@alexeckermann.bsky.social
If this is to be the case, there should be no expectation that there is guaranteed jobs in the energy transition.
"Not a single large-scale clean energy project reached financial closure in the third quarter of 2025[…]"
www.afr.com/policy/energ...
So what do we think the energy market will do when:
- Industrial users with purchase agreements close due to high costs; and
- Retail consumers are being subsidised to install batteries and solar to reduce the residential load market/size
Fewer consumers, decreased demand 🤔 Lower prices?
Wow. Just watched #auspol Question Time and it sounds like the Government is happy to stand and watch Tomago close then just blame Rio.
But hey, at least they'll get an emissions reduction they can spruik about.
What choice are we going to have to make?
a) Continue the transition at the cost of industry and jobs; or
b) Forego decarbonisation to extend fossil fuel energy for the next two(?) decades
Tick tock @chrisbowenmp.bsky.social
#auspol
bsky.app/profile/alex...
It's not looking good for Tomago.
40% of Australia's aluminium. Largest single energy user. Cant find affordable energy past 2028.
What do we think that means for us and other industries post 2028?
Where's all this cheap electricity @chrisbowenmp.bsky.social ?
www.abc.net.au/news/2025-10...
Whilst nuclear energy lives rent free in the Energy Ministers head, we're going down a path towards a possible crisis.
Theres growing uncertainty over projects that are required for industrial consumers and the transition. Every delay has flow on effects (see Tomago)
www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07...
I never understood why the Australian media has dedicated so much effort to the mushroom case.
Theres a housing, cost of living, and looming energy crisis' and instead we get months of coverage on something that could be a half-column in a local paper.
I really worry that when the reality of stories like this hit the mainstream that ordinary Australians will vote to forego decarbonisation and preference the economy.
All because a minority wanted to chase a vanity target created by a think tank.
Our energy transition is so well planned that Tomago, using 10% of NSWs energy, will likely need to be bailed out to pay for rising energy costs. That, or we lose a third of Australia's Aluminium smelting capability.
www.afr.com/politics/min...
That whole $4tn "cost" of nuclear? Yeah, the main factor in that cost is happening regardless of nuclear.
$2bn already sunk into a $5bn industry to "help with the transition".
Australians are constantly lied to about energy as our economy burns.
www.afr.com/policy/energ...
The important things to know are that so far there is no exact cause.
We do know that the grid was operating with high renewable supply with low available inertia at the time of the failure.
I doubt most energy pundits will wait for a report before pontificating their world view.
No tornado this time. Will be interesting to see the report on what caused this frequency cascade.
28.04.2025 21:15 — 👍 0 🔁 0 💬 1 📌 0
Pivoting around the Hunter Offshore Wind project 🍿
www.afr.com/politics/fed...
Tomago will be the one to watch. It represents a third of our aluminium smelting capability, over 4000 jobs.
But hey, "Dutton bad scary man" machine go burr… amirite.
This issue, industrial power purchase agreements through to the 2030s, is happening today. And it's not the fault of nuclear or renewables.
It's the fault of governance, lack there of, over energy policy for decades.
With the added uncertainty of global trade, it's not looking good.
One aspect of the report talks about aluminium smelters in Australia, that the nuclear pathway wont provide energy when they need it.
But this is already happening, today, with our current pathway: www.afr.com/companies/mi...
Some thoughts on that "$4 trillion" economic cost of going nuclear in Australia. Obviously, it was a report that intended to create a large figure and a large figure they made.
But here's the thing, what they present as issues being exclusive to the nuclear pathway should be debated 🧵⤵️ #auspol
People lap this stuff up, just the headlines and those juicy big figures.
I find it interesting that this report presents the loss of aluminium smelters in this country as exclusive to the nuclear pathway. When it's kinda already happening under the current pathway.
www.afr.com/companies/mi...
✨ Today I learned that a Professor of Design Studies is considered an economist.
ChatGPT makes light work of gathering 60 academic bios. It would be awfully embarrassing if half of those names weren't "economists, energy analysts and policy specialists"
What would you think if the $600bn figure was made up and the 4% was actually an embarrassing miscalculation (they used the wrong units)?
Because they actually are. And it's embarrassing seeing the ALP go along with it.
Chris would know, but he likely doesn't care. People lap it up.
Both sites repeat the poorly calculated numbers from the Smart Energy Council and IEEFA.
None of it stands up to scrutiny, or even basic critical thinking.
There must be influential people that _really_ don't want nuclear energy in Australia.
Wordpress installations have a public API, like the good ol' days. This can be used to see what users there are.
liberalsagainstnuclear.au/wp-json/wp/v...
afae.net.au/wp-json/wp/v...
Concept Lab is one of the first users on both sites.
"Liberals Against Nuclear" and "Australians For Affordable Energy" are both anti-nuclear astroturf campaigns under the same umbrella.
Sure, they claim to be run by two different groups. But under the hood they're setup by the same agency: Concept Lab.
Want proof? #auspol #ausvotes20205
Labor going all in on the $600bn figure is pretty sad. It's a made up number, no place in reality.
If (huge IF) the Liberals have enough neutrons to rub together could undo all of Labor's major campaign points. I doubt it.
Once Australians understand that the very basis for a lot of energy policy is flawed and unfit for purpose, then they will see how much of an absolute mess we are in.
youtu.be/G4z65FswjHw
Because the inconvenient truth is: For a country with as much gas as we have, why aren't we using it?
Why are smelters and high energy users unable to arrange power purchase agreements for the next decade?
Are they to be sacrificed for the energy transition?
A decade of the energy transition to "cheaper energy" where bills are only going up will be collectively defeated overnight.
People will ask where the cheap energy is after a decade of investment and probably wont believe that it just needs another decade and more debt.
In Australia, we're probably one energy shock/crisis away from the vibe changing away from decarbonisation and focussing on cost of living and economy.
And the winner will be gas. Maybe a consolation will be that it's only half as bad as coal and gives another decade to figure it out.
It's clear that the domestic gas market is in a weird state.
Let's consider correlation events, like winter, when we have high domestic gas use with lower expected VRE capacity. It sounds like a scenario for surging electricity prices and/or lack-of-reserve events? (pg70, ISP '24, below)
🙋♂️Question: Would you be happy to talk about gas?
Specifically, increase gas peaking generation from 11GW (*some to be retired and replaced) to 15GW by 2051 in the ISP Step Change scenario?
📈 Which equates to something close to 5M tonnes CO2-eq per year at 2051.
