Re: 300 MW
Also, concerns about lack of capacity can be solved by building more of them. You have to start somewhere, and you probably don’t want the whole country or even a whole state relying on one battery.
No, you really don't. It's about doing some basic root cause analysis and cost modelling.
So you want to spend AUD150m on a single battery array. You need to do this because your energy supply is intermittent/unreliable, so you need to import energy from a neighboring state that produces cheap coal powered electricity.
So basically all you're doing is adding more cost to an already expensive and unreliable generation strategy, ie wind/solar in an attempt to solve a problem that generation strategy has created. Alternatively, you could look to a cheaper and more reliable energy policy that can provide both base load and cope with variations in demand. So coal/nuclear/gas, not 'renewables'. Obviously the 'renewables' lobby hates this idea because they're earning billions by promoting the expensive, unreliable stuff.
And then behind it all is the Greenwashing, ie Global Warming.. Which has problems of it's own, eg-
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/07/un-climate-panel-confronts-implausibly-hot-forecasts-future-warming
But as climate scientists face this alarming reality, the climate models that help them project the future have grown a little too alarmist. Many of the world’s leading models are now projecting warming rates that most scientists, including the modelmakers themselves, believe are implausibly fast....
...The models were also out of step with records of past climate. For example, scientists used the new model from NCAR to simulate the coldest point of the most recent ice age, 20,000 years ago. Extensive paleoclimate records suggest Earth cooled nearly 6°C compared with preindustrial times, but the model, fed with low ice age CO2 levels, had temperatures plummeting by nearly twice that much, suggesting it was far too sensitive to the ups and downs of CO2. “That is clearly outside the range of what the geological data indicate,” says Jessica Tierney, a paleoclimatologist at the University of Arizona and a co-author of the work, which appeared in Geophysical Research Letters. “It’s totally out there.”
This should be good news when prominent climate scientists who've previously been very vocal in promoting global warming are now realising they've got serious problems with their assumptions. Other scientists have been saying for years that CO2 sensitivity is too high, and reality disagrees with the models. But they've usually been shouted down as 'deniers', even though this article strongly suggests those 'deniers' were right about the science.
But such is politics. The problem is global warming dogma's spawned a huge Greenwashing industry that's making billions off these alarmist, and potentially incorrect predictions. Given low CO2 sensitivity, there is no 'climate emergency'.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
