15 November 2025

Another 'big battery' joins the ACT's electricity network

| By James Coleman
Join the conversation
89
Big battery

Not a view you’ll see often – inside the battery box. Photo: James Coleman.

No, it’s not a public toilet.

The new box enclosure beside the John Crawford Crescent playground in Casey – covered in an Indigenous mural featuring the bogong moth and the black cockatoo – is actually the ACT’s latest neighbourhood battery.

It’s part of the ACT Government’s ‘Big Canberra Battery Project’, an effort to build an “ecosystem of batteries across the ACT to ensure that our electricity grid remains stable”.

At the top end of that ecosystem is the massive $300 million-plus battery facility under construction in Williamsdale. Once running, it will be able to inject 250 megawatts into the grid when needed – enough to power a third of Canberra for two hours during peak demand.

An artist’s impression of Williamsdale’s Big Battery. Image: ACT Government.

Further down the scale are nine much smaller ‘behind-the-meter’ batteries at ACT Government sites, including at Belconnen Parks Depot, Kambah Depot, Allara Depot and the Cotter Depot, as well as the Chifley Community Hub and the Gungahlin Family and Child Centre.

And sitting in the middle are the neighbourhood-scale batteries – located in Dickson, Fadden and now Casey in Gungahlin.

These three units are built by Evoenergy and funded through the Australian Government’s Community Batteries for Household Solar Program, a $200 million initiative aimed at installing 400 batteries nationwide.

READ ALSO New Canberra to Sydney bus service rolls in with $10 fares

“With over 30 per cent of Canberra households and businesses now having rooftop solar, our network can be put under pressure from high volumes of solar exports,” Evoenergy says.

“This can lead to voltage fluctuations and congestion – similar to a traffic jam on a busy road. Neighbourhood batteries help absorb this excess energy, easing strain on our network and improving the quality of electricity supply.”

Dickson’s unit sits at the Common Ground complex on Hawdon Place, while Fadden’s is near Fadden Primary School on Hanlon Crescent. Casey’s is the newcomer, sitting in a playground.

Big battery

The battery is about the size of a large fridge. Photo: James Coleman.

Each battery is roughly the size of a large single-door fridge freezer and can power about 100 homes for two hours. They utilise lithium-iron phosphate chemistry, which is heavier but more stable than the lithium-ion chemistry found in phones and laptops, and are expected to last around 15 years.

Evoenergy says the locations were chosen for their “proximity to existing electrical infrastructure and local constraints”, and all passed assessments by the ACT Environment Protection Authority for noise, along with ACT Fire & Rescue for safety.

The units are fitted with smoke and gas detectors and can be monitored or switched off remotely from Evoenergy’s control centre.

Big battery

Evoenergy can remotely switch the unit on and off. Photo: James Coleman.

“Noise is primarily generated during charging cycles and from air conditioning units that regulate battery temperature,” Evoenergy says.

“We have carefully considered community impacts when selecting battery locations and will use acoustic barriers where needed to redirect sound away from nearby homes.”

Despite being connected to the grid, none of the neighbourhood batteries are fully operational yet.

“They’re still in the final stages of testing and commissioning,” Evoenergy senior engineer Richard Pozza told Region.

“For us, these batteries are a bit of a trial, and what we’re trying to do is test how they work within our network, how they can benefit customers, and how they can improve things. If we can do all this efficiently, it’s something we’ll consider in our investment in the future.”

READ ALSO The science behind traffic lights – and why they’re chosen over roundabouts

On the household front, around 1000 homes across Australia have taken up another of the Federal Government’s renewable-energy incentives – the $2.3 billion ‘Cheaper Home Batteries Program’, which cuts 30 per cent off the upfront cost of installing a small-scale home battery.

“And as we continue to build out the solar assets, [batteries] are going to become an even bigger factor of the grid,” Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury Dr Andrew Leigh said.

“So what we’ve got in the middle of the day now is we’ve got an oversupply of solar, so at certain points we’ve got the price going down to zero or sometimes even negative. So by putting that energy into the batteries, we’re able to then use it at a time when the power price is higher.”

Big battery

An artistic way of saying ‘don’t touch’. Photo: James Coleman.

ACT Minister for Climate Change, Environment, Energy and Water, Suzanne Orr, claims the batteries will also keep power prices down by saving more expensive overhauls of the electricity network.

“It also helps with managing our peaks, so that we’re better using what we do have rather than building additional capacity into the grid, which adds to the cost for people,” she said.

Dr Leigh says the Federal Government is open to talks about funding more neighbourhood batteries for the ACT.

“We’re going to need more batteries in the system, and the Federal Government’s always looking at how we can better support that.”

Ms Orr says the performance of the three batteries will be monitored over the coming months to identify other suburbs that could benefit.

And for the Casey battery, at least, the outside finish has already been taken care of. Local Wiradjuri artist Kalara Gilbert created the mural, which honours the annual migrations of the Bogong Moth and the Black Cockatoo to Tidbinbilla.

Free Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? We package the most-read Canberra stories and send them to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.
Loading
By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.

Join the conversation

89
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest
Heywood Smith2:43 pm 13 Nov 25

@Seano – I always found Wind Turbines to be the most efficient producers of clean energy… How about you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLak2Fytw5s

What is your point here? You don’t seem to actually have one….not surprising.

You have no idea why those two particular turbines are not turning at that time but there are many reasons why this would be the case. Maybe do a bit of reading.

CR – hopefully you didn’t turn on the gas heater this morning, it was only minus 1.

Remember it’s the end of the grand kids if you did.

“About 90 per cent of the world’s carbon emissions comes from the burning of fossil fuels – mainly for electricity, heat and transport.”

https://www.csiro.au/en/research/environmental-impacts/climate-change/Climate-change-QA/Sources-of-CO2

Heywood Smith2:44 pm 13 Nov 25

@seano, yep, and youre also contributing to that ‘90%”.. Whats your point?

Just looking at your link there seano. It states:

“On the other hand, animals – including humans – breathe out CO₂ in the process of respiration. When plants and animals die, their stored carbon is also released as CO₂. Natural processes such as respiration and decay, forest fires and volcanic eruptions add an additional 190.2 billion tonnes of CO₂ to the atmosphere per year.”

“Humans generate CO₂ when burning fossil fuels such as gas, petrol, oil, and coal. This adds an additional 9.1 billion tonnes of CO₂ to the atmosphere each year.”

Now I know you’re the mathematics guru, even have your own stream called seanomatics. So help me out here please:

Humans – Fossil Fuels 9.1 billion tonnes of CO₂
Natural processes 190.2 billion tonnes of CO₂
Total 199.3 billion tonnes of CO₂

So by those calculations 95.4% of is natural.

By crikey seano you’ve just proven all the scientists wrong !!

Problem solved.

Keep feeding the plants and trees – we need those so we can all eat

“Keep feeding the plants and trees – we need those so we can all eat”

You’re at least a decade out of date with this debunked conspiracy Bill:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/sep/19/new-study-undercuts-favorite-climate-myth-more-co2-is-good-for-plants

Penfold if you think that nonsense is clever, put it in a paper and put it up for peer review. Good luck with that.

“@seano, yep, and youre also contributing to that ‘90%”.. Whats your point?”

Just pointing out Penfold’s disingenuous misrepresentation of the issue from an earlier comment. Never said I don’t contribute to climate change. Only that it’s real, serious, needs to be addressed by adults based on data and evidence and much of it can be done in an economically sensible way…for example champ…renewables being the cheapest form of new energy.

You’re welcome.

You haven’t worked it out yet hey. The report says man only contributes 4.6% of CO2 emissions.

Thanks for that treat, you really should read it. Wasn’t peer reviewed, do you think it was spellchecked ?

Sorry I’m not interested in your climate change denial Penfold. IF you think this is clever write a paper and put up for peer review…not reputable journals do not accept papers written in crayon.

Let us know if the penny ever drops.

We probably won’t be able to hear it over the laughter when experts review your climate change denial paper.

Every major scientific body in the word is not wrong on climate change, whilst an uniformed, anonymous poster, cherry picking and misrepresenting spurious data has has some how disproved climate change….at least not in the real world that the rest of us inhabit.

Better tell all those people feeding CO2 into their greenhouses to boost plant growth that they’re wasting their time then.
And did Penfold deny climate change? Or did Penfold simply say that people aren’t causing it? Or that higher taxes aren’t likely to stop it?

Capital Retro10:29 am 13 Nov 25

I hope these big batteries are strong enough to withstand big hailstones.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-11-13/solar-power-panel-damage-giant-hail-queensland/105992850

The article says we should expect more big hailstorms but what they really mean is we should expect more damage from big hailstorms which have been around since time began, well before solar panels were invented and huge solar farms were constructed.

Did Super-Power Bowen do a risk assessment on the damage this will cause to our taxpayer funded solar factories?

Insurance companies will no doubt be increasing premiums and excesses. They have already increased excesses on tsunami cover and hailstorms are more common than tsunamis.

CR linking to articles showing the increased risk of weather events from climate change.

And discussing the increases in insurance premiums that are being factored in because of it.

Well I never, suddenly CR is a left wing greenie.

Some quick numbers on battery storage costs, using the big battery as the baseline as it’s likely to be more cost efficient than neighbourhood batteries or those for individual houses. $300m to provide enough electricity for 1/3 of Canberra for 2 hours peak demand, which may be as much as 4 hours of average demand. The median household uses 6407 KwH and 26065 MJ of gas, and about 2/3 of households have gas. The gas converts to the equivalent of 7240 KwH, or 4826 KwH after deducting those households that don’t have it.

Gencost allows for 5 hours of battery storage to firm renewable energy if I’m reading things right. The cost for battery storage for Canberra with 100% renewable energy under Gencost would be approximately $1.97b.

As I’ve mentioned before on this forum, google keeps telling me Australia would need 20 days of storage to enable us to get through winter if we had a 100% renewables grid. Winter comes with lower generation from both solar and wind. I don’t know if the 20 days is true so I’ll throw in a couple of lower alternatives. Even if Google is out by a significant amount, it’s still likely that Gencost is significantly under shooting the amount of storage we’ll need to have a stable 100% renewables grid. Alternatively we’d need to massively over build renewables generation to allow for periods of lower output.

1 day of storage for Canberra would be $9.5b
5 days of storage for Canberra would be $47b
20 days of storage for Canberra would be $189b

I acknowledge there’s a need for emissions reduction, but we need to be open eyed about the real cost of renewables. If google is right and we’d need something like that amount of battery storage, nuclear suddenly gets comparatively cheaper for the generation of carbon free energy. Coal would also become far and away the cheapest form of new energy, which would make sense with China and India both having chosen to vastly increase coal generation this century.

I’ll also note here that some googling this morning suggested Gencost assumes nuclear would run at 53-89% of capacity in Australia, or a midpoint of 71%, while overseas nuclear runs at an average of 80% capacity. That means Gencost’s cost estimate for nuclear may be overstated by around 1/7th.

Capital Retro11:33 am 12 Nov 25

Some inconvenient truths there Garfield. Expect to be ridiculed.

I can hear the Region Media resident experts tapping away there.

Also as previously commented, you’re starting with incorrect assumptions, so the analysis and conclusions don’t hold.

You’ve just created a strawman to attack that nobody is promoting, nor does it reflect reality.

There are other technologies for generation and there are other technologies for storage and firming.

The 20 days storage figure is just made up (you suggesting Google as the source?) and doesnt reflect the actual modelling that has been completed to investigate this very issue.

And you don’t have to assume absolutely zero fossil fuels in the short to medium term, because dispatchable gas can fill the gap whilst still significantly reducing emissions in that period.

As for the nuclear capacity factor, this point has been addressed repeatedly in Gencost and in comments here.

Nuclear “can” have higher capacity factors, but if it has to compete against cheaper alternatives, who exactly is going to pay more just so the nuclear plants can provide higher outputs?

“Some inconvenient truths there Garfield. Expect to be ridiculed.”

No truths, inconvenient or otherwise Retro.

“$300m to provide enough electricity for 1/3 of Canberra for 2 hours peak demand, which may be as much as 4 hours of average demand.”

Capital this drivel is self ridiculing these batteries are not made for the purpose Garfield is basing this nonsense on. And you’d both know that if you’d read the article “will be able to inject 250 megawatts into the grid when needed”.

They’re not for proving Canberra “20 days of storage”…the whole premise of this drivel is nonsense and therefore so are cost extrapolated from it.

As with any analysis, garbage in, garbage out.

Between the capacity errors and life span shockers, GenCost got the costs wrong by a factor of 5.

Remember they thought nuclear plants only operate for 30 years ? In the USA some are being commissioned for 100 years.

Some convenient errors which Capital Retro loves as usual.

The AEMO Integrated Systems Plan estimates 49 GW of dispatchable storage by 2050 additional to 15 GW from gas for peaking. Garfield makes up his own extrapolations. I will prefer those from AEMO and CSIRO, which measure renewables with firming as the lowest cost path, as is supported by commercial decision makers who are getting on with it with their shareholders’ approval.

Garfield notes that the AEMO/CSIRO Gencost report , after consulting world wide data, estimates a range of 53-89% effective capacity for nuclear. He then inserts his own unsourced estimate and declares a difference, saying that experts whose livelihoods and reputations are on the line must be wrong because a Region random said so.

Seriously, Garfield, it seems you are trying to be thoughtful about the best way to deal with a problem you recognise but surely you know this approach is not right? What do you find wrong with facts?

“Between the capacity errors and life span shockers, GenCost got the costs wrong by a factor of 5.”

No it didn’t.

Lots of adversarial responses making allegations of wrong assumptions etc, but not providing anything more accurate. If there are cheaper storage options than this $300m battery I want to hear about them and I’m happy to see the cost estimates revised down. But then I also question why this battery was built if there were cheaper options.

I especially love the comment saying we don’t need that much storage capacity because on-demand gas fills the gaps. That misses the whole point that for Australia to reach net zero, the gas plants will need to be turned off at some point. At that point, we’ll have renewables only, with fluctuating outputs, not only from day to day but season to season. I’m not looking at just the next few years, but 20+ years forward.

Given SA renewables output fell to around 50% of average output over 2 days in May this year, and Vic output was also reduced over those days, and that was near the start of the May-Aug shorter daylight hours period, then 20 days of average capacity held in storage may not be an unreasonable forecast to get us through until the windy months that start around September. You’ll note I said I didn’t know if it was accurate and so added two much shorter periods.

That’s 20 days storage if we’ve built renewables to match average output to usage across the year. The alternative to that level of storage is to overbuild renewables generation, which I doubt is being factored into Gencost. Arguably, overbuilding generation is what we’ve already done in comparison to the amount of storage that’s been built. Otherwise we wouldn’t have a glut in the middle of the day that the government was seeking to have energy companies give away for free.

Net zero supporters have become like a cult where it’s heresy to question whether the costings are as accurate as they should be for voters to make informed decisions, and they immediately lump someone coming at this from the centre in with those who deny humans are having an impact on increasing the earth’s temperature.

Garfield,

“Lots of adversarial responses making allegations of wrong assumptions etc, but not providing anything more accurate”

The evidence is in the Gencost report and Integrated Systems plans. Evidence based and more accurate. Listed by Axon above.

Your assumptions on the other hand, apparently sourced from uncredited googling.

“I especially love the comment saying we don’t need that much storage capacity because on-demand gas fills the gaps. That misses the whole point that for Australia to reach net zero, the gas plants will need to be turned off at some point”

Yes, you know that not every problem needs to be solved overnight and that an orderly transition is the most efficient way of improving emissions?

People from the “centre” don’t promote losing grid reliability for an unordered transition.

“At that point, we’ll have renewables only”

Yes, and I’ll repeat:

“There are other technologies for generation and there are other technologies for storage and firming.”

You’ve then just gone on to double down on the mistaken assumptions around required storage even though you were shown they were incorrect and provided more accurate information.

Hilariously, you then accuse others of acting like a cult, whilst ignoring the reams of expert research and engineering that have gone into the future detailed plans for a renewables led electricity grid.

When you make up baseless assumptions and then aren’t willing to listen to the actual experts, you aren’t coming from the “centre”.

” If there are cheaper storage options than this $300m battery I want to hear about them and I’m happy to see the cost estimates revised down.”

More drivel.

You literally made up your own costings based on a false premise misrepresenting the purpose of the battery and are now challenging people to come up with better costings…lol.

Yeah I’ve got a way to come up with better costings, ignore everything you’ve posted here because it’s all demonstrably nonsense.

Sensible people (and actual decision makers) will rely on the expert analysis in the Gencost report and ignore made up culture wars nonsense.

Great timing on the battery. With app temperatures this morning hovering around minus 6 – 3 weeks from summer – heaters would have been running on overdrive.

Capital Retro11:34 am 12 Nov 25

My gas heater was there, reliable and warm.

Your gas heater is destroying your grandkids’ future and you’re paying through the nose for it thanks to John Howard.

Did you hear that CR, if you turn on the gas your grandkids future is destroyed.

No wonder the Libs have just dumped net zero, people are sick of the baloney surrounding it.

Oh look Penfold being disingenuous in lieu of a point, some things don’t change.

The fantasy that the Liberals will bet back to power on the back of climate wars porkies is quite something. Good luck with that. lol

Capital Retro7:26 am 13 Nov 25

I don’t have any grandchildren Seano but if I did I would like to know how my gas heater is going to destroy their future.

What does the site you are taking instructions from tell you?

It probably just says “none of that is true”.

Probably explains why you don’t let science & economic fact intrude on your ideological fantasies about climate &energy Capital. It’s selfish but unsurprising.

“What does the site you are taking instructions from tell you?”…it might surprise party hacks and rusted ons that some people can and do actually think for themselves.

Batteries don’t well with low temps

Yes I know you don’t understand the energy market either Henry.

seano is that the energy market or the electricity market. Last week you weren’t aware which was which.

Presumably you’re up to speed now given you’re giving Henry your expert advice.

You have something right, Penfold, Seano responded expertly to Henry’s incoherent rambling.

AEMO, the Australian Energy Market Operator, manages provision of electricity, with the word “Energy” in their name. Are you seriously unaware that using electricity provides energy? Chemical energy is used for your muscles and in your brain (albeit supply seems short) so will you berate Seano or others for never bothering to declare that muscle-power is not a generator in the Australian Energy Market?

To quote AEMO:
“Our role is to manage the electricity and gas systems and markets across Australia, helping to ensure Australians have access to affordable, secure and reliable energy.”

The market operator uses the word energy in relation to electricity so I will take that as an acceptable shorthand when, as here, the context is too obvious to mention. Your misleading dichotomies are a childish game.

By the way, AEMO knows that renewables with firming will ensure Australians have access to affordable, secure and reliable energy. They said so in their Gencost report with CSIRO and industry decision makers agree, and are acting on it.

You may stay irrelevant.

Then why is it the Australian ENERGY Market Operator?

Protip: Because the ENERGY market includes gas. The usage here was in fact correct. Henry doesn’t understand the Australian ENERGY market and neither do you.

But I do enjoy the way you just can’t help tripping over those clown shoes every time you try one of these gotchas.

You don’t have to beclown yourself constantly Penfold…it’s not a requirement.

These batteries that are springing up everywhere, are designed to capture excessive production in the middle of the day.

Isn’t this the same electricity that Mr Bowen wants electricity companies to give away for free, to households?

I a bit confused. All of this electricity is coming from privately owned solar panels. Are owners going to lose their feed-in tariffs to feed the government batteries and the 3 hours of free electricity, or are electricity companies going to raise their prices to cover their loses for feeding batteries and giving away free electricity?

Due to the increasing prevalence of rooftop solar, production during the middle of the day produces electricity that is regularly negative in value.

The whole idea of shifting demand to peak production times (incentive of free electricity) is to reduce this inefficiency, but it doesn’t have to be the only solution.

These batteries can also charge during these peak production periods to release it later when the electricity is worth more.

They are complimentary to each other.

You get that they sell this power at night and at peak times when it is needed and the rates are higher?

There is no plan. Sleepy joe running the joint

Capital Retro9:12 am 12 Nov 25

……when they work.

“There is no plan. Sleepy joe running the joint”

Henry your culture wars nonsense is at least a year out of date and…*checks notes*….the wrong country.

“……when they work.”

Capital once again demonstrates that he doesn’t understand our energy market is based on a distributed grid. If “when they work” was an issue when we have 36% renewable electricity we’d have outages…but we don’t.

It’s amazing how often you post on energy Capital whilst being demonstrably clueless.

Capital Retro12:30 pm 12 Nov 25

“They are complimentary to each other.”

Especially when the government is underwriting a tax-payer guaranteed minimum price to them.

Intelligence would be complimentary to you making a reasonable point Capital Retro.

Unfortunately, here we are.

When these burn they release water and not carcinogenic fumes

Its about the same as the new nuclear reactors.

Interesting find CR. And consistent with the big South Australian blackout a few years ago, they blame the weather for the catastrophe.

Capital Retro5:36 pm 11 Nov 25

Chewy is maintaining the rage. Against coal.

Big batteries are the new technologies chewy and they are not supposed to have pre-commissioning faults.

Well of all days to maintain the rage CR, today is a good one.

But when the terms “big battery” and “catastrophe” sit together the future isn’t looking so bright that we’d have to wear shades.

No rage for me Retro, just laughing at your selective googling to “maintain the rage” against anything new or related remotely to renewables.

“Big batteries are the new technologies chewy and they are not supposed to have pre-commissioning faults”

Thanks for confirming you know nothing around major engineering projects.

Catastrophic Transformer isn’t the bad guy in a new movie.

“Big batteries are the new technologies chewy and they are not supposed to have pre-commissioning faults.”

Pretty sure they’ll have fixed this fault and have gigawatts of new generation & capacity online before the 12 years it takes for you to build a new coal fired power station Captial….oh and for much less money….lol…not bad for “new” technology.

Batteries last for 5-10 years… Lets not pay to maintain them and denounce battery tech in 15 years time.

Sign Henry, the estimated life of the big battery is at least 15 years….if you start building a new coal fired power station now the absolute best case is it would take 8 years more likely 12 and cost upwards of $3bn.

I know the billionaires who set the culture wars agenda for you don’t like it because many of them are invested in fossil fuels but technology has won, all that the culture wars can do is slow, not stop clean energy, but progress will happen it always does. Slowing it will only cost us more.

False, Henry. Simply false.

Capital Retro2:11 pm 12 Nov 25

If you are into transformers like in movies chewy then it’s now wonder you believe in the fantasy called Net Zero.

Capital with another airball…

I forgot Capital Retro would have last gone to the movies when they were located at a drive in, but it seems his selective Googling can still keep him up to date with the latest entertainment trends.

I also don’t know why he would think a basic concept is a fantasy, but he has been off with the Mercury induced pixies lately so…

seano this might come as news, but batteries don’t produce electricity.

Capital Retro8:45 am 13 Nov 25

Seano, we will always have coal to mine and gas to bottle.

We don’t make batteries and we will never have the technology to do so.

Windmills were invented to pump water and process grain.

Capital Retro8:56 am 13 Nov 25

You are clutching at straws again chewy because I have never been to a drive-in cinema in Canberra and the link I provided was from a national news headline, not selective Googling (as you call it).

I have no idea who the “Mercury induced pixies” are either. Maybe you have them at the bottom of your garden?

Capital Retro,
All you have is clutching at straws from your selective googling because you aren’t interested in the actual evidence.

Your anecdotal news doesn’t substitute for the actual science and engineering showing why renewables are taking over.

You grasp on to your selective googling because its all you have to avoid facing reality.

Me talking about generation & capacity:….”Pretty sure they’ll have fixed this fault and have gigawatts of new generation & capacity online”

Penfold being deliberately disingenuous because he doesn’t have an argument:
“seano this might come as news, but batteries don’t produce electricity.”

Although Penfold’s trolling in lieu of an argument is slightly better than his nonsensical buddy Capital, who seems confused at the best of times, here he confuses windmills and wind turbines:
“Windmills were invented to pump water and process grain.”

seano this might come as news, but batteries don’t produce electricity.”

All of the above is true. 😅

Penfold called out for his disingenuous nonsense…thinks reposting it is clever…lol ok.

Where did Seano say they did, Penfold? Do you have difficulty distinguishing the words “generations” and “capacity”?

Do you have difficulty with concepts of storage of electrical potential in batteries for use in various ways in the electricity grid? Do you have difficulty with the concept of storing water in dams to provide water when it is not raining, or to smooth river flows for environmental reasons?

Penfold has not demonstrated any understanding of anything much so the fact his comments have no relevance is routine.

The mention of a public toilet seems apt considering the amount of diarrhoea it’s already prompted from the usual suspects in the comments thread.

Capital Retro8:31 am 11 Nov 25

The fact that the “caution” tape is affixed upside down gives me no confidence in this “trial”.

And the “don’t touch” motif?

I wouldn’t look too deeply into that, the Caution tape is obviously put there because the Battery is new and they don’t want random people messing with it. The “Don’t Touch” motif is to be expected but what gets me is it looks like a pair of feet…?

Capital Retro2:25 pm 11 Nov 25

Not everyone can read upside down, Karl.

Interesting to know that about you, Capital Retro, especially given it is large print and not 12-point printed A4.

Still struggling to get past the first sentence, what an opening line.

Eventually did and came to the realisation that a public toilet probably wouldn’t be funded if it only lasted 15 years.

Bloody oath, I’d expect a Public Toilet to last longer than 15 years.

Capital Retro9:32 am 11 Nov 25

Renewables get subsidies.

Public toilets get subsidence

That’s true CR, but let’s give this the benefit of the doubt for a second. Apparently it powers 100 homes for 2 hours. Hmmm.

Now I’m all for batteries as backups for when Bowen’s policies send the lights out, but do these projects go through a business case ? There didn’t seem to be a price tag mentioned on this battery, does the cost outweigh the benefits ?

The Williamsdale big battery – which apparently will power 1/3 of Canberra for 2 hours – is $300 million. Has that had a business case, or does the case cease to be required when the tag “charged by renewable” gets invoked ?

When the only retort you have is effectively ‘this needs to be replaced at some point’ then you’ve really got no argument.

Are all other parts of the network lasting forever?

What an utter nonsense article. But par for the course for you.

Well if you read closely there were two retorts. Perhaps we could refer to the first as the Caroma retort.

But if you don’t like the article, take it up with the author.

Like normal, when you are shown to have no clothes on, you simply have no response, do you Penfold.

You didn’t answer the question – so I’ll take it as a yes that you expect all other parts of the network last forever.

As good as your efforts with percentages – F is the only grade worthy of your drivel.

You’re a hoot JS9, don’t bother answering my questions but demands yours are. 🤣

Your questions Penfold, were:

“Is there a business case for the Williamsdale battery?”
Yes.

“Will costs exceed benefits?”
No, benefits are expected to exceed costs or else there would be no investment.

For further information, consult Eku Energy or their parent investors Macquarie Asset Management and the Canadians, British Columbia Investment Management. Contemplate also Eku’s project pipeline in Japan, Italy, the UK.

Being investors, they seek to make good commercial decisions rather than listening right wing drones.

What is your relevant answer to JS9’s question?

Thanks Axon. If the business case exists you could simply reference it directly.

Btw the business case would be put together by the ACT government on behalf of ACT taxpayers before the decision to proceed was made. But you knew that didn’t you 🫣

I do not hold a copy of Eku Energy’s business case and proposal to which I referred, Penfold. You may write to them for a copy. The ACT government considered Eku Energy’s proposal and has its own case for, firstly, the call for proposals and, secondly, its commercial participation with the builder/owner/operator Eku Energy. You may write to them for a copy or for relevant papers.

Your personal panic is not my problem, facts never having been your concern.

What is your relevant answer to JS9’s question, Penfold?

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Region Canberra stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.