It’s becoming increasingly obvious of a growing disconnect between …
Paradigm #1) In ‘ideal land’ …
… there is the energy transition success story that the vast majority* of Australians would sincerely desire for the country (and the globe).
>> * perhaps except for a rump of rabid right on the emotion-o-meter.
Paradigm #2) in the ‘real world’
In contrast, a stark reality that is becoming increasingly obvious to many concerned energy-sector stakeholders that the energy transition is not going as swimmingly:
1) As most would like to happen; and
2) Which a dwindling number of stakeholders seem to continue to hold true.
Hence it was no surprise at all to open the AFR and see 4 different analysts quoted in voicing their concerns about the unrealistic notion that Eraring can close in 2027 … or perhaps even in 2029:
The article (by Angela Macdonald-Smith, online as ‘Origin’s Eraring coal plant expected to run past NSW closure deadline’) is worth a read, for those who have access.
Officially, though (at least at this point)
Officially, though, what’s stated (still) is that the plant will be fully closed on 19th August 2027. We can see this in this snapshot this morning at 08:15 (NEM time) of the ‘Forecast Convergence’ widget in ez2view:
Remember that this widget allows one to ‘look up a vertical’ in order to see ‘that other dimension of time’.
It seems only a matter of time (and perhaps some political wrangling) before reality is accepted and the closure date is officially pushed further out.
PS1 on Wednesday morning 3rd Sept 2025
It was not published at the time I posted the above on Tuesday morning – but later in the day Tuesday Perry Williams followed on the same theme with ‘Coal power stations may stay open longer amid renewable energy delays’ in the Australian:
In this case:
1) Perry quotes RBC analyst Alistair Rankin.
2) Concerns are raised, not just with respect to Eraring, but also notes…
‘… while both AGL and EnergyAustralia may hold off calling time on their Loy Yang A and Yallourn plants in Victoria.’
I am interested to know how much of a negative it is for Australia that we are working to such a failing plan. Not necessarily that high levels of wind and solar are unworkable, but that we cannot implement at anything like the touted rate. We don’t understand when coal plants can close, we don’t understand when we will need more gas fired peaker plants etc etc. A plan that is plausible would surely keep costs down.
I’m Ok with accepting predictions that Eraring’s closure is likely to be delayed. I’d prefer if they came with some detail of how much NSW is falling short of replacing it, particularly when the comment is ” … or perhaps in 2029 “. And what is the potential uptime and reliability of plant four years of more more after the originally planned closure? I think there is an emerging “real world” gap presupposing that it can indefinitely continue to ramp up and down and be relied upon.
Agree with you on several counts, Paul. Whose job is it to provide ‘some detail of how much NSW is falling short of replacing it’?
The Elephant in the room is: Does the system have sufficient Inertia for reliable operation? If the large heavy generators are shutdown and replaced by Solar, Wind and Batteries which contribute little or no inertia because the inverters cannot remain working during severe frequency excursions, then the inertia required to contain frequency decline will not be there. Low inertia results in steeper frequency decline during loss of generation because there is not enough governors on the system to restore frequency or even to control the frequency at 50hz. The result, as we are seeing even at this early stage, is a wandering frequency and an inability to identify what equipment actually caused the frequency excursion.
Just say it – 80 year lifespan Nuclear plant is the only safe and sure way to power our future!
“..4 different analysts quoted in voicing their concerns about the unrealistic notion that Eraring can close in 2027 … or perhaps even in 2029”
Bit of an exaggeration that 4 analysts are voicing concerns specifically about Eraring, given only Tom Allen is directly quoted in the article on this. From the article:
– Jarden are quoted as doing modelling of Eraring staying open beyond 2027 with no normative statements that this is what should happen.
– Neither Matt Rennie or Greg Elkins mention Eraring at all in the their quotes, just the 2030 and 2035 targets.