest bidder sets the price and if their product is used this high price is passed onto lower bidders)

And South Australia eases its way to using less gas as a "foundation" for electricity network.

From Renew Economy

South Australia about to take another big step towards fossil free grid

...

The new connection to NSW is likely to lead to a significant increase in wind and solar capacity in the state, with several large projects already under construction, including the 412MW Goyder South wind farm, while the state’s big green hydrogen plans will also lead to a significant increase in wind and solar.
...

https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-austr ... free-grid/

Thanks PeFe.

I understand Goyder South is under construction.

Do we have any other wind or solar farms under construction or definitely committed to building in the near future? Ceres, Twin Creek, Palmer wind farms all seem to have gone back to the drawing board rather than on to procurement and construction. Pallamana solar farm got planning approval in 2019 and its website says that "Construction could commence in Autumn 2021". Have I missed any?

Several of the wind farm operators also own gas generators. If even 40MW of gas generation remains the price setter for the renewable energy, it is financially imperative for them to continue to bid as high as they can to ensure profitable wind generation. I don't understand how we ever get negative wholesale prices though - is that because excess coal generation which can't be slowed down as easily is being pushed from interstate?

Yesterday it was coals fault that electricity prices were higher. Today it’s gas. Even though as you say, the renewable generators have to charge high prices for gas to remain profitable?? How about, just shut down gas and coal altogether… oh, that’s right wind and solar can’t produce 24/7 power. Seriously blame everything but the actual cause of all these issues.

[SBD]

Its gas driving the price rise of electricity in South Australia pure and simple.

Gas is a price leader/setter in the South Australian electricity market. If gas bids higher prices into the market then prices of renewables go up (Yes this is the way it works....the highest bidder sets the price and if their product is used this high price is passed onto lower bidders)

And South Australia eases its way to using less gas as a "foundation" for electricity network.

From Renew Economy

Thanks PeFe.

I understand Goyder South is under construction.

Do we have any other wind or solar farms under construction or definitely committed to building in the near future? Ceres, Twin Creek, Palmer wind farms all seem to have gone back to the drawing board rather than on to procurement and construction. Pallamana solar farm got planning approval in 2019 and its website says that "Construction could commence in Autumn 2021". Have I missed any?

Several of the wind farm operators also own gas generators. If even 40MW of gas generation remains the price setter for the renewable energy, it is financially imperative for them to continue to bid as high as they can to ensure profitable wind generation. I don't understand how we ever get negative wholesale prices though - is that because excess coal generation which can't be slowed down as easily is being pushed from interstate?

Yesterday it was coals fault that electricity prices were higher. Today it’s gas. Even though as you say, the renewable generators have to charge high prices for gas to remain profitable?? How about, just shut down gas and coal altogether… oh, that’s right wind and solar can’t produce 24/7 power. Seriously blame everything but the actual cause of all these issues.

The article was about reducing the minimum required gas generation in the system to be 40MW from one plant, and hinted that once EnergyConnect is commissioned, that requirement would go too.

We seem to be getting closer to 24/7 power with a few more wind and solar farms, a few more batteries, and perhaps some pumped hydro (is Baroota still a live project?).

My point in the prices comment is that the current price-setting system encourages the producers to bid high for that last little bit of electricity. I don't understand the economic model that makes that system appropriate rather than either accounting for each electron, or for using average instead of maximum bid cost.

[PeFe]

the renewable generators have to charge high prices for gas to remain profitable??

That was not what I said so I will explain it again.......If AEMO requests bids for 300 mw of power between 4-6pm (on the spot market so it is not power being produced for long term contracts) then various producers bid for this 300 mw.....a gas producer says I will bid $150 per mwh, a wind producer say $100 per mwh, a solar farm bids $80.
AEMO accepts all 3 bids for power between 5-6pm 100mw of gas, 100mw of wind,100mw of solar.....because the gas bid has been accepted all 3 producers receive the gas price......yes the lower bids get a higher price pushing the cost of electricity up.

But between 4-5 pm AEMO only accepts the wind and solar bid splitting the 300mw into 2. Wind has bid $100mw so now this is the standard price for all wholesale electricity on the spot market for that hour.....so even though solar has bid lower consistently lower it receives the higher price.

This mechanism is not designed to prop up gas, I presume it is designed to deliver electricity at short notice and sufficient quantities, however it effectively undercuts the notion of a "market" and can lead to cartel type behaviour.

Gas is effectively a price setter/leader by effectively choosing its own price when weather conditions do not favour solar or wind. The addition of large batteries that challenge gas's dominance will bring down prices and the elimination of gas from the SA electricity system would be a financial god-send to the SA economy.

Large batteries (and I mean really large batteries like something that Neoen is proposing for stage 3 of Goyder South) in direct competition with other large batteries or yet to be developed storage systems where competition truly works will bring down prices. Pumped hydro in SA is a "dead duck"...too expensive.

The Torrens Island battery AGL is building should be up and running mid year. It will be very interesting to see what AGL do with it. They intend retiring some of their older gas generation (built in the 60's, incredibly inefficient) so will AGL bid against other gas producers on price or do something else? Time will tell.

Should you be really interested in the wholesale price of electricity across Australia from competing producers then here is the site for you

https://opennem.org.au/energy/nem/?rang ... terval=30m

You can look at averages across the entire NEM at any time, break it down into discrete times, states etc
Click on the tab at the top "NEM" and change to South Australia if you want to see what is happening in the local market....or in Qld..or Tasmania.

[SBD]

the renewable generators have to charge high prices for gas to remain profitable??

That was not what I said so I will explain it again.......If AEMO requests bids for 300 mw of power between 4-6pm (on the spot market so it is not power being produced for long term contracts) then various producers bid for this 300 mw.....a gas producer says I will bid $150 per mwh, a wind producer say $100 per mwh, a solar farm bids $80.
AEMO accepts all 3 bids for power between 5-6pm 100mw of gas, 100mw of wind,100mw of solar.....because the gas bid has been accepted all 3 producers receive the gas price......yes the lower bids get a higher price pushing the cost of electricity up.

But between 4-5 pm AEMO only accepts the wind and solar bid splitting the 300mw into 2. Wind has bid $100mw so now this is the standard price for all wholesale electricity on the spot market for that hour.....so even though solar has bid lower consistently lower it receives the higher price.

This mechanism is not designed to prop up gas, I presume it is designed to deliver electricity at short notice and sufficient quantities, however it effectively undercuts the notion of a "market" and can lead to cartel type behaviour.

Gas is effectively a price setter/leader by effectively choosing its own price when weather conditions do not favour solar or wind. The addition of large batteries that challenge gas's dominance will bring down prices and the elimination of gas from the SA electricity system would be a financial god-send to the SA economy.

Large batteries (and I mean really large batteries like something that Neoen is proposing for stage 3 of Goyder South) in direct competition with other large batteries or yet to be developed storage systems where competition truly works will bring down prices. Pumped hydro in SA is a "dead duck"...too expensive.

The Torrens Island battery AGL is building should be up and running mid year. It will be very interesting to see what AGL do with it. They intend retiring some of their older gas generation (built in the 60's, incredibly inefficient) so will AGL bid against other gas producers on price or do something else? Time will tell.

Should you be really interested in the wholesale price of electricity across Australia from competing producers then here is the site for you

https://opennem.org.au/energy/nem/?rang ... terval=30m

You can look at averages across the entire NEM at any time, break it down into discrete times, states etc
Click on the tab at the top "NEM" and change to South Australia if you want to see what is happening in the local market....or in Qld..or Tasmania.

I believe that Torrens Island A has already been closed permanently. Torrens Island B was built in the 1970s and one of the four boilers is mothballed, with full closure scheduled for 2026. I think Torrens Island is the last power station in SA that uses fuel (coal or gas) to heat a boiler to drive steam turbines. Most of the other gas generators are gas turbines, only a few use the waste heat for a steam turbine as well.

I guess the "rules" that require a minimum of large gas generators include any that is on long-term contracts, so gas is only accepted for the spot price when everyone can get enough solar or wind electricity to meet their contracts and would not run a gas generator if they don't win the spot bid.

[NTRabbit]

I for one would like the rest of Torrens Island to be closed down so that the area can be remediated, added to the International Bird Sanctuary, and given a small car park and some walking trails to safely roam the sanctuary and visit the historic site without a boat. With just the battery there'd be no need to restrict access to the entire island anymore.

But that's just me

[SBD]

I for one would like the rest of Torrens Island to be closed down so that the area can be remediated, added to the International Bird Sanctuary, and given a small car park and some walking trails to safely roam the sanctuary and visit the historic site without a boat. With just the battery there'd be no need to restrict access to the entire island anymore.

But that's just me

Origin still has the Quarantine Power station at the north end as well as AGL's Barker Inlet PS next to the big one.

I agree it would make sense to fence each facility instead of just over the bridge.

[rev]

Burying SA powerlines to cost 'between $40 to $60 billion'

NEWS

SA Power Networks says undergrounding all of South Australia’s overhead power lines would cost up to $60 billion and there are more cost-effective ways to increase bushfire safety and tree canopy.

One of the many suggestions put forward to the parliamentary committee examining Adelaide’s urban tree canopy is to underground more overhead power lines to create more room for vegetation on streets and key urban corridors.

Around 80 per cent of South Australia’s electricity network (roughly 70,000km) is overhead, while 20,000km is underground, according to SA Power Networks (SAPN).

The utility provider submitted to the inquiry that the cost to underground all of South Australia’s remaining overhead power lines “would be between $40 to $60 billion”.

“That investment would need to be supported by the South Australian public and Australian Energy Regulator, as part of our regulatory reset proposal,” it said.

“We have other more cost-efficient strategies, the Regulator has not previously had an appetite to support any proposal for increased investment in undergrounding powerlines to improve reliability or for bushfire safety.

"Given the focus on cost efficiency and customer/stakeholder feedback about the importance of ensuring energy affordability, the regulated cost/benefit analysis is the overwhelming barrier to adopting more extensive undergrounding programs."

SAPN, which is an overseas-owned private monopoly in South Australia, has been criticised during the committee process for its role in felling trees to make way for electricity infrastructure and has faced calls to rein in its legislative powers.

SAPN has argued that it is managing “generations of inappropriately-planted unsuitable trees around powerlines”, and claims councils continue to plant “large numbers of non-compliant” trees near electricity infrastructure.

The utility provider submitted that despite the hefty price tag of undergrounding, it would support an expansion of the state government’s Power Line Environment Committee (PLEC) – the primary mechanism for undergrounding power lines in South Australia.

The committee, which administers around $10m of annual funding provided by SAPN and the local government sector, meets once a month to review council proposals to underground sections of power lines in “strategic” locations.

The PLEC has funded 10 projects in 2022/23 to remove 4.6km of overhead powerlines and 137 poles, according to its most recent annual report.

Over the last 20 years, 212km of overhead powerlines have been undergrounded through the PLEC process, according to the report.

Only one of the projects funded this financial year is in metropolitan Adelaide – a $1.1m undergrounding project for Commercial Road, Port Adelaide.

SAPN said it would support the state government increasing the PLEC’s funding.

“Undergrounding should be considered in certain areas, including high amenity and tourist areas or streetscapes, heritage and coastal areas, high bushfire risk areas and road safety hot spots,” it said.

“The PLEC has continued to enable SA Power Networks and other parties, such as Councils, to continually improve the aesthetics of local communities.

“SA Power Networks will continue to work with Councils on priority projects suitable for PLEC funding and would welcome a State Government decision to invest in strengthening that program.

“There may be some scope to consider the extent of the PLEC program given it has been in place for many years and has maintained a small budget of about $10 million per annum.”

SAPN also submitted that its “most cost effective approach” was to install conduits – tubing which protects electrical wires – to “facilitate potential undergrounding at a later stage”.

It has also previously argued that one of the downsides of undergrounding is it makes it harder for repair teams to identify electrical faults, leaving customers without power for longer when there are outages.

Labor MP Jayne Stinson, chair of the urban forest inquiry, said: “The challenges SAPN grapples with are real and important.”

“We’re looking forward to hearing evidence from SAPN and others on how we can strike a balance between the critical need to grow our urban canopy while meeting the demands of modern suburbs,” she told InDaily.

"It’s a massive price tag to underground all existing powerlines. We’re keen to hear from parties about what’s practical and achievable."

“It’s too early to express a view on specific recommendations. We want to hear all the evidence first, but there’s some exciting work going on and we’re open-minded on the solutions.”

A spokesperson for the Local Government Asssociation of SA (LGA) said managing trees near powerlines “presents challenges, especially when communities are asking councils for more greening of their neighbourhoods”.

The LGA said undergrounding power lines “would provide more space in our streets to plant trees that mitigate the impacts of climate change, help stabilise the electricity grid during extreme weather events, and reduce bushfire risk”.

“We understand there is a significant cost to undergrounding powerlines, but if we’re serious about improving our tree canopies for better greening and cooling, particularly in our urban communities, then these are the discussions we need to have,” the spokesperson said.

“The LGA welcomes a conversation between SAPN, the State Government and local communities about how we can work together to do this.”

The parliamentary inquiry into the urban forest, being conducted by the Environment Resources and Development Committee, comes alongside two other examinations of South Australia’s tree policy.

The State Planning Commission is compiling a broader review of the state’s regulated and significant tree protections and expects to begin consultation this year on potential changes to tree regulations.

Meanwhile, an expert panel led by planning consultant John Stimson is in the final stages of compiling a wide-ranging review of South Australia’s planning system. Stimson has already indicated that trees topped the list of public concerns during consultation.

https://indaily.com.au/news/2023/03/31/ ... 0-billion/

[rubberman]

Some insight into reasons for cost increases.

https://michaelwest.com.au/energy-super ... in-energy/

[SBD]

Some insight into reasons for cost increases.

https://michaelwest.com.au/energy-super ... in-energy/

If what he says is true, that the companies are required to provide estimates/forecasts which feed in to a reasonable profit, then if they make more, it should be redressed in the next period, or the government auditors should catch them out and have them charged with fraud of public money.

[SRW]

Good run down about concentrated solar power (CSP) in this ABC article, including the Vast Solar project at Port Augusta:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/202 ... /102184372

[mattblack]

From Renew Economy.

Also posted in Eyre Peninsular Forum

Canadian renewables developer Amp Energy has been tapped to lead development of a huge, gigawatt-scale green hydrogen and ammonia production project in South Australia’s Cape Hardy Port Precinct.

Amp, which is backed by the deep-pocketed Carlyle Group of investment funds, was selected for the Cape Hardy project following a three-month competitive process led SA-based miner, Iron Road.

Iron Road says Amp’s winning concept design proposes a 5GW scale electrolyser and associated green hydrogen and ammonia production facility at Cape Hardy, which is under development as a major new industrial precinct attached to a deep-water port.

The companies say the electrolyser will be “supported” by Amp’s existing Australian renewables projects, including the three South Australia solar and big battery projects snapped up by Amp in 2021.

The solar and battery projects form part of Amp’s $2 billion Australian plans to develop 20GW of electrolyser capacity across three precincts, from which it intends to produced the equivalent of 19 million tons a year of green ammonia, dubbed the Renewable Energy Hub of South Australia (REHSA).

Iron Road, which owns a the Central Eyre Iron Project (CEIP) on the Eyre Peninsula, says Amp’s selection for the job was helped along by the 18 months of “focused work” it has already chalked up on green hydrogen in the state.

The miner expects the CEIP to benefit from the close-by, large-scale renewable energy generation and transmission that will underpin the production of high quality green steel-making feedstock.

Amp, meanwhile, says it was drawn to Iron Road’s Cape Hardy project due to its strategic location and strong support from the South Australia and federal governments.

The Cape Hardy site has direct access to high voltage power through existing transmission infrastructure as well as a deep-water port that will allow transportation of renewable hydrogen.

“The development of strategically located, transmission-connected green hydrogen and ammonia facilities at select locations such as Cape Hardy in South Australia is critical to our continued global growth and long-term strategy,” says Amp co-founder and CIO Paul Ezekiel.

Iron Road says Amp’s pitch for the project further validates Cape Hardy as South Australia’s pre-eminent hydrogen export hub of scale.

“Our competitive offer-to-bid process was carefully designed to screen the most capable and motivated developer looking to prioritise and advance the project quickly and judiciously,” says Iron Road CEO Larry Ingle.

“We have selected Amp as a single lead developer who we expect will assemble additional consortium partners in collaboration with Iron Road.”

Iron Road says that based on Amp’s concept design work, a land parcel of around 410 hectares will be set aside for the proposed 5GW scale electrolyser project.

The plan is for a detailed project schedule and scope of work to be developed during a nine-month exclusivity period. Amp, in parallel, will continue to develop its nearby wind and solar projects to support the proposed Cape Hardy electrolyser project and hydrogen/ammonia facilities.

Iron Road says that Amp’s existing wind and solar developments on freehold land provide “significant advantages” for upstream components of the Cape Hardy project.