Blog

Journalism

Frydenberg’s hubris hits a Trumpian scale

Published in the Fifth Estate 8/3/2018

Opinion: Frydenberg’s hubris hits a Trumpian scale

There’s been an interesting exercise in prevarication from energy minister Josh Frydenberg in the AFR this week. He’s written a homily on the resilience of the energy market that recalls the gall of his former boss Tony Abbott.

The Greens cop enormous brickbats for Taking Credit for Things, but Frydenberg has taking this kind of hubris to a new level.

Given his party’s slavish underwriting of the obsolete fossil fuel industry, it takes a special kind of chutzpah to take credit for a rebounding energy market. But that’s exactly what Frydenberg has done in laying that wreath at prime minister Malcolm Turnbull’s feet, despite the PM being dragged screaming into the present only by events such as the closure of Liddell power station and SA premier Weatherill’s defiance in proving the viability of renewables.

Frydenberg casually attributes the newfound gravity in gas prices to Turnbull’s intervention in the market, a fiction that conveniently ignores the PM’s implicit approval of flagrant price gouging and distribution manipulation.

Turnbull has been happy to allow gas companies to market our natural resources overseas, without the distraction of paying taxes to ensure domestic wealth like those radical Norwegians.  Claiming to have salvaged 70 petajoules is a bit rich: having been belatedly reined in, gas companies are finally coming to account for charging Australians exorbitant rates to buy their own gas back.

For some time now Turnbull and Frydenberg have been attempting to bribe, coerce and strongarm the states into accepting the alleged inevitability of coal seam gas, such as was foisted onto an unsuspecting Queensland in the 1990s. That experiment was a morass of unbelievable high-level corruption, lies and disinformation from both industry and government, as claimed by whistleblower Simone Marsh, among others.

The energy minister’s claim that Queensland is doing the heavy lifting in the gas market is doubly exasperating; it assumes that the country, nay the planet, needs more emissions, a damaged Great Artesian Basin and yet another source of fossil fuel; secondly that Australians agree with the Coalitions views on CSG.

His blithe amnesia over environmental concerns about gas extraction only adds to an apparently portfolio-wide credibility deficit. In an era where the disruption of the Polar vortex is causing serious consternation among leading scientists, this is rather more than concerning in a federal minister than, say, the behaviour of Barnaby Joyce.

Concerning certainty and job creation from his pet projects, Frydenberg calls for an evidence-based approach; it’s hard to imagine better evidence of effective innovation than the Tesla battery experiment, hard to conceive of any more compelling proof of climate change than the apparently unfixable problem of the Earth’s air-conditioning. While jobs from renewables look to soon outstrip those in mining and lock in dispatchable power to the grid, the evidence for conventional energy investment seems to exist nowhere outside government white papers.

Well, we’ve dealt with the alleged volatility of South Australia’s energy market – as far as our business leaders are concerned it’s a done deal. In the shadow of that groundbreaking experiment we have a prime minister, lauded by Frydenberg for his “pipeline reforms”, looking for sneaky ways to fund the Adani mine.

But when such internationally renowned analysts as Jeremy Rifkin claim we’re on the brink of “the first new economic system that’s entered onto the world stage since capitalism and socialism”, when such trifling events as the Third Industrial Revolution and the fossil fuel industry becoming the “biggest bubble in history” are casting Frydenberg, Turnbull and their fellow coal enthusiasts in the same light as the inexhaustibly spurious Donald Trump; that’s when we can assume that aspirational opinion pieces like this one are the dying gasps of mouthpieces who prefer the charity of their political donors to the good graces of posterity.

Journalism

Finding Safe Harbour

Published in the City Hub, 17/1/2018

http://www.altmedia.net.au/finding-safe-harbour/129344

Sydney Harbour’s reputation as one of the finest in the world owes everything to its superb geographical advantages. But a working harbour requires infrastructure, and from post-Invasion to post-reality, commercial shipping and recreational boaters depend upon the wharves and safe waterways that enable every aspect of maritime endeavour.

Ex-mayor of Leichardt and inner-West activist Maire Sheehan says that unhinged development is endangering the nuts and bolts infrastructure of Sydney’s working harbour, part of an agenda by successive state governments to gentrify the harbour into a purely tourism and residential amenity.
She says that this began with the staging of the Olympics in 2000, when pontoons and marinas were scattered around the harbour to facilitate wealthy visitors.

“Those pontoons were built for luxury super yachts whose owners were unlikely to be locals. The story at the time was that they’d be temporary but of course it’s not temporary, it’s permanent.”
Sheehan says that such creeping developments are marginalizing the essential services provided by established industries and pose a real risk to the continued viability of the working harbour.

Waterway Constructions in Rozelle Bay have been a part of that industry in Sydney for 25 years. They build and maintain wharf infrastructure around the harbour, as well as in other Australian ports. Employing 180 people around the country, they’re a vital part of the maritime community.
Mal Hiley, a founding director of the company, agrees that working wharves are vital to the functional capacity of the harbour.
“It’s an essential service and you need a location which is sufficiently close to the centre of the city for emergency response in the event that a ferry hits a wharf or whatever else. So there needs to be space for working harbour activities.”

Hiley says that government departments have generally been sympathetic to this requirement, but that it’s an ongoing task to ensure that vigilance.
“Development around the harbour is clearly reducing opportunities in the space for people like us, but we’ve been in consultation with the relevant government departments for many years and there would appear to be a good level of understanding of the requirements for waterfront contractors and working harbour activities. But there’s always a risk that people don’t fully appreciate the space that’s required, so there is a pressure and a concern. You can’t be complacent. It’s a question of being constantly vigilant and expressing our position.”

Sheehan says that the Urban Growth Development Corporation (UGDC), the group charged with ‘managing and securing the orderly economic development of five Growth Centres (including the Bays Precinct) across metropolitan Sydney’, has compounded risk.
The Bays Precinct comprises 5.5 kilometres of harbour frontage, including 95 hectares of mostly government-owned land and 94 hectares of waterways in Sydney Harbour.

UGDC’s online literature assures the public they’re carrying out their charter with all the highest environmental, public transport and business motives in mind.
Last year they instituted an online survey to canvas public opinion on the requirements for a responsible harbour development. They claimed the results would inform their impending ‘master plan’, but these have not yet been released and the website appears to be touting a well-formed and pre-approved vision for the future;
“The Bays Precinct will transform over the next 20 to 30 years into a bustling hub of enterprise, activity and beautiful spaces.”

Sheehan says UGDC’s vision for the Bays Precinct emphasises tourism and housing over the working harbour.
She’s been quoted as saying that the community have been finding UGDC’s data “inaccurate” and they’ve been left to make assumptions, such as whether or not there is a need for more schools and other facilities.
“What they talk about is turning the harbour into a tourist destination, a tech hub as the main focus and in various sites residential developments,” she told the City Hub. “They’re moving the fish markets to the head of the bay and their plan is for three or so residential towers there.
“It’s a shift from being a real working harbor, in terms of providing services, to becoming a recreational harbour.”

Sheehan says that community action is needed to support the work of industries such as Waterways, which are an integral part of the community infrastructure as well as the working harbour.
“Waterways has been part of the community for years. They have a respected apprenticeship programme and a history of collaborating with high schools in the area. They’re part of the community. They’re not an industry that blows in and blows out.
“Our working harbour has gradually been eroded. The last remaining parts of it are in Rozelle Bay, but they are the remnants of the old working harbour and Waterways are the longest standing.”

Journalism

Concrete outcome in Glebe

Published in the City Hub 7/2/2018

http://www.altmedia.net.au/concrete-outcome-in-glebe/129702

Good news stories are rare when they mix a busy working harbour with a state government bent on constant profitable development. But the probable move of Hanson Concrete, a fifty year-old business based in Glebe, to the heavy industry facility on Glebe Island is a provisional win on many levels.It keeps the company, a significant local employer, in a viable location that cuts down operating costs and carbon emissions. That’s good for the environment, the community and the local economy.
But the onerous fact that all these factors were endangered by government-sponsored developments has raised the hackles of Sydney business leaders and Greens MP Jamie Parker.

Hanson Concrete submitted a proposal to move their premises to Glebe Island after their site on Bridge Road in Glebe was slated for redevelopment by the Urban Growth Corporation (UGC), the body charged with redeveloping Sydney’s urban landscape.
The UGC plan to build 2760 apartments on the site of Hanson’s current site, a development that could net them an estimated $5 billion in sales.

The initial problem with that move was the news that the Glebe Island facility too was in the sights of the UGC. Such prime waterfront property was a logical target for a corporation seeking to maximize tourism and residential amenity. But the potential damage to the viability of Sydney’s working harbour raised a public outcry.
UGC developments have already forced the migration of vital waterfront industries such as Waterways Construction, which build and maintain the wharves servicing the harbour.

Hanson Concrete supplies over a third of the vital building needs of Sydney’s CBD, in the middle of the biggest building boom since the 2000 Olympics. Its waterfront location means it’s close to customers, cutting down on road miles, fuel and its carbon footprint.
Before the Glebe Island option it seemed likely the company would have to move its operations to another port – be that Newcastle or Wollongong.

Such a move would have exponentially multiplied traffic on Sydney’s already strained road networks, as it’s estimated that a single ship-borne load of cement takes up to 2800 trucks off our roads.
If Hanson Concrete was forced to move to Wollongong it would incur significant extra costs in transporting material back to Sydney and be vulnerable to the serious issues plaguing the bottlenecked Port Kembla/Wollongong network.

A story in the Australian Financial Review featured a senior business figure calling the mooted closure of Glebe Island a ‘strategic disaster’ that would seriously impact on Sydney’s already overloaded roads and infrastructure.
Now Greens MP Jamie Parker has lashed out at the UGC for what he sees as purely profit-motivated development.

“Part of the problem with Urban Growth Corporation is that it’s the government’s glorified real estate agent and developer,” Parker told the City Hub.
“Their objective is to ensure that these areas that they call underdeveloped or in need of urban renewal are completed and the financial return to government is a major priority.
“What we say is they need to be looking at the needs of the city, the needs of employment, recreation and open space. The never ending search for profit from these sites needs to take a back seat to ensure that development or renewal of sites like this provide the kind of city that people want to live in, not just that profit can be made from.”

Parker said that the UGC’s planning is dictated by the needs of developers.
“Developers and the government are fetishizing residential development to the detriment of local jobs and environmental impacts,” he said. “While there’s always impacts on the community from working harbour activities, the environmental impact of trucking concrete across our roads to deliver concrete to building sites in the city is clearly undesirable.”

Parker insisted the NSW Government needs to work with local communities and councils to build an inner city community that isn’t focused purely on residential development.
“That means sensitive working harbour opportunities and retaining significant employers like Hanson where possible,” he said. “We’ve seen with Barangaroo where the cruise ship terminal was moved from its optimal location there to White Bay, to allow more and more retail and residential development. The cruise ship terminal at White Bay isn’t good for the local community or tourism.”

But while community involvement has staved off disaster in the working harbour, it seems constant vigilance is required to ensure good news into the future.
An Urban Growth Corporation spokesperson told the City Hub that Roads and Maritime Services and Hanson Cement are having commercial in-confidence discussions about the site Hanson occupies on Bridge Road, Glebe.
Hanson’s lease expires on 30 June 2018. Hanson have advised Roads and Maritime the company is exploring options to relocate from Blackwattle Bay as a result of the urban renewal of Bays Market District. One potential site they are considering is Glebe Island. The Department of Planning and Environment are the regulatory authority for development applications of this nature.

T

Journalism

End of the line for Bronte bus

Published in the Sydney City Hub newspaper 14/2/2018

http://www.altmedia.net.au/bronte-beach-burns-for-buses/129804

Bronte residents are fuming over a NSW Transport Department decision to axe their direct 378 beach-to-city bus service last year.

A Change.org petition begun by Bronte resident Gaby Naher, a literary agent who commutes daily to the city, has garnered over 550 signatures. It objects strenuously to the cancellation of the service, which leaves commuters with longer journeys fraught with dangerous interchanges.
The petition reads in part;
“Our children will no longer have a single bus trip to their schools in the inner city, our infirm will no longer have a single trip to St Vincent’s Hospital, our elderly will no longer have a single trip for shopping in the city and the convenience of being able to ride a single bus to work will for many of us be replaced by a lot of dead time at the Interchange.
“We call on our Local member, Bruce Notley-Smith, to reinstate Bronte’s own bus, the 378.”
Gaby Naher says that letters to the Department have been dismissive of her objections and those to local member Bruce Notley-Smith have been ignored. She said the decision has provoked anger and frustration from Bronte residents who foresee great difficulties and even tragedy in the wind.
“At the beginning of November my somewhat older neighbor spoke to me in some distress after hearing about changes to the bus service,” Naher told the City Hub. “I got on to the Transport NSW website and read about the changes and immediately called Notley-Smith’s office to say ‘it’s unacceptable to lose that public transport that has been operating since 1910’.
“The only reply I got was confirmation of the cancellation. I decided to start a Change.org petition in frustration because I thought if we didn’t act quickly changes would be made and there’d be no public outcry or discussion about it.”
Fellow Bronte resident Judy Ebner says the changes are ‘ridiculous’ and make her regular journeys dangerous.
“Since the buses have changed we have to catch the 379 bus, then to get the 440 to Broadway you have to change at Bondi Junction. However it’s not easy. You have to walk to the bus stop near the corner of Oxford St and Newland St. It’s a very dangerous crossing for the elderly or someone a bit slow going across. It’s a steep little hill up Newland Street to the lights at the intersection of Oxford St and of course cars are picking up speed, so the traffic is very fast and there’s going to be an accident one day there. I’ve seen some very close shaves.
“There’s also a lot of confusion on the part of tourists with the naming of 379. You see them get off on the corner of Bronte Rd and Birrell St and they think they’re somewhere near Bronte Beach, because it has the same number as the bus to North Bondi.
“It’s just crazy. Who has worked this out? Someone who’s sitting at a computer who doesn’t catch buses. To have two buses with two completely different destinations called the 379 is more than ridiculous.”
In response a spokesperson for Transport NSW said that last year it had altered some routes to ‘better reflect customer travel patterns and help improve the reliability of local services, including services to Bronte”.
Waverly Council estimates that there are between 75,000-80,000 people living in the 379 bus catchment area. It did not have a figure for how many people ride the buses, but Labor Councillor Paula Massella says she made this issue part of her election platform.
“I’m calling a meeting in the next couple of weeks of interested people who might want to join me in setting up a group to look at how we can bring back the 378,” she told the City Hub.
“Generally people are finding this new 379 service very unsatisfactory. There was huge demand for the 378 and it was extremely well used, as was the 440 when it went between Bondi and Bronte.”
Councillor Masella observed that the 440 service has been privatized and this could be seen as a worrying sign of the State government’s agenda to privatize other public transport services.
“If you have a look at the evidence you couldn’t be blamed if that’s what you thought. The 440 is part of Region 6 now and that’s part of the inner west Sydney privatization service. Also for example Transdev has been given $20million to run eleven trials, including one in the eastern suburbs for an on demand bus service, but there are issues with that because you can’t take prams on them.
“Why should people have to be pushed onto a private bus service and more to the point, why should people have to have twenty minutes added to their commute and be offered a service that’s inferior to what they had before?”
The Department of Transport spokesperson told City Hub that “the high frequency of bus services on Oxford Street, including routes 380, 333, 440, M40 and 352, ensures that transfer times at Bondi Junction are minimised. The decision by the NSW Government to put the contract to operate Region 6 bus services in Sydney’s Inner West out to competitive tender is not related to the delivery of services in any other areas.”
MP Bruce Notley-Smith told the City Hub;
“It is still early days for the new service, and I will continue to monitor its level of acceptance and reliability, and to alert the Minister for Transport to my constituents’ concerns.”
The Westconnex Direct Action group are organizing a public rally
to save NSW public transport. Interested parties can contact them on
0490 257 225.

Journalism

How South Australia turned the Feds energy policy on its head

How South Australia turned the Feds’ energy policy on its head

The Australian energy landscape has undergone seismic changes in recent years, none more critical than the Federal Coalition’s October 17 party room consensus to dismiss a Clean Energy target and instead adopt the euphemistically titled National Energy Guarantee (NEG).

Backed by the Coalition’s hard right wing and the science-free zone of One Nation, this fossil fuel-heavy policy positions the Coalition in opposition to the empirical wisdom of market forces.

Australian energy industry insiders beyond the coal market are now almost unanimous in touting renewables as the current and future inevitability in the field.

The NEG was pre-empted by South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill’s initiative in abandoning traditional electricity generation in favour of a 100 percent renewables target. This direct challenge to the energy market was also a gauntlet thrown down to the conservative political power base and the confected gas crisis that has seen Australian power prices surge so relentlessly.

Just as South Australia’s reliance on wind turbines has already shown a correlation with decreasing prices, Premier Weatherill’s gamble has turned the Feds energy policy on its head.

The NEG is based on the premise that only coal and gas can deliver reliable dispatchable power to the grid. It specifically requires retailers to include significant percentages of coal and gas in their mix, thus fixing its success to their rapidly diminishing market viability.

Coal is un-investable

James Wright of the Future Business Council puts that position into perspective;

“The marketplace is saying that coal is un-investable. Gas is still regarded as an investment option but in the time frame we have, pure economics will play out. Wind and solar coupled with storage and with the right market rules, purely on an economic basis will be the most effective way to introduce new generation into the network.”

Renewables surging

Meanwhile the infrastructure of the renewable economy is surging ahead, with wind farm installations increasing by 513 per cent nationwide, solar 118 per cent and electric and hybrid car sales over 150 per cent on average. Consumer preferences are at the root of this demand, constant technological advancements making low emissions products increasingly cost effective.

The Future Business Council puts the sustainable business boom on a par with the technology revolution of the 1970’s that gave us the Walkman, mobile phones and personal computers.

If the Turnbull government’s internal political compass is too skewed to read the future, South Australia’s Labour Government under Premier Weatherill has grasped the banner of change and run with it.

Weatherill has put his political future and reputation on the line by investing in a radical renewable infrastructure profile that is transforming the energy landscape in South Australia.

In the face of determined efforts by the Coalition to derail his plans Weatherill has put his political future and reputation on the line by investing in a radical renewable infrastructure profile that is transforming the energy landscape in South Australia.

His $650 million dollar gambit will be shored up by nine new diesel and gas generators, providing up to 276MW of energy to safeguard against power blackouts.

With his bottom line secured by these generators, Premier Weatherill has embarked on what’s perceived as edgier terrain with the two significant other planks of his energy initiative.

Soar thermal plant at Port Augusta – 700 jobs just to start

The flagship of his plan is a solar thermal plant to be built in Port Augusta. Symbolically, it replaces the obsolete coal fired plant retired last year.

This plant will, when completed be the biggest of its kind in the world, delivering 700 jobs and 495 gigawatt hours, or five percent of SA’s daily electricity needs. Construction on the emissions free plant begins next year.

Elon Musk making good on his promise 

Construction is also half way through the 100-day deadline given by Californian entrepeneur Elon Musk to build the world’s largest lithium-ion battery in Jamestown, 216 km north of Adelaide – failing which he says he will complete it for free.

Paired with a 99 turbine wind farm, the battery will power 30,000 homes in the district, also providing emergency power in the case of blackouts.

The half way construction point on September 30 came propitiously at the one year anniversary of the 2016 storms that destroyed SA’s energy infrastructure, provoking a tsunami of criticism to which Weatherill replied that Malcolm Turnbull, mired in apparent thrall to the fossil fuel industry, was an “unfit” Prime Minister.

Mr Weatherill told reporters in March that SA would; “lead our nation’s transformation to the next generation of renewable storage technologies and create an international reputation for hi-tech industries”.

He said the state must act now, rather than wait for policy changes in Canberra.

“The sorts of timelines and decisions that need to be taken are much more urgent,” he said.

After NSW endured heatwaves in February 2017 that created a load shedding event similar to SA’s 2016 disaster, popular opinion began to turn, with the realisation that NSW’s reliance on its coal fired power stations had not saved it from climactic disasters.

Weatherill’s energy “intervention” suddenly became accepted wisdom, taking his reputation from that of a  laughing stock to national leader in energy politics.

James Wright of the Future Business Council agrees with the SA Premier that he’s pioneered an inevitable shift in energy infrastructure.

All the states are going to move this way whether we like it or not

“The grid is moving to support higher renewable content and South Australia has been at the leading edge of that transition. Longer term all the states are going to move this way whether we like it or not really, that’s how the world’s changing and we need to be more overtly getting on that program.”

Wright posits the point Australia needs to get to in renewables as a triangulation of reliability, cost and reduced emissions that he calls the trilemma.

“One of the reports that we put out last year was called the Smart Grid and it recommended that our energy market move into the 21st century so it would better accommodate a higher proportion of renewables, but also be better placed to optimise the trilemma,” he said.

The spirit of his declaration is backed by energy giant AGL, the company whose decision to shut down the coal fired plant at Liddell in NSW by 2020 put the Coalition’s muddled energy policy into such stark focus.

At the time AGL CEO Andy Vesey had outlined specific plans to commit to a low emissions energy strategy, emphasizing that planned wind power plants in NSW and Queensland would provide the bulk of the energy to replace that supplied by Liddell.

As Turnbull desperately tried to convince AGL otherwise, investors provided the fiscal spine to this outlook with 95.45 per cent support for Vesey’s remuneration report.

OneSteel can do baseline energy thanks to Zen Energy

That trend has been further validated by the October 31 announcement that clean energy company Zen Energy is to power the OneSteel steelworks at Whyalla in SA with a $700m, solar, battery and pumped hydro project, confounding the notion that industrial grade baseline power is beyond the generational power of renewables.

As heavy industry moves into a low emissions phase, gas and coal production will constitute a significant headache for the NEG targets, rapidly eroding Australia’s commitments to meeting the Paris Agreements.

Engineer Graham Davies pointed out in the Fifth Estate in February 2017 that the cost of emissions is not considered in models that do not use an emissions pricing scheme, which puts into question the entire climate change responsibility of the NEG.

Cherrypicking parts of the Finkel Report to support the NEG has created anachronisms that will come back to haunt Malcolm Turnbull and only serve to further debilitate the market, according to James Wright;

“Some of the recommendations in the Finkel Review that have been endorsed by government are on an unnecessarily slow timetable,” he observed.

“A great example of that is the ‘five minute rule’. The generation price is set by the last piece of generation that goes into the network.

“It leads to is higher prices because effectively it’s being set by peak load gas-fired generation and secondly it makes it harder for new generators to connect to that market.

“The operators indicate that they will move to a five minute

rule but it will take a couple of years to do. So there’s still some market rules which, on a national level, are impacting both on costs, reliability, source of generation and level of investment in generation.”

AGL’s 2017 statement on its future direction frames the facts shaping Australia’s sustainable energy future.

It observed that the downward trend of pricing in wind and solar is likely to continue, that their operating costs are considerably below those of coal and their total costs remain competitive with both coal and gas. Interestingly, its transition arc from baseline coal to renewables will skip baseload gas.

It has stated that its closure of the Liddell coal fired plant and the planned closure of its two other plants at Bayswater and Loy Yang A are part of a planned transition to invest in grid scale renewables and storage.

Significantly, it also framed storage cost as the lead indicator in its strategy.

As seen with Elon Musk’s Telsa projects, battery technologies are becoming exponentially more efficient, but they are compromised by the pollutant-intense mining of heavy elements such as lithium for their manufacture. The disposal of waste batteries will remain a contentious environmental issue.

But if storage is the key to the future of energy systems, as Dr Alex Wonhas of global engineering and infrastructure advisors Aurecon points out, it requires a complex and nuanced strata of different components to create a reliable source of dispatchable power.

Wonhas points to the 2200 potential hydro storage locations across Australia, identified by an new ANU report claiming that if completed, they would provide 1000 times Australia’s energy needs.

“I think the significance of all these projects is they are all existing plants that are being expanded and that’s often a cheaper way of creating new and additional storage capacity,” he said.

“There are many other forms of storage especially in the built environment, so for example through intelligent building control you can also optimise the energy consumption of a building and therefore effectively use the thermal mass within a building as an energy store.

“And the same applies for the residential sector. For example I have signed up with an electricity retailer that not only provides me with my electricity but also operates my swimming pool and by basically having control over my swimming pool it effectively works as an energy storage device.

“I think the key to success in the future will be to identify all of those opportunities where we have natural storage reservoirs that can help us shift energies, from the time when it’s produced to the time it’s actually needed by consumers.

“The built environment will play a huge role, being one of the largest consumers of our electricity. There are interesting things that can be done through passive design to reduce energy consumption and actually makes it more amenable to the output profile of the renewable.

“If that gets coordinated across a whole precinct you can get significant amounts of storage that can help stabilize the electricity grid.”

Andy Chambers of Seed Consulting Services (overseeing many of SA’s large sustainable infrastructure projects) emphasises that changes in consumption patterns are equally as important in managing energy demand.

He observes that the SA government has funded an Energy Productivity Program to help large energy users find savings in demand rather than in consumption.

“Whenever equipment fires up and uses a large amount of energy it puts demand on to the electricity network,” he said.

“From a sustainability perspective, if you can reduce demand before you start looking at any other form of energy replacement that makes a lot of dollars and cents to people in business, so we’ve got big projects at the moment going around demand management and the decisions that find those demand savings.”

Chambers says that the SA government is encouraging businesses to provide analysis and initiative in tackling the state’s energy future.

“There are a large range of venture businesses undertaking energy audits to understand how they consume energy, what parts of the day they consume energy and how it aligns with the demand at the peak period of the day.

“So in that peak period when people go home and turn their air con on, whenever people can reduce that demand during that period then that’s going to result in savings for those businesses.”

Chambers maintains that a careful and clear-headed assessment of such nuanced variables will contribute to the long-term stability of a renewables energy market.

South Australia’s issues are a taste of what’s to come elsewhere

“What we have seen here in South Australia is probably a taste of what’s to come interstate. I mean, how do you value the security of your network? When you have an aged asset like the coal fired power station that’s been removed, then you need to replace that energy into your network.

“You’re going to see governments and industry looking at what presents the best cost-benefit in business investments. We’ve reached the stage where renewables are on a par with current costs around coal and looking at the projections they’re clearly going to get cheaper and cheaper. So getting in early with those investments enables the grid to have more security. Being ready for a high percentage of renewables I would have thought is more of a far sighted investment into the future rather than relying on coal, that clearly doesn’t have a space any more, when you look at where we’re at with climate change.

“There’s a responsibility factor for government that goes beyond the next election cycle. That has to be about investing in future benefits that are not tied into coal.”

James Wright points to the 2020 deadline AGL has named for the closure of the Liddell power plant as the crucial horizon for SA’s energy planning to take effect.

“The economic pendulum will have swung in favour of those renewable technologies in that time frame,” he said.

“I think we’re closer to the end than the start and it’s clear that the generation industry recognise where this is headed and that will become the accepted wisdom in that time horizon.

“In the medium term our reliance on gas as an electricity generation source will come off as well, when the economics aligned around solar coupled with storage and or pumped hydro (become) a reliable and cost effective way to add to our generation capacity.

“So there’s a number of alternatives that are economically compelling that would solve our trilemma, whilst reducing our reliance on fossil fuel.”

But as the Feds continue to pressure the states to increase coal and coal seam gas developments, embattled South Australia stands firm on its commitment to a wholesale embrace of a renewable energy-powered grid.

Even as the Coalition’s NEG attempts to starve renewables of oxygen, it would seem that a strategy which ignores market forces and factors out realistic emissions reductions is not a guarantee at all, but rather a forlorn political hope. Being inextricably tied with the party’s right wing and the fortunes of Tony Abbott, the success of a Coalition policy based mainly on coal seems about as likely as Abbott’s own desired return to power.

But while Premier Weatherill faces the political threat of Nick Xenephon’s challenge at next years SA elections, for now at least he seems to have provided the crucial leadership required in the vacuum of Federal energy policy.