I still hear that every source and authority (like the Climate Change Authority) really refers just to one authority (@AEMO_Energy) to support the idea that renewables are the cheapest way to decarbonise our economy. All roads lead to AEMO's ISP. 1/
abc.net.au/news/2024-09-2… Yes, CSIRO's estimate for the cost of 'integrated' renewables depends entirely on shadowing the projections of the ISP. It's not a separate source. 2/

The report behind this is one of the best efforts yet to project the cost of nuclear.

It no longer entertains the ridiculous 53% capacity factor of GenCost, accepting 93%.

But it still rests on two critical and dubious assumptions:

1. Fleet Size
2. Capital Cost

A 🧵. 1/

https://twitter.com/TristanEdis/status/1836862190609125738

The full report below cites the recent series of Western builds.

Let's be honest, the West has stuffed up their re-entry to nuclear. Finland, France, UK and US were all terrible.

But the common theme is just building in 1s and 2s.
2/

ieefa.org/resources/nucl…

Fact: The energy industry has developed a 'move fast and break things' mentality to the energy transition.

Here's the CEO of Endeavour at Australian Energy Week, June 12:

"there's going to be a lot of begging for forgiveness after you've actually done some things..." 1/ Also on the CEO Panel, Brett Redman of Transgrid, claiming their proudest achievement is:

"speed of execution in the approvals phase"

Followed by a thinly veiled complaint about the rules leading to everything "getting bogged down". 2/

The Chair of @aergovau acknowledges a "wall of capex coming at consumers".

She says "it is vital that before we build more network, we use more network".

And yet the AER approved $4bn for HumeLink to be built years before it would be used.

A 🧵 on that decision.

In summary, the AER commissioned two independent reports from consultancies to help mark TransGrid's homework on their HumeLink application.

Both reports were scathing. That the homework should fail is beyond question. Arguably, the student should be suspended for attempting to mislead so badly.

Transgrid wants to be paid early, - and paid extra - to attempt to deliver a project on a schedule that the system doesn't need, and that they know they cannot meet.

It's more expensive and risky because it's being rushed. The benefits probably don't outweigh the costs even if you do believe in the fairytale buildout that has every government target being met.

And whilst the regulator shaved some extra padding out of the rush-induced risk payments (just some extra, not all of the padding), they've washed their hands of all responsibility for approving an investment so clearly contrary to consumer interests.
First, the obligatory reminder.... Whenever there's any mention of the 2024 ISP assumptions, they mean we are to assume the impossible.
The only scenarios considered in the 2024 ISP assume the 82% target is reached. This is the key change from 2022. 2/

https://x.com/QuixoticQuant/status/1806239940893712735

Listen up folks...📢📢📢
Action request: write an email. One that matters.

Actually, if successful you'll get paid for this one: $61.56 over the next 4 years.

Every household in NSW will save that much. So all your neighbours will owe you a case of beer for this. 1/ The AER is trying to approve funding HumeLink, a giant transmission project, a
FULL THREE YEARS EARLIER than the ISP models it as having net benefits.

So you don't even have to oppose the 99% renewables vision to write this letter.

It's just opposing corporate greed. Get all your friends who still think CSIRO and AEMO are fine to jump on this too.

HumeLink is a worthless piece of kit until Snowy 2.0 is finished and we have 82% renewables, including a jam-packed Central West Orana REZ. Those things probably won't happen ever. But they definitely won't happen before 2030.

There's just no rush for this giant transmission project at all. 3/

The final 2024 ISP shows that AEMO has successfully concluded their divorce from reality. And are now in a rapturous, exclusive relationship with Labor's renewables-only policy.
82% by 2030.
Unthinkable 4 years ago.
Beyond ambitious 2 years ago.
Bare minimum today. 1/ The last five years or so, we've only ever commissioned 2-3GW or large-scale renewables per year.
The ISP assumes 5-7GW per year.

We've gone from 7% renewable to 37% in ~15 years.
We need to add more than that, in 5.

This is not going to happen. 2/

@DavidOsmond8 is 180 degrees wrong about the ISP.

The claim is that ISP informs Labor policy.

The truth is the inverse. The latest Draft ISP is a long-winded wrap-around of an arbitrary, unjustified Labor renewable energy target for 2030: 82%.

Buckle in. 1/

https://twitter.com/DavidOsmond8/status/1803663992768045312

The truth is that 82% has no basis in the ISP. It wasn't reached in FY 2030 in the Step Change scenario of the 2022 ISP.

It was miles from being reached in any 2020 Scenario.

But now it is the binding constraint that drives both Progressive Change and Step Change. 2/

A little while ago I got another FOI back from @aergovau. I was targeting a particular meeting on 11th August 2021 where I knew the regulator's Markets Committee would consider @AEMO_Energy's plan to break the rules on consultation on ISP updates to advance HumeLink.

No surprises, almost all of the briefing material for that committee meeting was redacted.

The minute from the discussion of that item wasn't just redacted, but there was evidence that the initial proposed minute was over-ruled and a new one inserted.

Perhaps for completely benign reasons? If they were more transparent about the context we might know. But here's a short thread on the surrounding context. You can make up your own mind. 1/ Here's the request. And for the background on the original FOI, which caused a stir, check this older thread.

In essence, the 'Feedback Loop' is AEMO's final tick of economic approval, based on an ISP, and they wanted to skip consultation on a draft. 2/

https://x.com/QuixoticQuant/status/1752463304818385356

Time for a thread on @CSIRO's GenCost.

The team at @CISOZ have just released this simple adjustment to CSIRO's assumptions, which shows that credible nuclear costs are right in the band of firmed renewables.

Before we fix the firmed renewables. Or anything else. 1/ Firstly, there's not a lot of effort here to grapple with the fact that nuclear plants last for 60-100 years.

CSIRO has made their excuses by saying this is the terms of finance, but ignoring that long, fully-paid-off asset twilight cuts nuclear off at the knees. 2/

Yesterday @AEMO_Energy released an update to the Electricity Statement of Opportunities (ESOO).

This document is meant to point out what else needs to be built to keep electricity reliable.

Their headline chart shows unreliability is headed... off the charts. Literally. 1/ So after showing things aren't going well, the next bit is 'follow our prescription and things will go better'.

The first 'sensitivity' that shows improvement is called "Actionable Transmission" sensitivity, which includes transmission proposed in the ISP. Still bad in VIC. 2/

Does anyone know how much the Central West Orana Renewable Energy Zone will cost?

Buried in a Transgrid application for funding for 'long lead equipment', we have a quote from a transformer supplier saying it's bigger than HumeLink. Which is worth $5bn. Really? 1/ The Integrated System Plan input document (the 'Transmission Expansion Options Report') gets away with not reporting the estimated cost.

Because it's 'anticipated'.
I.e. locked in. Sunk cost.
2/

So @cleannrgcouncil released some "new independent research".

"Nuclear six times the cost of renewables" they claim in the press release.

Let's take a look at the substance of the report that they commissioned. 1/

cleanenergycouncil.org.au/news/new-indep… In short, it's all about Levlised Cost of Electricity (LCOE). That metric that doesn't include the full system cost of providing reliable electricity, just takes the cost of electricity produced in whatever whims the weather or plant allows. 2/

CORRECTION!

I got the headline wrong here I'm sorry...

Thanks to @VickiJo28765736, for pointing out the "argument" that this is not a conflict of interest.

But this "argument" gives rise to another headline, which is its own bombshell in other ways. 1/

https://twitter.com/QuixoticQuant/status/1788832136180703593

The new news is that VNI West is not the project we thought it was.

The groundbreaking claim here is that this application (determination) only relates to a portion. The NSW portion. For which AEMO (TCV) is not responsible. 2/

Can anyone tell me how @AEMO_Energy could possibly not have the most clear and direct conflict of interest in Victoria on VNI West?

They are the co-proponent, developer, and also approve the economics in the regulatory system.

Quick 🧵 on this. 1/

aemo.com.au/en/initiatives…
Here's AEMO, author of the ISP, declaring VNI West actionable, an earlier date 'advised by proponent'.

The ideal timing in the 2020 ISP was 2035-36.

They've been consistently making dubious 'insurance value' arguments to bring it forward and keep it actionable for years. 2/

Another FOI back from the department. I think this is pretty bad.

A bunch of emails talking about planned meetings, questions, discussions, documents...

And the actual substance?

Entirely redacted. Under s47C.
🧵 to discuss. 1/





My FOI was to follow up this revelation from Zoe Konovalov, that the ISP didn't model reliability requirements.

I wanted to hear exactly what the 'clear-eyed' modelers at AEMO had to say, and figure out whether other public claims were misleading. 2/

https://x.com/QuixoticQuant/status/1728271643372650837

I think we have a smoking gun on HumeLink.

TransGrid didn't share what they knew about the project's escalating costs with AEMO at the critical moments when it would affect them getting paid.

@AlexanderjbXCI uncovered plenty of evidence in their "Transgrid Advisory Council" meetings, includng this chart here from their meeting 3rd May.

Long 🧵 coming. Summary up-front:

TransGrid had new estimates (Class 3) by February 2023. They expected Class 2 Estimates by the end of May, or latest June.

They didn't mention this to AEMO when requesting a second Feedback Loop for another ~$200million for more early works on 6 April, leaving AEMO dependent on an assumption total project costs hadn't changed.

They didn't submit any improved estimates in time for the Draft Transmission Expansion Options Report (TEOR), published 2 May.

On July 18, the CEO pretended that the old numbers were 3-4 years old (reality is 2 exactly), and a 30% increase, and also said full numbers would be known in "next few months", when it's clear they're known 2 days later, and published by AEMO 10 days later.

TransGrid expected to lodge their full CPA2 (balance of project costs approval) in September, have it approved by December, i.e. before the 2024 Draft ISP came out. They either didn't realise or didn't care that a more expensive project was clearly not in consumers interests, and could not be approved without changes to the ISP.

TranGrid claim they were keeping the Regulator informed of their progress on costs. But the critical assessment actually rested with AEMO.

I'll share some more FOI revelations from the Regulator, but the key correspondence is between AEMO, and TransGrid, both of whom are private and immune to FOIs.

We really need an inquiry to get to the bottom of this. 1/ For essential context, revisit this thread.

NSW Parliament was misled by Brett Redman, CEO of TransGrid on 18th July.

This thread will remove any shadow of doubt about how informed he is about the costings at this point. 2/

https://x.com/QuixoticQuant/status/1729372102523040111

3rd April, submissions close for the HumeLink Contingent Project Application.

This is the bit where Transgrid gets their regulated revenues increased to make consumers pay billions.

I think there's a clean, water-tight legal argument that should quash the application. 1/ Because TransGrid requested the Feedback Loop on 18 December, well before the commencement of @bowenchris's new rule that allows a Draft ISP to be used, the old rules still apply to HumeLink.

"as if the Amending Rule had not been made"
2/

https://x.com/QuixoticQuant/status/1769201584884654357?s=20

Part 3 of "Should we worry about hail-smashed solar farms leeching bad stuff into the landscape"

Just a touch of snark here. I'm the contrarian, must bring hard evidence.

He provided 3 papers, but obviously missed the memo that said I might check what they say. 😆 1/

https://twitter.com/gnievchenko/status/1773334624132845677

Context: I started out by saying I was more concerned about what might run off this massive solar farm in Texas that was recently shattered by hail than I was by the economic wastage. 2/

https://x.com/QuixoticQuant/status/1772904980246405135?s=20

Yesterday, @climatecouncil released a big report, "Seize the Decade".

It's the epitome of the "hip hip" style of publication: a meaningless noise you make to get all your friends to shout "hooray".

Does nothing to address any serious questions or challenges. 1/

https://twitter.com/climatecouncil/status/1772776133878308906

The @australian described it as "groundbreaking".

I'd like to elaborate on exactly how it is 'groundbreaking', because there's an important sense in which I actually agree. 2/

theaustralian.com.au/breaking-news/…

Who pays for GenCost? To what end?

1. @CSIRO of course. It's their independent effort to inform policy debate.
2. @AEMO_Energy. They're contracting CSIRO to get inputs for the Integrated System Plan.
3. Both... ok... why?

A 🧵on the GenCost Webinar. There are hints. 1/ On that slide, Eli Pack (AEMO group manager system planning) give the first descriptions:

"Gencost is of course a collaboration between the CSIRO and AEMO to deliver an annual process
of updating the costs of electricity generation..."

Ok, it's joint! and annual. 2./

Remember HumeLink, with the $1.6bn cost blow-out, and still being rushed ahead?

I thought we'd seen the worst in the @AEMO_Energy ISP. But now there's an updated cost-benefit analysis from @EY_Australia that takes the cake. Roughly DOUBLE previous benefits.

Long 🧵coming. 1/ This project, a 500KV transmission line to connect Sydney to Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro, is a case-study in how economically unviable infrastructure gets advanced.

Starts with a rosy estimate at the 'Project Assessment Draft Report' stage. $1.3bn cost, $2.5bn benefits. Peaches. 2/