New paper out yesterday from Paul Simshauser and Joel Gilmore.

Serious study.

It represents (another) death-knell for the hallowed AEMO Integrated System Plan, and any such weather-dependent plans.

Peaking gas isn't the easy backstop for bad weather we thought. 1/ Why another death-knell for the ISP? Well because for a full year, the Government has sat on their own review of the ISP that identified this as a serious problem.

The ISP has (again) assumed enabling infrastructure exists that might not be economically viable. 2/

Dave defends his position, which is great.

He clarified that he actually thinks only 1.7GW extra is needed.

In other words, he only wants to ~double today's capacity, and concludes that the TOTAL of just less than 3GW is enough.

Let's consider his arguments. 1/

https://twitter.com/DavidOsmond8/status/1876908817000104055

Over ten years ago (this PACR from 2014) there was 1.2GW of North-South capacity.

And it was busy back then. When we had barely any renewables, and even more coal.

It's gone up a little since then. 2/

Oh, I like this game.

Let's find some weird anomaly in @AEMO_Energy's ISP, and pull the thread.

Imagine finding evidence that suggested MORE industrial activity in that scenario!

Which suggests AEMO was tinkering to create that drop, which Frontier faithfully accepted. 1/

https://twitter.com/Bowenchris/status/1868769474817687579

The punchline is here: The BIS Oxford Economics analysis paper, commissioned by AEMO to inform the scenarios for the 2023 Inputs, Aussumptions, Scenarios Report.

The Progressive Change scenario, that the Coalition prefers has MORE Aussie industry, driven by mining. 2/

There's a verse in the bible about this kind of hypocrisy from @SHamiltonian. (Matthew 7:3-5)

"Economics of Coalition's nuclear modelling are worth nothing"

requires the rejoinder:

"Because they closely shadow the ISP, which is worth much less than nothing." 1/

https://twitter.com/SHamiltonian/status/1868155380628406714

I respect Steven's analytic capability. He's correctly identified the red herring in the Scenario preference.

But by choosing Progressive Change rather than Step Change, the Coalition has simply dialled back some of the ISP's insanity, not rooted it out. 2/

So @CSIRO has released their next consultation draft for GenCost.

The most important conclusion is this one... That renewables have "lowest cost range of any new electricity generation"

I wonder whether the data supports that? No.

The one problem that was resolved in the coal numbers was the Ukraine price spike.

And with just that ONE issue resolved, the coal range is now LOWER at the bottom than 90% integrated wind/solar.

The headline is misleading. 2/

Breaking FOI from @CISOZ:

@AEMO_Energy REVERSED their initial decision to leave the 82% renewable energy target as non-binding.

After @DCCEEW expressed their "preference" that this be treated as a binding policy constraint.
1/
This is profound because enforcing the 82% renewable energy target by 2030 essentially collapses the diversity of the scenarios. It completes the "divorce from reality" that makes the ISP a work of complete fantasy.
2/

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

The story of the ISP Review cover-up.

@CISOZ has obtained a full copy of a report that the government has kept hidden all year.

It's meant to be published. But I can't find it at the address specified.

Buckle in.
1/
This is the Review that I thought was never published.

Go back and read this thread.

I still don't think it was ever published. 2/

https://x.com/QuixoticQuant/status/1857303169480716400

Let's talk about the so-called heat-wave, and lack-of-reserves.

Yesterday at noon, NSW had over 12GW of total demand.

Rooftop solar provided over 30%. Over 4GW.
Wind and solar together was around 55%.

Not bad! 1/ But at 4pm, demand still 12GW...
Rooftop solar has collapsed. Without the ability to track the sun, it fades in afternoon. It's also on the coast, where clouds were gathering. Wind fading too.
Rooftop 10%
Utility Solar 12%
Wind 6%

Wind/solar combined now 28%.
2/

Plot thickens...
I think @the_AEMC broke the National Electricity Law to sneak through Chris Bowen's request to delay their review of the ISP.

Helping @Bowenchris avoid a transparent review of the ISP in the lead-up to energy/cost-of-living election is significant.
1/

https://twitter.com/QuixoticQuant/status/1852375229491794408

Here's their Statutory Notice. They cite Section 96A as their authority to fast-track the rule-change. 2/

Just another 30% cost blowout for a transmission project. Yawn.

$9bn for Copperstring, up from $6bn.

And yes, the previous government already knew and didn't share it. The usual.

@MaduraMcCormack explains. 1/

couriermail.com.au/news/queenslan… What's amazing is that the new Liberal government still supports it.

This is the project that even Ernst and Young excluded from their modelling of the benefits of the 'Energy and Jobs Plan'. And it was 30% cheaper then. 2/

https://x.com/QuixoticQuant/status/1723841999231750579

A 🧵 on the "Renewables Honeymoon".

And why the honeymoon ends somewhere around 30-40% VRE. Where 🇦🇺 is now.

I've touched on this topic before, including this illustrative chart in my GenCost video.

But I'm getting requests for more substantive evidence. Here it is. 1/ In the debate I had with @simonahac I said:

"I actually think there is heaps of evidence that we have now reached that inflection point where the next increment of renewable energy will cost significantly more than the system we have today." 2/

Some excellent material coming out highlighting many of the shortcomings of the Integrated System Plan.

Just stumbled across another absurdity:

The big review of the ISP that the government has just run was...

🥁🥁

Never published. 🤯
1/
dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/… Just noticed this now, because the team at @CISOZ is working on responding to the ISP's Methodology Issues paper.

And everything is couched in terms of whether the proposals reflect the "Energy Ministers' RESPONSE to the Review of the ISP".

Not the Review itself. 2/

FOI evidence: C'wealth support for a particular rule change 'Option' was conditional, on something secret.

That Rule Change has now passed. With that Option. And...
a delay to an AEMC review of ISP, in favour of a review controlled by Ministers.

Coincidence? 🧵 1/
So right now, a Senate select committee is digging into the regulatory and planning systems. Uncovering a bunch of uncomfortable truths.

Like the fact that every government policy is forced onto the modelled scenarios as a binding constraint. 2/

https://x.com/mattjcan/status/1848926492551741920

Actually, I was less wrong than I thought about the timing of the rule change.

New FOI from Australian Energy Market Commission.

In their meeting at beginning of year with DCCEEW, they name end of year as the timing. And cite HumeLink's CPA 2 as reason. 1/

https://twitter.com/QuixoticQuant/status/1836015697962639492

We don't know the exact date of the document above. But in the sequence of documents it comes after this one in November 2022, with Transgrid. Who are discussing with the rule-maker how to keep things (presumably HumeLink) "on fast tracked".
They want something clear prior to submitting the CPA2, the same event timing DCCEEW references in their discussions.

This report came out a few days ago.

Needs a by-line:
"dummy's guide to driving inflation"

It was attributed in @australian as being AEMO, but actually its only AEMO-funded. Written by "Race for 2030". A research centre that boasts $68million in federal funding. 1/
An alternative by-line could be:

"reasons why the 2030 targets won't happen".

Honestly... Let's the electrical engineers in the country in five years. Then wind it back down to below today in 10.

Who reads this stuff and thinks. "challenging, but needed.

Pure fantasy. 2/

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/

My goodness... The Climate Council's has a new report out, cheering on rooftop solar.

The basis for the whole thing is that the household experience of solar economics is sound and scalable. And the systems engineering... well never mind. 1/

https://twitter.com/climatecouncil/status/1836609778208125003

They even managed to get this SBS story. The poster-child is an exemplar of the unscalability of the system.

Who pays for the poles, wires, and power stations that power Mamoon's home after a couple cloudy days?

Other electricity users. 2/

https://x.com/climatecouncil/status/1838157015971176536

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/