Canberra's biggest battery gets green light

Except load management is important, necessary and you must have missed this during your “reality check”…

“Neonen will operate the Territory Battery under a revenue-sharing arrangement where the government pays a fixed annual sum in exchange for a fixed percentage share of total project revenue from the provider”

LOL, did you even read that link?
It doesnt remotely say what you’re claiming.

Far from the firs time he’s been caught out like this, Penfold typical doesn’t read this stuff, it’s either cut and paste from coalition talking points or wherever he consumes his culture wars memes.

“How could that be, did science fail us ?”
No, reading and comprehension failed someone, likely in year 5 & 6.

Tge stock standard denial. Which part did you struggle with chewy ? The URL which says “coral cover increases ?

Or the graphs, which show record levels in 2 of the 3 zones ?

Or the commentary which says “The AIMS report finds that small rises in coral cover this year bring the Northern and Central regions to their highest levels in 38 years of monitoring” ?

Feel free to dispute any of these, but please use some science.

Speaking of failures Seano, have you worked out the difference between elections and electrons ?

@Penfold
OMG – even your own reference, doesn’t support your conclusion that ‘the opposite is happening’ and I quote from AIMS Research Program Director, Dr David Wachenfeld, in that article:
“But the frequency and intensity of bleaching events is unprecedented, and that is only forecast to escalate under climate change, alongside the persistent threat of crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks and tropical cyclones”

Perhaps you should actually inform yourself about the process, and impacts, of coral bleaching (https://www.barrierreef.org/the-reef/threats/coral-bleaching) and then come back with a reasoned, and supported, argument, to prove the Great Barrier Reef is not still under threat.

Have you read the article Penfold?

“Feel free to dispute any of these, but please use some science.”

Here’s a handy link showing why your simplistic assessment of “moar corraalll, no climate change” is beyond silly.

Perhaps you should read it.

https://www.aims.gov.au/information-centre/news-and-stories/new-report-great-barrier-reef-shows-coral-cover-increases-onset-serious-bleaching-cyclones

Thanks for that treasure JS. It highlights the hilarity of the climate movement. Always quoting mouthpieces telling us how bad things are going to get in the future.

Meanwhile here in reality, the facts are very different. Pacific islands are growing, Antarctic ice is expanding and coral is blooming.

Do you ever think about gullibility ?

“Do you ever think about gullibility ?”

I think about it every time I read one of your comments Pengold.

That’s nice chewy, it sounds like you’ve progressed past cherries at least.

He did you know Antarctic ice is expanding. How could that be in a heating world ? Can you explain ?

“That’s nice chewy, it sounds like you’ve progressed past cherries at least.”

Well seems like you haven’t progressed past cherry picking still Pengold if your latest effort is anything to go by.

How does a complex non-linear system not follow kindergarten level linear correlations for cherry picked short term metrics asks Pengold.

Pengold’s next question:

“It’s getting colder in Canberra at the moment, how could that be in a heating world, can you explain?”

@Penfold
Let me see:
– “mouthpieces”, whose qualifications are clearly presented, who are accepted as experts by their peers and who have published multiple papers – reviewed and accredited by said peers
Vs
– a nobody commentator on a blog, with no verifiable qualifications at all, let alone on the subject in question

Yeah, sorry, Penfold. Self promotion has a very small audience, so I’m going with the “mouthpieces”.

JS – i have little doubt that you’ve fawned over the preachings of mouthpieces for decades. Who could ever forget Flannery predicting that the Murray would stop flowing and Warragamba would dry up. And Al Gore’s doomsday predictions.

But the facts are rather different. Yet the mouthpieces keep making their wild predictions and their gullible devotees keep lapping it up. And telling us to be afraid, be very afraid.

Sorry buddy, we all know the boy who cried wolf story. Do you remember the ending ?

@Penfold
Lot of filibuster there, Penfold but what is your point?

I’ve already addressed some of the hyperbole that draws attention, but doesn’t actually prove the case … a bit like you really. Rather than cherry pick some sensationalist comments, why don’t you actually address the evidentiary science of anthropogenic climate change?

But JS i did, it’s in the opening post, there’s even a link to a scientific study. Any comments about it ?

You favourite climate mouthpieces told us the GBR was doomed, but the complete opposite is true. Here’s an example:

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/barrier-reef-doomed-as-up-to-99-percent-of-coral-at-risk-report-finds-20210331-p57fng.html

@Penfold
Oh yes … that post about the coral’s temporary recovery … a bit like the Antarctic Ice Shelf growing in one area over the short term. Perhaps you can actually provide evidence that these locations (GBR, Antarctic/Arctic/Greenland ice shelfs) are still not under threat from inaction on climate change, rather than short term temporary relief. Bit like those who, every time we have a cold snap, use it as “evidence” that the rise in average global temperatures is a myth

The highest coral readings in 38 years. 2 records out of 3, and almost a third. Sounds like you’re the denier now JS. Don’t be so doomy and gloomy, you should be excited. All those great renewable might be working.

Unlike the predictions of the renewable funded mouthpieces.

Penfold
Actually, the fact that the coral can recover is great news. But read this article and you will understand why scientists, i.e. people who really know what they are talking about, aren’t celebrating:
https://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/is-the-great-barrier-reef-making-a-comeback/

It is a positive reinforcement of the move to net zero … but the job is far from done. Fragile ecosystems like GBR, cannot afford to have us listen to the likes of you who say: ”The highest coral readings in 38 years” and therefore conclude’crisis averted’.

You can bellow about “mouthpieces” and the like, but hey, guess what? Your denialist mob lost at the election – and now the Greens have the balance of power in the Senate. They will be able to ensure that the Labor government honours its commitment to action on climate change – which can only mean more good news for the reef.

Thank you for your concern for GBR – it’s been noted.

Agreed JS we need to maintain vigilance. But you’re still not addressing my point – how have the scientists got it so wrong ?

“But you’re still not addressing my point – how have the scientists got it so wrong ?”

“But you haven’t addressed my strawmen and inaccurate loaded questions yet.”

Of course it doesn’t matter that widespread bleaching, heat stress and changing ecology has been affecting much of the reef at increasing rates, Pengold has found one short term metric that he hangs on to like a dog with a bone. Even though it doesn’t actually say what he’s claiming if he read his own links.

You must be very intelligent Pengold, your attempted points are not completely obvious and disingenuous debating tactics at all.

Lifting the bar 😂

How bout that big Battery hey. You know the subject of this article.

Chewy you’re funny. Refuse to accept one AIMS report but use another as a retort. Make your mind up ! 🤣

You still haven’t mentioned which parts of the record coral report you’re telling us all are wrong. Come on buddy, lift the bar !

Pengold,
Where did I refuse to accept a report?

Proving you hadn’t actually read it, i literally linked the exact same report you did because the conclusions don’t agree with your claims.

😂😂😂

Pengold repeats:

“But you haven’t addressed my strawmen and inaccurate loaded questions yet.”

Cmon pal, mate, dude, lift the bar.

Penfold thinks coral grows on batteries in the bush.

Well chewy perhaps, given you’re right across the AIMS report you could advise us, with that Mensa-level intellect, how AIMS got these points wrong. As you must have missed them let me be so kind as to reappear them:

The URL which says “coral cover increases ?

Or the graphs, which show record levels in 2 of the 3 zones ?

Or the commentary which says “The AIMS report finds that small rises in coral cover this year bring the Northern and Central regions to their highest levels in 38 years of monitoring” ?

Take your time, I’m fascinated how AIMS got some of their conclusions right, and some wrong. According to the scientific discipline of chewyology of course.

Pengold swings and misses again, I nor anyone else here have questioned the validity of the report, just your attempted extrapolation of one metric to mean things it does not, whilst ignoring the vast bulk of findings and conclusions in the same report.

You know all about extrapolation Pengold, its a type of forecasting remember.

Pengold repeats:

“But you haven’t addressed my strawmen and inaccurate loaded questions yet.”

Thanks chewy, we’ll take that as a no. 😎

Pengold repeats:

“But you haven’t addressed my strawmen and inaccurate loaded questions yet.”

chewology: the study of strawmen 🤣

Pengold uses a strawman to defend his strawmen.

Pengold inception.

Laughing emoji.

“the study of strawmen”

With you around Penfold, no-one can be short of material.

You offer zero engagement with facts or actual topics.

@Penfold
“how have the scientists got it so wrong?”
Who says the scientists got it wrong, Penfold? Where have the scientists stated that the GBR has been destoryed or damaged beyong all possibility of recovery.

Perhaps some have said something along the lines of: “If action is not taken on climate change then the reef is doomed”. Are they wrong?

Well JS you haven’t demonstrated great competence in comprehending the finding of scientists, but perhaps these words from IPCC in 2022 may resonate:

“The 2016 and 2017 mass bleaching events transformed parts of the northern and middle reef system into a highly degraded state. Bleaching is expected to continue gathering pace.”

https://www.barrierreef.org/news/news/climate-change-crisis-the-ipcc-findings-and-our-ambitious-plan-to-save-the-great-barrier-reef

Yet far from “gathering pace”, bleaching has ceased and the coral has grown.

So you could conclude they were certainly wrong.

Still waiting for your comment on topic, Penfold.

There is no need to parade your ignorance of science, nor your persistent disingenuity, nor your — what was that apt word here — oh yes, piffle.

Penfold’s piffle. Nicely alliterate, and very apt.

Axon no doubt the irony of your comment has gone straight over your head. 🌩

@Penfold
“Yet far from “gathering pace”, bleaching has ceased and the coral has grown. ”
Yeah – about that, Penfold.

I actually had closer look at that link you provided, to the AIMS article, which you quoted “Coral cover has increased in all three regions on the Great Barrier Reef and is at regional highs in two of the three region”

The next two paragraphs in the article were quite interesting:
“Most of the underwater surveys contributing to these findings published today, were conducted before and during the recent mass bleaching event, one of the most extensive and serious on record, and have not yet captured how many corals survived or died following the bleaching.    
Surveys in the Central region were also completed before the passage of tropical Cyclone Jasper in December 2023.”
and further on:
“The next (LTMP = Long-Term Monitoring Program) survey season recommences in September and will capture impacts on coral cover from this summer’s mass bleaching event and the cyclones, with a full assessment complete by mid-2025.”

Also, in your latest link, did you read the section entitled: “How can we save the Great Barrier Reef?” – in particular:
“But there is hope. If we can drastically and rapidly cut the global emissions driving climate change, plus help reefs adapt to the warming already locked into the system, we have a good chance of achieving the future we want. Neither alone will be enough.”

So, it would appear the scientists haven’t got it wrong they merely analysed the data. Such ‘point in time’ data can reflect a (temporarily) improved position, but that can change with new data. Naturally, they will assess the data from the next LTMP surve, and provide appropriate advice. That’s actually what scientists do, Penfold, they analyse data and, where appropriate, validate or modify their position accordingly.

And there is the piffle again. Penfold cannot handle the request for topical comment. Further, Penfold tries to imply that his nescience is somehow shared by me, yet I have made no related comment on this thread. Penfold is mendaciously offering pure invention.

That Penfold either lacks completely or disingenuously denies knowledge of science is already evident. I have no need to re-justify it here.

JS – good on you for doing some detailed research, it provides a far more interesting discussion than the childish silliness of some.

So if we had to summarise your comments it would be:

1. At the point in time of the article (nine months ago, August 2024) there were record coral highs, though in the future that may change;

2. If we don’t do anything in the future, the reef is doomed.

And this is the entire point – these “experts” keep telling us that the future is bad, very bad. They’ve been telling us this for 35 years.

https://tallahasseereports.com/2019/03/09/a-1989-ap-report-nations-wiped-off-face-of-the-earth-by-2000/

But the past – facts – prove them wrong. Warragamba survives, the GBR is in good shape, Pacific islands aren’t sinking, there’s less cyclones than historically the case, the Murray is still there. In fact the BOM had to “homogenise”, sorry lower historic temperature observations a few years back to show a warming trend over 100 years.

https://www.farminstitute.org.au/how-not-to-win-an-argument-about-climate-science/

It’s like the church versus science arguments during the Middle Ages where the church spent years dismissing science. All through fear. Now the climate lobby tries to dismiss science. All through fear. There’s plenty of scientists who disagree with the “experts”.

Science can’t even accurately define the relationship between CO2 and temperature. Having said that i’ll agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and more CO2 means higher temperatures. But how much more ?

Because of all this i’ve come to the conclusion the whole thing is a joke. If you try to cover up the past then telling us you can predict the future doesn’t pass the pub test.

There you go, an invitation to treat ….

@Penfold
Wow – you’ve found a 35 year old quote from “senior U.N. environmental official”, i.e. an administrator, who felt the need to ‘gild the lily’ to focus attention on the issue.

I have already addressed this, as I don’t believe hyperbole over climate change is warranted – particularly when it comes from commentators, who are interpreting the worst outcomes from the evidence provided by scientists. As I said before, sensible people don’t need hyperbole, they are smart enough to know the global climate crisis is dire enough without it.

As for your specific examples:
– 1. Yes, Warragamba dam has survived, however, as per this article (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004896972201453X), the study shows, empty farm dams are 2.5 times more frequent than in 1965. That has a direct impact on our food crops;
– 2. GBR – as I previously pointed out, one ‘season’ of coral growth on the GBR is hardly a sign the fragile ecosystem is in “good shape”
– 3. It’s correct that no Pacific islands have sunk, but again, average sea levels, particularly in the West Pacific are steadily rising – another article referencing a study which supports this (https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/climate-change-transforms-pacific-islands) … Pacific Island leaders are certainly concerned for the future of their nations.
– 4. Yes – cyclones have decreased over the last decade or so – but the intensity of the cyclones has increased. This article (https://www.csiro.au/en/news/All/Articles/2025/March/things-to-know-about-tropical-cyclones) addresses the increase inntensity
– 5. “the Murray is still there” but yet another vital resource, in the Murray Darling Basin, is subject to the impacts of climate change (https://www.dcceew.gov.au/cewh/manage-water/water-for-environment/seasonal-issues/reponding-impacts-climate-change)
– 6. BoM had to go through the temperature homogenisation process in order to account account for non-climatic factors that can affect readings over time, such as changes in instrumentation, station locations, or surrounding environment. The methods used in developing the homogenised (ACORN-SAT) dataset were peer-reviewed by a panel of world-leading experts, convened in Melbourne in 2011. That panel ranked the Bureau’s procedures and data analysis as amongst the best in the world.

So, other than isolated examples of hyperbole, I’m not seeing a lot of facts from you which in any way show that your “conclusion the whole thing is a joke” is based on anything other than your interprative innuendo.

“Now the climate lobby tries to dismiss science.” PMSL … oh really, so the overwhelming majority of scientists are trying to dismiss their own findings are they?

The ‘church’ and science may disagree on how the earth was created – but on one thing leaders, such as newly elected head of the Catholic Church, Pope Leo, and head of the Church of England, King Charles, among many others, agree, is that climate change is real and an issue that needs to be addressed.

Impressive well argued response JS, even if i don’t agree. Yes you’re correct about a poor choice of words – the climate lobby doesn’t dismiss science, it dismisses science it doesn’t like. It quashes it and runs it out of town. Just ask Peter Ridd, ex-Professor at JCU who had the temerity to argue the GBR wasn’t in such mortal danger and for that he was sacked. Along with demanding his right to free speech and debate.

Look him up though much of the media commentary appears to have been removed from Google. The ABC described him as a “one-man campaigner”, such is their ignorance and bias.

You’re counter arguments are noted, but you can’t call historic facts “hyperbole”. There’s nothing exaggerated, these things are all real.

As for BOM, well nice copy and paste from the BOM website. Wriggle words. The fact is they changed temperature readings and in all cases it indicated higher temperatures in recent times. That’s when i really started doubting the climate movement. They decided to cheat and thought they could get away with it.

The King and the Pope preside over shrinking constituencies, of course they’re going to take positions they think are popular. Imagine if they opposed CC, the vocal minority would go crazy.

Speaking of vocal populists what’s happened to Greta, she’s disappeared ?

@Penfold
Yes, you are right, ex-Professor, now an employee of the Institute of Public Affairs, Peter Ridd,was dismissed for breaching the JCU code of conduct. A decision which was initially ruled unfair by Judge Vasta of the Federal Court, and that decision was overturned by the High Court which found in favour of JCU. Seems like another example of the only winners were the solicitors and barristers on both sides.
Nevertheless, even Judge Vasta in his, subsequently over-turned ruling, in favour of Ridd, stated:
–> “Some have thought that this trial was about freedom of speech and intellectual freedom. Media reports have considered that this trial was about silencing persons with controversial or unpopular views.
Rather, this trial was purely and simply about the proper construction of a clause in an enterprise agreement.”
So, it would seem that perhaps this case, was more than just his sacking because, he had “the temerity to argue the GBR wasn’t in such mortal danger”. And of course, I can find an example of an article where an expert panel has refuted ex-Professor Ridd’s claims:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/28/great-barrier-reef-expert-panel-says-peter-ridd-misrepresenting-science

As for your “historical facts”? All they are based on is the (potentially) ‘over the top’, commentary, which I addressed by providing countering references. If, as you say, the science is flawed or being falsified, e.g supposedly by BoM, perhaps you can provide the actual verifiable scientific evidence, rather than opinions (like from Ridd), that shows that climate change is not an issue?

” Imagine if they opposed CC, the vocal minority would go crazy.”
Why would you ‘go crazy’, if the king and pope opposed action on climate change?

I could google “what is Greta Thunberg up to now” if you are unable to do so. However, as Thunberg is a very public commentator, who understands and accepts the science around anthropogenic climate change, how does what she’s doing now impact that science?

How does that work – do they build an ATM into them ? This one, well $375 million for 2 minutes of power. And it’s all taxpayers money.

@chrisjeanemery – Why do you imagine this is different?

Neoen is building the battery using capital and debt financing.

As Neoen states:
“The Territory Battery is a stand-alone battery facility with up to 300 MW [600 MWh] capacity.
The battery will be able to store energy for up to 2 hours of power in reserve.
The battery will provide a predictable supply of electricity to the grid through its ability to dispatch energy during peak times of demand.”

You seem obsessed with lasting two minutes Penfold.

The battery lasts for two hours and does the job of load shifting. Which is important in grid management. You can stop telling the same porkie. It’s literally spelled out in the article you haven’t read.

Seano the job of a battery is to provide energy. You only need to load shift if your energy supply is unreliable and unbalanced. Look them up.

Do you have a problem getting water from your tap, Penfold?

Your comments are usually pretty shallow.

” You only need to load shift if….” Penfold talking out of his…hat once again.

Moving cheap energy to peak times or to smooth peak load is highly profitable.

Not really Cosmic, you just turn on the tap and out comes the water.

These days when you turn on the lights you’re a bit worried they won’t come on.

“These days when you turn on the lights you’re a bit worried they won’t come on.”

Laughable.

“you just turn on the tap and out comes the water”

I see you are getting closer to the concept of storage for reliable supply as happens with various forms of storage for electricity, such as the battery here which is one amongst many Neoen has installed around the world.

Cosmic it all sounds so dreamy. Except for the fires, delays and budget overruns.

https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/transparency-wanted-on-battery-fire-as-questions-raised-20210805-p58gaa

https://reneweconomy.com.au/too-many-cooks-spoil-the-battery-broth-delays-and-added-costs-for-landmark-storage-project/

Omigod, a large project somewhere overran its budget! Fires can happen!

You live in a fantasy world, Penfold, or perhaps this one, described by RAND Corp a few years ago and titled “The Russian ‘Firehose of Falsehood’ Propaganda Model” although I am not special about the national identity. Characteristics of the contemporary model for propaganda are:

1. High-volume and multichannel
2. Rapid, continuous, and repetitive
3. Lacks commitment to objective reality
4. Lacks commitment to consistency.

I see no distinction between your piffle and that model.

The link for anyone interested (not Penfold) is https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html

The Russian Firehose Cosmic, or should that be Comrade Cosmic. Fascinating article, I’d imagine the likes of JS and chewy would relate to it nicely.

If you’re struggling to differentiate between the model and some facts around the renewable hysteria well i can’t help you much further I’m afraid.

One question though – isn’t being repetitive and being consistent much the same thing ? Or perhaps that’s a different theory.

“Lacks commitment to objective reality.”
“Lacks commitment to consistency.”
It’s Penfold.

I have no need to engage with your nonsense. It can be rebutted quickly and easily by pointing out your behaviour patterns as much as anything.

Comrade – you’re going to rebut evidence using behaviour patterns ? Sounds intriguing, you must be highly intelligent !

Penfold can be seen to fail to engage with the topic, which is in the title, fail to deal with objective reality in responses, and utter repetitive nonsense. It is throughout this thread and every other which Penfold tries hard to pollute.

Why is ensuring grid stability a waste of money? Please explain? What don’t you like about 24/7 electricity?

Possibly the two minutes it lasts. For $375 million that we can’t afford. Stupidity on steroids.

“Possibly the two minutes it lasts. ” two hours of load shifting. It’s an import part of grid management but don’t let facts get in the way of beclowning yourself.

” Stupidity on steroids.” …would be the definition of commenting on things when you either don’t understand or deliberately misrepresent Penfold.

These sorts of tactics didn’t win your team the election, they’re not going to win them the next one either.

Imagine, the Neoen designers had no idea the battery is useless, and that constructing it is a waste of their own money. Those people who design and build commercial energy systems must be so stupid.

Rather than posting on RegionCanberra, better to write to Neoen at once to let them know. Oscar, Penfold, get to it, lend them your mighty wisdom.

Cosmic – good suggestion. But it’s the ACTY government funding it, they don’t listen to anyone. The French are more than happy to take our money.

You talk a lot of piffle, Penfold.

Nonsense on the hoof.

The main purpose of the battery is not to store renewable power, its to provide very quick dispatchable power that can be used for maintaining grid stability, helping to provide additional power during high demand periods and emergencies.

As renewable penetration increases, more of that stored power comes from renewable energy.

It will make money by storing energy when spot prices are low and then feeding that energy back in to the grid when they are high. Prices are typically very low in the middle of the day when Solar PV is operating fully.

And the ACT Government has strong processes in place around modern slavery.

Grid stability requires spinning mass. Only a load on the network that maintains frequency is going to keep the power going when someone drops or starts a big load.

The standard is not going outside 50hz by more than 1hz.

Going outside this will likely cause the grid to collapse as it’s unsafe. It’s happened overseas and will happen here

Henry,
Whilst grid inertia can help provide grid stability, it isn’t the only way it can be achieved.

Henry, none of that is true. Get off Telegram mate.