The climate change debate continues.

[octave]

21 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

According to google...

 

"Australia has surpassed 400,000 home battery storage installations with 11.2GWh of cumulative capacity installed in less than a year "

I just read that the 400000 figure for home batteries is just since the rebate, and if you include home battery installations before the rebate, the total is somewhere around the 600000 mark.  

 

BYD have announced their new generation of sodium batteries, expected to cost $40 US a KWh and be good for 10000 cycles or approximately 27 years.

 

The point is that whilst we are debating this, battery storage gets cheaper and better, solar panels get cheaper and more efficient, as do wind turbines, not to mention other coming technologies.

 

This argument is often predicated on the notion that renewables cost money and must be paid for, whilst ignoring the fact that new coal is incredibly expensive and requires constant fuel, the cost of which would be borne by the consumer. This, according to CSIRO and AEMO would cost more than our present strategies.

 

 

 

 

 

[octave]

I asked AI this:  how much would a new coal-fired power station cost, and what impact would it have on electricity bills?

 

The short answer is:

• A new coal-fired power station in Australia would likely cost A$8–15 billion, depending on its size and technology.
• It would probably increase, not decrease, average electricity bills compared with building new wind, solar, and battery capacity today. However, it could reduce exposure to gas price spikes if it displaced expensive gas generation.

Here's why.

Construction cost

A modern high-efficiency, low-emissions (HELE) coal plant of around 1,000 MW would likely cost:

Item	Estimate (A$)
Construction	$8–15 billion
Construction period	7–10 years
Expected operating life	40–50 years

The wide range reflects uncertainty because no large coal-fired power station has been built in Australia for decades, so there is no recent local benchmark.

For comparison:

• The cancelled expansion of Medupi Power Station ultimately exceeded A$25 billion after delays and cost overruns.
• Recent coal projects in Europe and North America have also experienced substantial overruns.

Why is it so expensive?

Coal plants require much more than the boiler itself:

• enormous steam turbines
• pollution control equipment
• cooling systems
• ash handling facilities
• coal storage and conveyors
• high-voltage grid connection
• extensive environmental approvals.

Modern emissions standards also require equipment that older Australian coal stations never had.

What would electricity cost?

This is where it gets interesting.

The cost of electricity from a new plant is usually measured by the Levelised Cost of Energy (LCOE).

Approximate ranges today are:

Technology	Cost (A$/MWh)
Existing depreciated coal	40–80
New coal	120–180+
Gas peaking	150–300 (depends on gas price)
Wind + firming	70–120
Solar + batteries	60–110

These figures vary between studies, but most recent analyses conclude that new coal is more expensive than new renewable generation with storage, largely because of its high upfront capital cost and ongoing fuel and maintenance expenses.

Why are old coal stations cheap but new ones aren't?

This often causes confusion.

Australia's existing coal stations:

• were built 30–50 years ago,
• have largely been paid off,
• operate under older environmental standards.

That means today's consumers mostly pay for:

• coal,
• maintenance,
• staff,
• repairs.

A new station has to recover billions of dollars of construction costs over its lifetime.

What impact would it have on household bills?

For a typical Australian household spending around A$2,000 per year on electricity:

Scenario 1: Coal replaces expensive gas

Bills might fall slightly during periods when gas prices are very high because coal fuel has historically been cheaper than gas.

Scenario 2: Coal competes with new renewables

Bills would likely be higher than under a system dominated by new wind, solar, and batteries because the new coal plant's capital costs would need to be recovered from electricity consumers (or taxpayers).

Scenario 3: Government subsidises construction

If taxpayers funded part of the construction cost, electricity prices could appear lower, but the cost would be shifted from electricity bills to government budgets funded by taxation.

Other considerations

A coal plant also faces economic challenges because it operates best at a relatively constant output. Australia's electricity demand now has a deep midday dip caused by rooftop solar, making it harder for coal stations to run continuously at high utilisation. If a new coal plant generated fewer megawatt-hours than planned, its fixed costs would be spread over less electricity, increasing the cost per unit produced.

Could private companies build one?

In theory, yes.

In practice, no major electricity company has announced plans to finance a new conventional coal-fired power station in Australia. The main reasons cited are:

• the very large upfront capital cost,
• long construction times,
• uncertainty over future electricity market conditions,
• competition from lower-cost renewable generation and storage.

My assessment

If Australia's objective were simply to build the lowest-cost new electricity generation, the evidence available today suggests that a new coal-fired power station is unlikely to be the cheapest option. Existing coal stations remain relatively inexpensive because their construction costs were paid off decades ago, but replicating that infrastructure today would require a very large new investment. Unless there were substantial government support or a major change in technology or fuel costs, that investment would probably place upward pressure on electricity costs compared with building a mix of renewable generation, transmission, and storage.

 

 

[nomadpete]

Another comparison is that the South Australian 'big battery' is...

 

The battery features 150 MW/194 MWh of installed capacity, as well as grid inertia support services.

 

It looks like Australians are not waiting for the government to make the transition happen

[old man emu]

Here's an irony about electricity generation. There is this idea of building giant incinerators to burn a lot of the waste our modern way of living produces. But wasn't the idea of going all in with the various renewable energy sources to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide we were producing through burning fossil fuels to heat water to make steam to drive turbines to generate electricity?

[facthunter]

Batteries are the quickest response to a need that there is. Pumped hydro would probably be the Next best, then a Jet aircraft engine on Gas which is horribly Inefficient. ( Jet engines can be started and opened up, without a Warmup.)  Nev.

[Jerry_Atrick]

On 30/06/2026 at 2:03 PM, Siso said:

There is a lot more to a grid then just the electricity. Your figures dont allow for storage, artificial inertia, tranmission   gt back up. Otherwise Sa would have the cheapest electricity in the country. So you cant give me a country. Sa grid is smallest on the NEM (maybe Tassie) so a big difference to a country

Tou're quite right re the levelised cost. But taking these into account, a) it is still cheaper and b) it also doesn't take into account hte ongoing capital investment required to fossil burning plants that isn't needed for renewables in any of the same way.

 

Your point on naming a country that exists solely on solar and winbd is moot, by the way. In the scheme of things, these are newer technology at scale and existing infrastructure in countries where it is applicable would make sense means its a transition, not a big bang. That is the politics, not economic side, Maybe we should make Australia the first to go the whole hog, but a lot of established vested interests will have their noses put out of joint, and they happen to contribute to the major political parties' cofferss...

 

South Australia's electricity isstill relatively expensive due to structural factors which have always made it expensive compared to eastern seaboard states. @octave has already prvied the info above - I don't need to repeat it suffice to say fossils will be more expensive.

 

But if you want to pay more, be my guest,,,

 

[nomadpete]

As Jerry points out, the financial balance must be separated from the political and media (vested interests). 

The big players are voting with their dollars against fossil fuel power stations. 

They don't give a rat's about environmental issues. Their investments are based upon best return for dollar. And they don't see value in fossil fuel, or nuclear energy.

[Siso]

They don"t care aboyt Australias energy security either

[Jerry_Atrick]

Actually, given project finance is usually collateralised/financed against the cash flows of yhe asset it is financing, it is in their interests to make sure that asset is going to perform as expected/promised...

 

And they generally do go to decent lengths to ensure that.. so in an indirect way  they do care 

Edited 16 hours ago by Jerry_Atrick

[Siso]

We may need to disagree on that. Worker safety and then $$$$$. Less energy security = more money from governments to fix

[Jerry_Atrick]

Well.. given we risk assess them, I sort of have seen how it is done

 

Governments don't cover our losses

[Siso]

Scotland they are paying windfarms not to produce electricity because of transmission constraints. Government is paying to keep Eraring power station open in NSW. The worst thing it is probably still making money, just not enough.

[facthunter]

OLD Coal-Fired Power stations are notoriously unreliable and obsolete.(inefficient and Polluting. NO parts available)  Their Capital value has been amortised so on the books they look profitable. Usually fail when needed most . Hot days.  with no warning. and not back on  grid for ages.   One in Qld, the co Owners are suing each other. Nev

Edited 8 hours ago by facthunter
expand

[Siso]

Sounds like a wind turbine except they dont need to be old. Hot windless days! Hot windy days. They derate, cooling water for genetator and converter get too hot causes them to stop. When we most need them!

[octave]

10 minutes ago, Siso said:

Sounds like a wind turbine except they dont need to be old. Hot windless days! Hot windy days. They derate, cooling water for genetator and converter get too hot causes them to stop. When we most need them!

 

True but it does have to be quite hot:

 

The Temperature Limits

Standard industrial wind turbines are engineered according to international IEC 61400-1 standards, which dictate a normal operational ambient temperature limit of 40°C and an extreme survival limit of 50°C. [1]

When weather conditions push past these thresholds, turbines protect themselves using a two-stage defense mechanism: [1]

• Thermal Derating (Curtailment): When ambient air temperatures rise between 40°C and 45°C, the turbine's control system automatically throttles or "derates" its power output. By reducing electricity generation, the turbine limits the internal heat produced by electrical resistance. [1, 2, 3]
• Automatic Shutdown: If the ambient temperature crosses the critical maximum limit—usually 45°C to 50°C depending on the specific model—the turbine will initiate a full safety shutdown. [1, 2, 3]

 

Why Extreme Heat Causes Issues

Even though turbines use internal liquid or air cooling systems, they ultimately rely on the outside air to dump that heat. [1, 2]

1. Inefficient Heat Exchange: When the surrounding air is extremely hot, the temperature differential between the turbine's internal components (like the gearbox or generator) and the outside environment shrinks. The cooling loops can no longer dissipate heat effectively. [1, 2, 3]
2. Component Protection: The oil in the gearbox can thin out excessively under extreme heat, reducing lubrication and risking catastrophic mechanical friction. Similarly, generator windings can suffer insulation melting or permanent damage if they overheat. [1, 2, 3, 4]
3. Thin Air Dynamics: Hot air is less dense than cold air. Less dense air provides less aerodynamic lift on the blades, requiring the turbine to work harder (generating more internal heat) just to produce the same amount of electricity.

 

Regional Adaptations

To combat this, manufacturers build specialized "hot climate packages." Turbines bound for desert environments like parts of Australia, the Middle East, or the Southwestern United States feature upgraded, heavy-duty cooling fans, larger liquid-to-air heat exchangers, and altered internal insulation to withstand ambient operational temperatures up to 50°C before shutting down.

 

2. Thermal Derating Over Full Shutdowns

When temperatures do spike above 40°C in parts of South Australia, Victoria, or New South Wales, modern wind farms are engineered to dynamically adapt. [1]

• Rather than shutting down completely, turbines usually undergo thermal derating (throttling back total output by 10% to 20%) to keep internal temperatures safe while continuing to supply power to a stressed grid. [1]
• Because the majority of Australia’s wind assets are located in coastal or elevated southern regions (which rarely sustain ambient temperatures above the 45°C–50°C critical cutoff), full thermal shutdowns are exceptional events.

Edited 6 hours ago by octave

[Jerry_Atrick]

3 hours ago, Siso said:

Scotland they are paying windfarms not to produce electricity because of transmission constraints. Government is paying to keep Eraring power station open in NSW. The worst thing it is probably still making money, just not enough.

Let me see if I have got this straight.. your position is that fossils/nuclear provide energy security over renewables (and its related tech)?

 

If that is so, then the above post sort of throws that out the window faster than a Putin dissident.

 

Scotland are paying power stations to mot produce power because of a failure to plan execution of upgrading to renewables. They asked to have all this extra capacity in the form of renewables added to the grid that cannot handle it.

 

That is a policy or politics failure. Not a renewables can't meet "baseload" failure. It is akin to building a new suburb with only bicycle lanes but to be extra green, adding driveways with electric car chargers and declaring it an ice car free green suburb - and they crying EV cars aren't practical transport for a suburban life.

 

That is called overpaying or underinvesting in energy security... the payments they make to compensate the owners for the governments cock up probably would have gone a decent way to grid upgrades.

 

On the other hand, Raring power station was availing itself of a government guarantee because, even presumably fully amortised, wasn't predicted to be economically viable (ie produce power at a price that others could and make money).. in the supposed economically most effective way being a privatised market. Isn't that the government being tapped by the fossil fuel industry for energy security? 

 

BTW, Origin don't currently opt into the scheme as they are predicting, again fully amortised, it will not lose money

 

We can find individual cases with all forms of generation that have not gone to plan or need a bail out. And all forms receive some form of government subsidy. That is policy because of energy security

 

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Then one example. The cost of connecting Snowy Hydro 2.0 to consumers via grid upgrades has been estimated at  one Trillion dollars. How is that competitive with anything?

[Litespeed]

6 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

Then one example. The cost of connecting Snowy Hydro 2.0 to consumers via grid upgrades has been estimated at  one Trillion dollars. How is that competitive with anything?

How did that number come about?

 

Sounds like bullshit to me.

[octave]

17 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

Then one example. The cost of connecting Snowy Hydro 2.0 to consumers via grid upgrades has been estimated at  one Trillion dollars. How is that competitive with anything?

That is a bold claim to make without evidence.

 

The short answer is no. There is no credible estimate that connecting Snowy Hydro 2.0 to consumers requires $1 trillion in grid upgrades.

Here's where the claim appears to come from.

What Snowy Hydro 2.0 actually costs

The project has experienced enormous cost overruns:

• Original estimate (2017): $2 billion
• Revised estimate (2023): $12 billion
• Snowy Hydro now acknowledges the final cost will be higher than $12 billion.
• Some independent analysts (Bruce Mountain and Ted Woodley) estimate the total economic cost could reach around $42 billion, but this includes:
  • construction,
  • financing (interest),
  • and Snowy 2.0's share of major transmission projects such as HumeLink and VNI West.

Even critics of the project are talking about tens of billions, not hundreds of billions.

Where does the "$1 trillion" come from?

There are a couple of possibilities.

1. Confusing Snowy 2.0 with the entire energy transition

Some opinion pieces have argued that Australia's entire electricity transition—generation, transmission, storage, distribution upgrades and financing over decades—could approach very large figures.

For example, one recent opinion article claimed:

• about $450 billion for transition infrastructure
• plus around $600 billion in financing costs

and rounded this to roughly $1 trillion. It was not referring solely to connecting Snowy Hydro 2.0 to consumers.

That estimate is controversial and is not an official government, AEMO or CSIRO estimate.

2. Simple exaggeration

Sometimes numbers grow in online debates. Someone may have taken:

"$42 billion for Snowy"

plus

"Australia's grid will need hundreds of billions of investment"

and turned it into

"Snowy needs a trillion dollars of transmission."

There is no evidence for that statement.

What do official bodies estimate for transmission?

Australia does need significant transmission investment regardless of Snowy 2.0.

AEMO's Integrated System Plan includes projects like:

• HumeLink
• VNI West
• Marinus Link
• EnergyConnect

These collectively amount to tens of billions of dollars, not hundreds of billions for Snowy alone. The purpose is to connect new renewable generation across the National Electricity Market, not just Snowy Hydro.

Is Snowy 2.0 competitive?

That's a separate question.

There are legitimate criticisms:

• huge cost blowouts
• years behind schedule
• uncertainty over final cost
• batteries have become much cheaper since Snowy 2.0 was conceived

Many energy economists now question whether Snowy 2.0 would be approved if starting from scratch today. Others argue its enormous storage capacity and expected operating life (many decades) still make it valuable for grid reliability.

 

The "$1 trillion to connect Snowy 2.0" claim isn't supported by any credible estimate. Even critics of the project put Snowy 2.0's total cost at around $40–42 billion, including construction, financing and associated transmission. The "$1 trillion" figure comes from some opinion pieces estimating the possible cost of Australia's entire long-term energy transition—not the cost of connecting Snowy Hydro 2.0 to consumers. They're two completely different claims.

So I'd rate the original statement as:

• "Connecting Snowy Hydro 2.0 costs $1 trillion" → False
• "Snowy Hydro 2.0 has become extremely expensive" → True
• "Australia will need major transmission investment during the energy transition" → True
• "Those transmission costs are all because of Snowy Hydro 2.0" → False

 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by octave