Leaderboard

Into the above arguments, we could factor in the rapid adoption of home batteries. According to one report there are about 400,000 home batteries installed in the first half of 2026. This alone must noticably reduce peak load on the NEM. Consequently, lowering peaking generation and therefore driving down overall retail electricity prices even for non solar householders. Even small home batteries are designed to reduce peak load on the grid. Sure, it isn't a complete transition to 'intermittents'. But the trend is gathering momentum in the right direction.

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.

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.

When I post posting re-read the above, I realised they referred to GWh of storage capacity. Not actual GW generation supply (as a reduction of generation to meet peak demand). Still, it's a consequential amount of distributed energy getting stored

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

That sounds... spectacle-r.

This is why I don't do politics or science by meme, or in this case a simple graph, because we are find a set of numbers that suits our agenda and just publish it. Is the above the cost of generation, the wholesale price, or the retail price. Because, the latter two have factors that can distort the market. For example, Denmark's wholesale price is connected to the European markets believe it or not, so if an expensive dirty coal plant happens to produce and sell energy at the same time or within a price setting period, the wholesale price is largely set to be based on that price... which is far more expensive than wind or solar. That is wholesale price distortion. Of course, other European markets are subject to this as well, but since the grid is segmented, not all are setting the same wholesale price. Then the distortions at the retail price are local market conditions, taxes (of which Denmark has a lot - even VAT (GST) on electricity! Wowsers. Not even the UK levies VAT on electricity. So the retail price may not be at all reflective of the generation price. I prefer the Levilised Cost of Electricity comparison, which seeks to take out some of the more artificial price setting. According to Google AI, Denmark wins on wind, but loses on Gas and Solar: Note, the cheapness of fracked shale gas does not include the cost of cleaning up. Also, if Denmark decided to stay gas (or presumably coal, etc), from the above, they would be paying roughly double or more to produce electricity. I would suggest that the numbers show that wind and solar is much cheaper - for them. Not so much for the USA, again except this does not cover the true clean up costs. Which sort of shows the point of renewables - the optimum mix will be determined by local conditions. And, yeah, in some cases, even fossil fuel generation will make sense.. So, lets do a like for like comparison. South Australia, according to Google has around 84% of its electricity generated from wind (44% of total electricity generated) versus solar (33%). According to your chart, Denmark has a touch under 70%. That would suggest for South Australia, solar and onshore are very cost effective producers of electricity and offshore not so much (at least not yet). Also, because of SA's rapid deployment of storage, they seem to be already reaping some economies of scale benefits because of a rapid roll out, but as there is only commentary, it is hard to tell. In addition, in SA, gas is more than double solar and coal is almost triple the cost of solar, and around double of offshore wind. It does though, beat offshore wind, so unless we can address the issues that cause that, offshore wind (which probably has more constant wind). But interesting, SA is more wind and solar as a percentage of its generation, yet on a levelised basis, SA is cheaper. And as someone who has worked in the generation business, I am sure you're aware of the importance of this measure over retail or wholesale prices as a true indication of the comparative cost of generation. Thee price that is paid at the "pump" is only in a small way related to the cost of generation.. that, in @pmccarthy's vernacular, is the politics end of the argument. The cost of generation is the data end, and renewables are already at a big advantage there. Take politics out of it, and there really is no compelling reason to do so., The sun doesn't always shine - no.. Only at night or seriously overcast days is it that bad, but when it is shining brightly, we can store the excess and save it for when it isn't shining brightly. Even today, they are developing nocturnal solar panels which can harvest the infrared rays during radiating cooling of the earth to generate electricity (https://www.moeveglobal.com/en/planet-energy/sustainable-innovation/nocturnal-solar-panels-energy-without-sunlight). And there is a new technology that it looking at capturing vibrations from the wind and earth instead of using blades to generate electricity - fewer parts, cheaper and less landfill: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibration-powered_generator This is the point. Fossil fuel burning is destroying the planet (in conjunction with a lot of other stuff we do). And now, it is no longer cheap to do it; and it will get more expensive. So we have to seek out alternatives. To not do it is kicking the can down the road and just making it more expensive to fix. It can be done; the tech is already here and it is improving very quickly. It is the politics that is the issue. In the mean time, if you want to take a meme-led approach, go for it. As for wind and solar not yet powering most of a country - well - no.. but it does most of a state that is the physical (admittedly not population) size bigger than many countries. But it's a ridiculous assertion because a place should use the most appropriate renewable/s, not an arbitrary renewable, anyway.