The remarkable assumptions that will shape Australia’s future grid

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

AEMO’s modelling of the future grid influenced by more dramatic falls in solar and battery storage costs, big uptake of rooftop solar, electric vehicles, batteries and virtual power plants – and a question-mark over coal.

share
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

If you have an interest in how Australia’s future grid will take shape, and the pace of the energy transition and emissions reductions, dare to cast your gaze away for a moment from the typically sordid politics taking place in Canberra.

There are now enough clues to suggest that the key decisions will not be taken only in the corridors of Canberra’s political elites, but also in the computations and assumptions of the energy wonks trying to model what that modern grid looks like.

And much of this is happening within the confines of Australia’s Energy Market Operator. The main game is not, as some would suggest, the reliability obligation of the proposed National Emissions Guarantee, but in AEMO’s own Integrated System Plan.

The ISP has been a work in progress for some six months now, and broke cover just before Christmas when AEMO boss Audrey Zibelman spoke of the need for a coordinated plan, and the need to model emissions reductions far beyond what was being contemplated by the current government.

The ISP will be a template that will be hugely influential in the key decisions to be made in coming years – the need (or not) for multiple new transmission lines, the need to focus on large-scale and distributed storage, and the choice of energy technology.

The first draft of the plan is not going to be unveiled for a month yet, but already there are some fascinating things taking place in the assumptions and scenarios that are to be fed into the machines that will do the modelling.

Last month we reported on AEMO’s hugely optimistic scenarios for the uptake of electric vehicles, suggesting that they could double over its previous assumptions made just six months earlier, and within two decades 10 million EVs could be on the road.

RenewEconomy has now seen the modelling that will underpin other key elements of the plan – including that for rooftop solar, small-scale batteries (and the extent to which they are linked), and the cost of competing technologies and fuels – wind, solar, gas and coal.

Some of the assumptions are quite stunning, others may be a cause for concern for certain parties.

Among the most interesting are the forecast falls in the cost of solar power, which the AEMO modelling suggests will fall another 50 per cent from a current LCOE (levellised cost of energy) of $64/MWh.

By 2036, it may cost just $34/MWh, a figure far lower than most other official modelling from the likes of the Finkel Review and others – although not cheaper than some forecasts from private analysts, and solar pioneers such as Dr Martin Green of UNSW.

The cost of battery storage is also modelled to fall dramatically – by almost 50 per cent to $133/MWh (calculated over two hours, single cycle), while solar thermal and storage technology costs are tipped to fall by one-third from $121/MWh to $81/MWh.

These three technologies are the big movers in the electricity market, and therefore the big influencers over future choices.  Even wind energy is modelled to fall only slightly over the next 20 years, to $59/MW from $63/MWh, which may surprise a few.

All other technologies, from pumped hydro to gas generation are modelled to be static. Fuel costs for coal are expected to rise, the modelling does not appear to contemplate any new coal generation, which will be a surprise to no one, apart from the feigned horror of the far right.

The forecasts for rooftop solar, and batteries, and how many of those batteries are integrated into virtual power plants, are also interesting, as are the implications for the democratisation of energy and the impact on the big incumbent utilities.

The modelling assumes that rooftop solar – for both households and businesses – will continue to boom, and by 2050 will be providing between 35,000GWh and 60,000GWh of electricity per annum.

That equates to more than 20 per cent of supply in most states, and in Victoria – remarkably – it equates to 33 per cent of total demand.

In small-scale batteries, the modelling varies between 7,000MW and 20,000MW of battery storage by 2050.

Then it considers how many of these are actually connected, via virtual power plants, to provide arbitrage and emergency response – 10 per cent, 45 per cent, or 90 per cent.

In one of the scenarios, high distributed energy, battery storage accounts for nearly 40 per cent of demand.

The modelling then needs to dial in a range of other assumptions. Firming capacity, for instance. The grid design is focused on meeting peak demand, reasoning that what was once considered “baseload” will look after itself.

An interesting thing to note here is that solar goes from a 25 per cent firming capacity rating to zero, the more that is built.

The first wave of solar plants are credited with having reduced the day-time peaks, so had a rating of 25 per cent, but once more solar is built, the peak then moves to a time when solar has no influence – hence the zero rating for the later additions.

Other assumptions include lead times for new construction (renewables and batteries are by far the quickest), and then the big question about options to upgrade the grid – particularly new lines that link states or service renewable energy zones.

So, what does all this mean? Well, we don’t know yet. For that we will be closely analysing the speeches and presentations by AEMO boss Audrey Zibelman, and the actual Integrated System Plan when its first draft is released in June.

This, however, is likely to be only the start of the conversation, and one thing that can be sure, it will set off a set of vigorous debates.

For a start, apart from the price and other assumptions mentioned here, the modelling will take different overall scenarios into account – slow, neutral and fast change – as well as high DER, and other assumptions including possible life extensions for existing coal plants, “forcing” both Snowy 2.0 and Tasmania’s “battery of the nation”, and other sensitivities.

One of the biggest debates will be the apparent competition between building bigger grids and more links, and focusing on distributed generation.

This is turn pits demand-side solutions against supply side solutions, centralised facilities verses regional, the choice of storage (pumped hydro and battery storage), synchronous versus inverter technologies, and of course, fossil fuels versus renewables.

And this may very well be the final call. AEMO, and most other analysts, have now accepted that the grid is changing and will change further.

The uptake of solar, batteries, EVs, and the cost advantage of wind and solar will see to that. The question is how fast can this be done, and should be done?

The faster decarbonisation calculations will be fascinating. And ultimately, will be the assumptions that count the most in the modelling, and will influence just how many of those existing coal-fired generators can stay on line past their current use-by dates.

AEMO has taken it upon itself to model a 70 per cent emissions reduction by 2050 as the bare minimum, even though Australia has no long-term target (TonyAbbott got rid of that when he scrapped the carbon price, and a 90 per cent reduction (the Paris target).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

56 Comments
  1. Geoff James 5 months ago

    Another big influence on our future grid, that I suspect AEMO will be considering, will be the establishment of a renewable energy export industry. Renewable hydrogen exports, or hydrogen carriers like ammonia, are already a priority for ARENA funding with no shortage of active proponents. Direct electricity exports via submarine HVDC transmission line are also part of the national conversation.

    For either pathway, a back-of-envelope calculation gives a similar answer: to replace the combined GDP contribution of coal and gas exports (let’s prepare for that) will need a renewable electricity generation capacity of 250-350 GW and that is 5-7 times our entire existing national generation fleet!

    Granted, a lot of this may be dedicated capacity disconnected from the national grid, and two companies are presently active in the Pilbara with such a vision. But a lot will be integrated with the national grid, initially playing a role perhaps in augmenting and balancing, but soon afterwards overtaking the capacity built for local supply. If the export model works it will grow fast.

    In this future world, 100% renewable electricity for domestic consumption is really a given, a byproduct – and we will finally be addressing the emissions we now export overseas.

    • Giles 5 months ago

      Actually, as it turns out, AEMO specifically does not include hydrogen in this modelling for the first iteration of the ISP, though i agree they should in future.

      • Geoff James 5 months ago

        Ah I see, thanks – probably it does fall into the too hard / too early basket for the time being. Geoff.

    • Peter F 5 months ago

      If the price drops low enough and it probably will, Wind and solar in WA could power new smelters so we export metals instead of ores. That is probably more cost effective than hydrogen/Ammonia.
      If the SWIS had as many solar panels and wind turbines per square km as Germany. It could generate 350-400 TWh per year from wind and solar. A big Aluminium refinery uses about 8 TWh and the current grid uses about 20 TWh so you can see there is plenty of capacity for new industry

      • GlennM 5 months ago

        I agree,
        An Aluminum smelter is in many ways a way to export electricity. Electricity is the key cost and AL. For years Aluminum has been called “congealed electricity”, it takes 211GJ per ton vs Steel only requires 23GJ.

        Possibly the cheapest way to export electricity will be as Al !

        • Andrew Roydhouse 5 months ago

          which is why it is often called ‘solid electricity’ within the industry.

      • RobertO 5 months ago

        Hi Peter F, I see this change over to RE as a way to employ lots of people for many years to come. Sure Robots are coming, Automation is coming but we will still need people to do things (mining is currently average about 25 people per 1000 tons and that will drop as robots and automation takes over to maybe 1 person per 1000 tons). If we add processing in Australia that will absorb people for 10 years (maybe less but hopefully more) until it starts to drop, heading for 1 person per 1000 tons. If the Fed Gov or the State Gov decided to support RE in WA, Wind alone would support all our Aluminium Smelters if they moved to WA (yes I know there are other support requirements).

      • Hettie 5 months ago

        I like it.

      • solarguy 5 months ago

        And it looks like AGL is possibly thinking along those lines.

    • Ian 5 months ago

      In the future we may not be able to rely on mining for the bulk of our exports, we may also not be able to rely on places like China to make dirt cheap consumer goods we all so love to consume. Just like distributed energy harvesting makes centralised energy procurement and mining obsolete, so too automated factories might make centralised factory labour-mining unnecessary. As China exhausts it’s rural masses as factory fodder, and joins the consumer-fest it will compete with the developed world for cheap manufactured goods. We may need to recover manufacturing as a driver for our economy.

      Just as energy security is compromised by importing fuel so economic security is compromised by importing manufactured goods.

      Here’s a question: if an apple pie contains 4 apples and costs the equivalent of a dozen apples to buy how long will it take before the farmer must sell his farm to pay for the apple pies?

    • Hettie 5 months ago

      You are assuming that coal and gas exports can be replaced only by “bottled” Renewable sourced energy.
      Why?
      The logical big export earner at this time is lithium ion batteries. Not raw lithium. That would be the typical aistralian way, but is stupid. Finished lithium batteries. Far higher in report value, and a new manufacturing opportunity. Aus does gave, after all, 43% of known world reserves of lithium, ad also the smarts to be more than just a quarry.
      Batteries will be a big part of the new, electric world.
      Australia should make the most of that.

      • solarguy 5 months ago

        Another thing we agree on Hettie, we just can’t keep digging it up and flog it off O/S and then buy it back. It’s more than stupid, it’s insane!

        In the Hawke/Keating days they mentioned value adding our resources, but who listened. And how many of Australia’s innovaters couldn’t get the backing here so went O/S.

        • Hettie 5 months ago

          G’day. Just got home after a book group meeting that morphed into a discussion about energy and EVs and disruptive technologies. 6 women aged 70 to 86. All angry with Gov’t.
          Lots of fun.
          Tried to find the answer about the AC power draw. Not in any of the paper that I could find. I’ll have a look at the outside unit when I’ve gone through this issue of RE and comments. Looks like taking a looong time!

      • Geoff James 5 months ago

        Hi Hettie, I agree: getting as much as possible of the lithium battery supply chain onshore is a great idea. Including using the batteries to help make dispatchable RE.

        I like the literal, like-for-like flavour of replacing coal and gas energy exports with direct renewable energy exports, so that’s what the back-of-envelope calculation was about.

        But in this commentary we’ve already talked about 3 distinct exports: actual energy (“bottled” or “wired”), embodied energy like aluminium or other processed minerals, and now batteries but also other products that enable renewable energy systems. Australia is good at hybrid renewable/fossil fuel power plants for example. My colleagues would add data centres as another potential embodied energy export in the form of data.

      • Ian 5 months ago

        We do need to get back to first principles in our economy. What is it that people want? I would submit that from an employment point of view most would want to work close to home for a decent wage and reward for their efforts. Fly-in fly- out is not going to do that, high value manufacturing will .

        Lithium batteries are certainly very suited to highly automated, highly -skilled manufacturing. Gigafactories are great, but megafactories, or even kilofactories would be fine. Our resources like lithium, copper, aluminium, cobalt, titanium, iron etc should not be seen as just commodities to dig up and export but as opportunities to find people decent work to feed themselves and others by valueadding.

        The recent mining boom this country enjoyed was not actually a boom in mining so much, as a boom in mine construction. The value added to the mineral deposits was building the infrastructure and facilities to extract these resources. Now the time has come to add value to the extracted resource.

    • solarguy 5 months ago

      What countries will need our H2 and why Geoff?

      I do like the idea of HVDC and have for a while.

      • Hettie 5 months ago

        Japan wants H2, but is quite smart enough to realise that with off shore wind they could electrolyse sea water and pipe the H2 for far less than the $400 mio they are said to be putting into the totally ridiculous brown coal to H2 project that is the Latrobe valley’s very own pork barrel.
        And then there’s the cost of sequestering all the CO2 (how? I hear you ask), and dealing with all the cadmium, mercury, etc that brown coal so kindly gives.

        • solarguy 5 months ago

          Brown coal into H2 what a joke. Is Geoff using you as his personal secretary? LOL

          • Hettie 5 months ago

            Did you miss the article a week or so ago about this lunatic proposal? $500 mio for a pilot program to produce 3 tonnes of H2 from Latrobe brown coal,with most money coming g from the Japs who want the hydrogen. Utterly loopy. And it looks like the feds see it as another chance to play with carbon capture and storage. Using Japanese money. Seriously delusional.
            And what’s with my being Geoff’s secretary? Are you smoking something?

          • solarguy 5 months ago

            Yes I did and yes I did read it and that’s why I commented in the negative……they are a joke. Loopy is an understatement.

            As Geoff didn’t reply to me, but you did, I was joking that you were his secretary.

          • Hettie 5 months ago

            Ok.

  2. Ken Dyer 5 months ago

    Tony Seba has updated his presentation from several years ago. If his vision goes to plan, AEMO may be a bit behind.

    • PacoBella 5 months ago

      I watched this for an hour last night. It is really hard to fault his reasoning and to disagree with his conclusions. If you do accept the pace and scale of the disruption he suggests, the battle between renewables and coal is already over (and only the LNP in Canberra would disagree) however the biggest challenge for policy-makers is going to be how re-train and find jobs for the millions of car/truck drivers, car mechanics etc. who will be thrown out of work.

      Surely the hi-tech wizards who are driving this disruption and making squillions of dollars in the process will have to be taxed in an equitable manner to provide funding for the social safety net that will be necessary to care for the displaced workers. If this does not happen (ie they do not earn their social licence) there will be a populist uprising (Trump’s Rust Belt support base?).

      To be sustainable, the renewable energy-enabled revolution must get a pass mark from the perspective of the “Quadruple Bottom Line” – Environmental, Economic, Social and Governance.

      • rob 5 months ago

        heard of UBI? (UNIVERSAL INCOME)

      • Hettie 5 months ago

        Work patterns will have to change. Sweden and Norway have been innovative about employment.

    • Robin_Harrison 5 months ago

      He’d certainly get a chuckle over the amount of linear predictions.

      • Hettie 5 months ago

        What is it that they say?
        “Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.”

        It certainly seems that history has plenty of lessons to teach us about disruptive technologies, and the speed with which they displace the old ways.

    • Nick Kemp 5 months ago

      Thanks Ken – I watched the budget speech last night and the lack of vision and outright lies when boosting the 26% renewable energy target upset me for about 10 seconds until I remembered the our federal government isn’t leading the energy market which is getting on with the job all by itself.

      • Hettie 5 months ago

        No. Far from leading, they are obstructing in every way they can.
        Kick this mob out!

      • Ken Dyer 5 months ago

        I hope you caught Bill Shorten’s reply. For the first time in very long time, I heard the words, climate change and renewable energy said in a positive way. The conservative right wing knuckle draggers on the government side of the house seemed to cringe in their seats as loud applause and cheers from the gallery broke out and echoed around the chamber. It was lovely.

        • Hettie 5 months ago

          That response to the budget was quite something, wasn’t it. There was also loud applause and cheering for the announcement of the Federal ICAC , and strengthening of ASIC .
          I don’t remember any applause from the gallery for the budget itself.
          Shorten’s delivery has improved greatly, though there were a few times that his old strange inflection reappeared, but the substance was very good.
          He did well too against Leigh Sales’ determination to get a gotcha over the extraordinary High Court decision on Katy Gallagher. When you look at the time it took for Labor’s candidates to get confirmation that they had Renounced their British Citizenship, and the speed with which John Alexander’s was confirmed, it is all very smelly.
          And the way, at the very end of the interview, Shorten got in another plug that his plan was for the benefit of ordinary people, not big business and the banks, that was priceless. Sales, on the other hand, looked like she was sucking lemons.

          • Ken Dyer 5 months ago

            “Leigh Sales isn’t the problem. We are! We vote in crazy Parliaments and then get virtually powerless Governments and second-rate outcomes.” Thus wrote Tom Switzer.
            http://www.switzer.com.au/the-experts/peter-switzer-expert/whats-wrong-with-the-abcs-leigh-sales/

            As far as citizenship goes, the High Court finally spelt it out.
            As far as the LNP COALition goes, if they attack Shorten on this, then the obvious response is ‘Barnaby Joyce’.

            When I look back at the Rudd/Gillard times, I remember Abbott’s non stop carry-on about debt and deficit and great big taxes, and when he came to power by tearing people down, how badly off we are now. I do not think we will see that sort of behaviour again – the LNP COALition are well and truly on the back foot, and if the body language is any indication, likely to stay that way. Never have mobile phones been studied so intently by those on the government benches last night. Talk about ducks in a row! Now that’s rude!

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9d8c9fabefcf13d462ec16ec63f15ca134df9a4c445bd3516eb0dbd4c88cec95.jpg

          • Hettie 5 months ago

            Ken, that quote comes from an interview 3 years ago, before the ABC had been stripped of so much of its funding that they are now in terror of upsetting the government lest they lose even more.
            Sales interview of Morrison on Tuesday was far more polite. She clearly doesn’t like him, but she was not asking the questions to reveal the unfairness of the budget, she was inviting him to talk it up.
            Thursday night, instead of asking Shorten about his reply to the budget, she tried to wrong foot him by attacking about his confidence last year that the Labor MPS had done all they could to renounce dual citizenship, and would therefore be safe from s44 of the Constitution.
            When he refused to be rattled, she tried to array his alternative budget, again without success. Even at the very end, she was sniping, he was calm and confident.
            It is all part of a pattern. The ABC journos, instead of being even handed, go very easy on government pollies, and try to rip the opposition to shreds.
            That makes them all part of the problem.
            Because most voters who despise Murdoch, still trust the ABC and expect it to be impartial. Which it clearly is not. And so the voters never get a true picture of what is going on from watching the news.
            So they think the government is OK.
            And vote for them.
            But this time, too many are hurting, and they know who to blame.

          • Ken Dyer 5 months ago

            Point taken. I don’t watch Leigh Sales much, and I turn off whenever I see Scomo Scumbag is on, but I can appreciate that with the threats by the right wing knuckle draggers, and the budget cuts, we have definitely lost that impartiality that we watch ABC for.

            Director of news at ABC Gavin Morris said to the Press club yesterday that there was no fat left in the ABC news budget, so Leigh Sales appears to be treading lightly, her job is under threat, and she is right in the firing line.

            Having said that, I wonder if she goes and has a good wash after interviewing ScoMo Scumbag. I would.

    • Hettie 5 months ago

      Very much the same as last year’s presentation.
      The article in today’s newsletter about some US car makers backtracking on car emission standards may affect the EV growth curve in the US, but I suspect that US car buyers will put cost considerations ahead of the carmakers’ convenience and greed, and push the EV growth curve even steeper.

  3. Tom 5 months ago

    Wind CF won’t stay at 40% for another 20 years.
    It too should get 30-50% cheaper per MWh.

  4. john 5 months ago

    OK lets look at this figure.
    Even wind energy is modeled to fall only slightly over the next 20 years, to $59/MW from $63/MWh, which may surprise a few.

    I do not think it will be $59/MW in 20 years.

    Frankly it will be like $20 to $25 possibly lower by then.

    As to Solar on large scale in 20 years below $15/MW.
    It is already at $25/MW overseas so it will be lower perhaps pushing the $10/MW area or being realistic about $5/MW in 20 years .

    • itdoesntaddup 5 months ago

      How will that be achieved, even if you get solar panels for free?

      • solarguy 5 months ago

        Why don’t you think it won’t be achieved?

        • Hettie 5 months ago

          Because he’s a twit.

        • itdoesntaddup 5 months ago

          Because there are costs that simply will not fall for the installation of frames to hold the panels and for the ancillary equipment and grid connections.

          • solarguy 5 months ago

            Have you been reading anything in RE, anything at all. Have you any memory of $25MWh mentioned on RE before? I have and it’s old news.

            You have a point in what your saying, as there will come a point where it can’t be done cheaper, but with economies of scale who knows it could go lower than $5MWh Never say never.

          • itdoesntaddup 5 months ago

            You’re the kind of guy who would have claimed that nuclear power would be too cheap to meter if you had been born 50 years earlier. Your projection is simply not real.

          • solarguy 5 months ago

            FYI I was born 58yrs earlier and I’m dead set against stationary nuke power. Your powers of comprehension are pathetic…….how do you manage to blink and breath at the same time.

  5. Peter F 5 months ago

    They may be remarkable but they are probably conservative. Wind has been falling at a compound rate of about 5% per year, dropping that to 2.5% still sees $39. It is already at about A$40 unsubsidised in North America. Solar is already below US $20 (A$27) in the middle east and Mexico so the cost targets in the plan are more likely to be achieved in 4 years rather than 12. Because of the high uptake of home solar and storage which has quite different drivers and our high peak hydro capacity, the cost of firming in Australia will be much lower than other grids so even the storage cost addition will be less than projected

    • Andrew Roydhouse 5 months ago

      I suspect that the decline or leveling off in the cost of wind power is due to a combination of the much longer lead time in design and construction. As a result the time value of money kicks in as a relatively significant cost as well as the cost of building the road infrastructure between each wind turbine.

      As the turbines get larger – the road structure gets much more expensive as the cranes required to lift the towers and blades also increase in weight significantly.

      Also, as the size of the towers/blades grow so does the incremental R&D required to gain that next improvement.

      A useful analogy is what happened to the cost of a semi conductor fabrication plant (aka Fab). They went from costing tens of millions to costing billions.

      To create the facility to ‘cook’ a carbon fibre composite blade that is 100m+ long is not cheap.

      By comparison – the PV panels use the R&D from the semi conductor plants (technology/production equipment etc) that was ‘state of the art’ a decade or more ago as they don’t need 20nm.

      Their R&D cost is predominantly in increasing cell efficiency and then commercializing its production. Which is why today if you buy a pallet of Tier 1 solar panels the installation cost can end up being more than the cost of the panels themselves!

      Interesting point – the total cost of putting say a 5kW system of the identical US produced panels (with say a Fronius inverter) on a single storey house in Australia is typically half the price (costed in the same currency btw) of putting them on a house in the US.

      Strange but true – the ‘paperwork costs’ aka permitting can be half the total cost of putting panels on your house in the US!

      • Ren Stimpy 5 months ago

        It’s like Freaky Friday. The US has cheap gas and expensive solar, Australia has cheap solar and expensive gas. Good thing for us I think because solar has a vastly better prospect of sliding down the cost curve.

  6. phillyc 5 months ago

    Many of the cost estimates are conservative by our way of thinking. But those numbers will look positively unobtainable to many of those in politics. The report is written with that audience in mind so I understand the reasoning of using conservative numbers. Personally, it’s a great hope that our grid moves as fast or faster than these projections. Exciting times ahead!

  7. Eric 5 months ago

    Things are moving fast now! This is good work by Audrey, who is doing her best to keep pace with developments on the ground. Tough job for a regulator.
    Things are starting to crystallize in Australia. Leading industrialists are showing the way on renewable energy for old energy hungry industries.
    I can see a renaissance in Australian manufacturing and industry built on the ridiculously abundant and cheap renewable energy that is coming our way. And we have all the resources we need to profit from the battery revolution too.

    • Greg Hudson 5 months ago

      When you say cheap RE, do you mean ‘if’ manuf & industry installs their own panels ?

      • Eric 5 months ago

        If they can do that, yes. But more importantly, Australia has an abundance of renewable energy. meaning that as the technology becomes cheaper and cheaper to harness it the price of energy will fall and to continue to fall over time. The source of the energy is free and everywhere, there is no future time when prices will go up due to scarcity. This is a fundamental change to the way we consume and pay for energy.

        Australia is in a unique position to take advantage of this shift -Cheap clean energy on a massive scale, stable first world economy, abundant mineral supplies needed for electrification and batteries, world class education. Last but not least, an open economy that promotes free trade.

        At some point in the not too distant future all countries are going to have to face the prospect of a life without fossil fuels. Simply because they have become too expensive compared to renewable energy. Industries will be looking to countries where renewable energy is cheapest and most reliable.

  8. riley222 5 months ago

    Extremely encouraging. The fact that the debate has moved past the fossil fuel vs renewable debate to looking to how a renewables grid can successfully and economically function is brilliant. Plenty of debate to come, but at least we’re debating sensible issues with an eye to the future.
    I especially like the idea of Oz exporting renewable energy, a whole new industry could be created . Congratulations to AEMO for leading the charge.

    • solarguy 5 months ago

      Like a breath of fresh isn’t it.

Comments are closed.