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/

Time to take a look at @DavidOsmond8's latest defence of the weather-diversity argument.

Dave's own model is a copperplate one, no transmission limits.

So it's important to see how he arrives at the conclusion that it'll all be ok, the ISP's got this. 1/ First, just 2-3GW of wind flowing from Qld to NSW... Well, let's assume that's enough for a moment.

Contrary to Dave's claim, the ISP does not cost this.

The ISP only includes QNI Option 2.

That’s my problem with your work Rosie. You refer to the ISP without thinking about it. Please think more about it before you reference it for projecting what is happening or will happen! 🙏

Eg any wind being developed now will be in the ISP, but NOT COSTED, because “committed”

https://twitter.com/engwithrosie/status/1876443663519420500

And please don’t take that personally… I think more about more people failing to think about the ISP before they talk about it than anyone else I know.

You have plenty of company… including essentially every current and recent energy minister.

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

I've released a scathing thread about this recent @the_AEMC report. It's a puff-piece for the ISP. Utterly debased from reality.

Along with the fatal flaws I've already identified, there are other problems with some detailed assumptions that are core to their conclusion. 1/

https://twitter.com/QuixoticQuant/status/1864289051286884509

Key to the assumption that overall prices improve at all
is the reduction in wholesale costs.

They pretend the wall of capex is made up for by increased volumes... I don't buy that, but won't dwell on it today.

Let's focus on wholesale costs. 2/

A 🧵 on @the_AEMC's latest price trends report.

TLDR: Dead on arrival.

A formerly serious analysis has become a puff-piece for the ISP. Pure fan-fiction. Doubling down on the most ridiculous and discredited assumptions the ISP has.

Especially ignoring consumer capital. 1/ This is what the last version of the report looked like in 2021. Just a couple of years of forward projection, based on a detailed take of a couple years of recent history, regulatory plans etc.
Relatively sober.
2/

Desperation and disarray at AEMO. Imagine attempting to walk back a claim that's been so clearly made by your CEO before a parliamentary inquiry.

Laughable. 1/

https://twitter.com/AEMO_Energy/status/1863398729661005993

They just hate that the media can smell stench of dishonesty about rooftop solar being good for reliable energy. Even at the ABC. 2/
abc.net.au/news/2024-12-0…

During an appeal, the Department of Energy (DCCEEW) has released some more details about the revised business case for Snowy 2.0 that was withheld from an FOI request.

They show that despite costs doubling, Snowy 2.0 is meant to be just as profitable. What does this mean? 1/
For a start It tells you how ridiculous the redaction process was in the first place. Keeping needless secrets.

Here's the same set of numbers officially published in the Snowy 2.0 Revised business case, a public document. 2/

Newsflash 🚨 🚨

The Chair of @aergovau, the energy rule enforcer either doesn't know the rules, or deliberately misrepresented them to parliament.

The @the_AEMC, the rule-making body, has clarified that a process Clare Savage claimed was "duplicative" was anything but. 1/
This connects directly to the front-page story about AER AEMO secret correspondence to agree to break the rules.

In this article, Clare Savage also refers to this skipped consultation as "additional duplicative processes." 2/

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

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/

Or...
Hydrogen was always, only-ever, a dream.
It's never been viable in real life.

And this "new plan", of subsidies from @Bowenchris, is just another chapter of fantasy.
Perpetuating a dream, to coddle a policy position unfit for reality. 1/

theconversation.com/new-plan-shows… Yes, the Integrated System Plan assumes 15GW of ultra-flexible hydrogen loads in 2050, to be funded by private industry (not a cost to the system), to soak up the sunshine. 2/

Massive issue with @CSIRO's GenCost report.

Tell me where I'm wrong.

I've just derived numbers for grid-scale renewable capacity factors in Australia in last year.
Solar ~19%. Equal BOTTOM of range in GenCost
Wind ~24% Well BELOW range in GenCost.

🧵. 1/
The calculation is pretty simple.

Took the energy generated in the last 12 months from the brilliant OpenNem. 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/