ENERGY - SUPPLY RELIABILITY
Extract from Hansard
[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 October 2024]
p5471e-5488a
Hon Sophia Moermond; Hon Dr Steve Thomas; Hon Dan Caddy; Hon Louise Kingston; Hon Neil Thomson; Hon Darren West; Hon Wilson Tucker; Hon Martin Aldridge
HON DR STEVE THOMAS (South West) [1.23 pm]: Thank you, President. It is nice to see such an enthusiastic response to the motion moved by Hon Sophia Moermond. The entire crossbench—those present—leapt to their feet! There is enormous enthusiasm and it is not even a Thursday. Well done, everybody.
I am very pleased to make a contribution to this motion on behalf of the opposition. Hon Sophia Moermond moved a very good motion. I want to address each part in turn. Some of them I will address fairly quickly and some will obviously take a little more time. Part (a) of Hon Sophia Moermond’s motion calls on this house to acknowledge the need for reliable energy sources in the regions. Obviously, that is a no-brainer. Surely the entire house would support the need for reliable energy sources in the regions. The only issue is that we also need to provide reliable energy in the metropolitan area. The assumption that metropolitan Perth has a completely reliable power system is probably questionable from the start and will get worse over coming years as the state government gradually undermines and wrecks the energy system in the state. Although it is average now—let us say, fair to middling— it will get worse over time. I am hoping that the parliamentary secretary and the government might redirect themselves into a better energy system because metropolitan Perth should not necessarily be excluded from the need for reliable power. We can possibly assume that we will discuss this issue as it affects the entire state. Part (c) is also easy to agree with. It states —
agrees that creative and diverse solutions will be necessary in the future …
I want to go into that in a bit more detail. I will address part (b) at the outset; that is —
recognises that energy infrastructure built above ground is and will continue to be impacted by the changing climate and natural disasters;
It is true that they will be impacted, particularly by storms, as we have seen twice—a couple of years apart; in 2022 and 2024—in the supply lines to Kalgoorlie, with significant storms in January of each of those years. The failures of the backup system in 2022 under the previous Premier but the same government were repeated precisely through two years of lack of action and incompetence to get to 2024. The disaster that occurred in 2022 was perhaps a good warning sign that something different should be done out of Kalgoorlie. Nothing was done. The backup system failed because it was not big enough or good enough to do the job, as news reports have demonstrated. The average demand out of Kalgoorlie is 100 megawatts, give or take, in peak demand. When both backup units
Extract from Hansard
[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 October 2024]
p5471e-5488a
Hon Sophia Moermond; Hon Dr Steve Thomas; Hon Dan Caddy; Hon Louise Kingston; Hon Neil Thomson; Hon Darren West; Hon Wilson Tucker; Hon Martin Aldridge
[4]
are up and going, they produce about 57 megawatts, and only have black start capability. As soon as the 20 megawatts that we might be able to get up in the first instance goes into the system, the system crashes. Even the big units in Collie where I come from have safety protection built into them. If there is not enough energy in the system, the unit will shut down to protect itself. If only 15 to 25 megawatts can be put into a demand of 100 megawatts, the first thing the system does is shutdown. The government knew that in 2022. It carried out some maintenance and played around with it, but it did nothing serious about it. The same thing happened in 2024, two years later. There is that old saying, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me”. Shame on the government for not doing something to fix that problem. The government has announced that it will attempt to fix that problem, but another two years will have gone by. In 2026, the government is hoping to get more than 100 megawatts of backup capacity into the system so that we can restart the system with the backup generators that will not switch off automatically because we do not have enough power because they are not big enough. It is pretty simple science.
Why wait two years in the middle of the biggest boom that this state has ever had to fix the problem for the people of Kalgoorlie? I have no idea why the government messed around for two years trying to find a solution because the solution was given to it. I would have said that energy infrastructure will certainly be impacted. The problem with underground power versus above-ground power, Hon Sophia Moermond, is that when something goes wrong underground, it can be incredibly difficult to find. Our issue is that we are a widely dispersed state with energy demands. Lots of things that happen in Europe happen in very small areas. The problem with putting everything underground, particularly transmission—those bigger lines—is that because we are using bigger cables, the heat generated is massive because there is greater resistance from the bigger cables. That creates a problem maintaining those lines. The second component is that when something goes wrong on a line—water seeps in for some reason or something else goes wrong—if we tried to go underground from Perth to Kalgoorlie, which is something like 500 kilometres—and the fault cannot be found, it can be pretty difficult. The line would have to be dug up to find the problem.
There are some more involved and technical tools now that assist that process and make it better, but for those two reasons general undergrounding of transmission lines is difficult and fairly uneconomic. That is not to say some lines cannot be undergrounded.
Hon Kyle McGinn: In the Pilbara a few years ago.
Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: That is right. The Pilbara experiment did not go so well.
It is still the case that whatever happens we will want to maintain some overhead lines because of resistance and the fault-finding exercise. It is much easier down at the streetscape level, for example, because we are not looking at distribution across hundreds of kilometres. Lines in that local distribution area can go underground because generally the chance of finding where the fault lies is greater in a small area. It is a useful tool, and people in towns and on city blocks like to see power go underground so that they do not have an eyesore in front of them and they do not have to deal with Western Power poles. I and probably most members get complaints from people about Western Power poles being in a position that interferes with their capacity to use their block. I assume that the parliamentary secretary gets some of those complaints; I know I certainly do. I forward them to the minister, but in some cases nothing can be done about it. It is useful to underground power at that level, but for the time being it is probably not the go-to position for distribution.
That leaves us with limbs (c) and (d) of the motion. Limb (d) considers a decentralised power grid. Lots of work can be done along those lines. Limb (c) talks about “creative and diverse solutions”. I have no doubt that there will be creative and diverse solutions. The only thing I probably disagree with slightly about Hon Sophia Moermond’s contribution is when she said it is nuclear on the one hand and renewables on the other, because there is actually no reason why we cannot integrate the two. The two are not mutually exclusive, but that is not to say that impending nuclear power is coming onto the grid in Western Australia. There is a whole pile of other arguments around that including cost, cost–benefit analysis and a proper business case. It has to be efficient and effective, and it has to fit into the Western Australian grid. All of that will take a lot of working through, and a fair bit of time and research will go into it. I think they are really interesting conversations to have.
Hon Darren West: That’s the most sensible thing you have said about nuclear power for a while.
Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: I have said lots of things about nuclear power, member. We are not afraid of nuclear power, but it has to fit in and the business case has to work. That has to be the case, and it is not a simple discussion, Hon Sophia Moermond; it is a tough one. There is thorium versus uranium, for example. I think the member said plutonium. Uranium can ultimately degrade to plutonium, but reactors are generally uranium based. The larger units are 1 000-plus megawatts. The smaller thorium reactors can get down to 300 megawatts or even 50 megawatts, but the cost per electron becomes an issue. According the GenCost report, the small modular reactors are about three times the price per electron of the big uranium reactors. The big reactors are too big for the Western Australian grid, which peaks at about 4 500 megawatts. Of course to get down that low, the government has to ask a few
Extract from Hansard
[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 October 2024]
p5471e-5488a
Hon Sophia Moermond; Hon Dr Steve Thomas; Hon Dan Caddy; Hon Louise Kingston; Hon Neil Thomson; Hon Darren West; Hon Wilson Tucker; Hon Martin Aldridge
[5]
companies to shut down as part of that process. As I have said before, we do not want more than 10 per cent from one generation unit. At 4 500 megawatts, we do not want 400 megawatts from one unit. Although 300 megawatts is probably about the right size, the economics of that are more difficult. We need to have a lot of discussions about that. The cost does not fit in. By the way, Collie is not the only potential place where one could be put eventually. All of that takes a lot of discussion over a long period.
Hon Dan Caddy: Where else?
Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: As we found out in question time last week, there is area at Ledge Point, north of Perth, that is gazetted for a nuclear power plant.
Hon Dan Caddy interjected.
Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: Sir Charles Court put it in. There are other places. The other thing, of course, is that it needs to be somewhere with lots of water, which is an issue for Collie. There is lots of water in other places.
Hon Sandra Carr interjected.
Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: Ledge Point is where it is gazetted, but there are plenty of other locations that could be looked at.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Member, let us bring the contribution back through the chair, instead of across the other side of the chamber. It might be helpful for everyone trying to understand, including Hansard.
Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: Thank you, President, for your protection from the interjections from the other side.
There will be a great degree of creative and diverse solutions, and generation will vary. Some interesting projects are going on. Hydropower is very difficult in Western Australia. I agree with former Minister for Energy Hon Bill Johnston that we have everything for hydropower, really, except mountains and water! It would be very difficult to deliver. I agree that the little micro project down south is interesting, but it is a micro project that would be very hard to replicate anywhere else. Hydropower will not be a big contributor in the future.
Some more wind and solar power will be coming into the system. Interestingly, the Western Australian example is fairly good. It does not look like the government, Synergy, Western Power and Horizon Energy will replicate here the insanity that has gone on in the eastern states in terms of terrible gas policy resulting in a profusion of wind and solar farms. But that has not stopped the private sector from being highly optimistic about how it might make use of carbon credits to, for example, put on additional generation. If we look at what is happening in the renewables sector in Western Australia, we see proponents out of Europe and Asia coming here and suggesting they will put on a project for not just a few gigawatts—we are 4 500 megawatts, or 4.5 gigawatts—but multiple projects for 10 to 12 gigawatts of wind production. The first question one has to ask is: where will that be sold? There is no marketplace in the state system.
I was particularly pleased to hear the Premier of this state, Hon Roger Cook, suggest a couple of months ago that the government will need some additional fossil fuel generation. I thought that was great. As I have said in this house previously, I think he made a mistake when he said the government was going to build another coal-fired power station, which I think the people of Collie would have been quite excited about. I think he got it wrong— not that government bothered to acknowledge that and correct it. I think he was saying that, like the opposition would, the government is going to have to build some more gas-fired generation to have enough dispatchable energy to keep the lights on. Again, I am pleased to see that the state government is slowly adopting the opposition’s energy position. If the parliamentary secretary needs a copy of the policy so the government can try to get it right, I am happy to talk to him about it. There might be a small cost involved! It is nice to see that the government is coming around to the correct area of the energy discussion. I think that is really good. A little bit more gas generation to maintain dispatchable energy is good.
Of course, we have similar views on some of the more ridiculous wind farm proposals. That is not to say, President, that we can be opposed to wind farms in every location across the board. I think that is a silly position to take— sorry to those members—but when they are put in the wrong place, it needs to be called out. Last week, I was particularly pleased to see the federal Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, turn up and announce that the wind farm zone in Geographe Bay would be scrapped if the opposition wins the federal election. That was a good outcome. I support that absolutely and I know that the local federal member Nola Marino supports it absolutely. Other federal members like Hon Andrew Hastie, and the new candidate Ben Small absolutely support it.
Hon Dan Caddy: Recycled candidate.
Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: He has been a senator. He has been a candidate in the south twice. The state government’s position on wind farms is interesting. The City of Busselton wrote to the Minister for Regional Development, the member for Bunbury, and received this as part of the answer —
Extract from Hansard
[COUNCIL — Wednesday, 23 October 2024]
p5471e-5488a
Hon Sophia Moermond; Hon Dr Steve Thomas; Hon Dan Caddy; Hon Louise Kingston; Hon Neil Thomson; Hon Darren West; Hon Wilson Tucker; Hon Martin Aldridge
[6]
“Given the cost and complexity of offshore wind, we do not see it as a viable option for the foreseeable future and it is not a focus of the WA Government”
I agree with that. Well done, parliamentary secretary. We really are an agreeable lot. I like a bit of agreement on a Wednesday so we can dissent on a Thursday, President.
State and federal oppositions and the state government are in lock step on this issue. We are all in furious agreement. Geographe Bay is the wrong place for a ruddy great big wind farm. Fantastic! I hope the parliamentary secretary will confirm those comments in a bit. I will send him a copy of the document in a minute. Everybody is on board except Anthony Albanese and Chris Bowen who said, basically, “You’ll have a wind farm zone out there.” Congratulations; they knocked it back from 7 000 square kilometres to 4 000 square kilometres, right out there where people in the south west use boats, recreate, fish, dive and all the rest of it. State Labor, state opposition, federal opposition: we are united! I love a bit of unity in Parliament. We are united that this is a dud place to put a wind farm zone. The problem is that once it is declared a wind farm zone, it will be impossible to stop someone putting thousands of wind turbines out there, so this is a good outcome. I am not opposed to wind generally, on principle, and I am not opposed to it where there is a good location. I know there are people who will oppose it in their backyard. The NIMBY group will come along every time and oppose it. Much of the research is quite interesting. Hon Sophia Moermond, the federal government did some interesting research some years ago on wind turbines because there were grave concerns about the potential health impacts. Pretty much all of that was dispelled.
Hon Kyle McGinn interjected.
Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: Yes, there was some of that. Pretty much all those health issues were dispelled. That is not to say they do not have mental health impacts for some people who hate to look at them. If they can see them, that probably has an impact. I am a little bit cautious about that. There will be more wind turbines. There will be more solar panels. Most of those solar panels will be rooftop solar. The odd solar farm might come along but the Western Australian model, in a small marketplace, is better than in the eastern states. That is not to say the Labor Party is handling it well because it has impending disasters in its hands. It will not be able to close the coal system in the timeframe it has, which is purely ideological. It has nothing to do with energy supply. It needs more energy generation, it needs more storage and it needs increased transmission. Interestingly, the Labor Party cannot even tell me how much increased transmission it needs. It does not have a budget for any of those things. This comes to the crux of my contribution to the motion by Hon Sophia Moermond: what the state Labor government is doing is waiting for the private sector to save its bacon. What the state government is doing is sitting back going, “The private sector’s going to build all these wind turbines. The private sector’s going to build all these batteries.” There are proposals out there. I get briefed on them all the time. Some of them are reasonable; some of them probably less so.
Hon Sandra Carr: You guys wanted to sell off the electricity grid.
Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: The grid distribution itself is probably not worth selling these days. If we were going to do it, we needed to do it when it was worth something. It is like trying to sell your old Holden EH when it has 400 000 kilometres on it! You have to sell it when it has some value.
Several members interjected.
Hon Dr STEVE THOMAS: Do not worry. It was a great interjection because, do members know what the Labor Party has been doing? It has been selling off power assets! It sold off wind farms. The Labor Party is more than happy to sell off electricity assets. It sold off wind farms to the private sector. My good friend Hon Ben Wyatt was the Minister for Energy at the time. The Labor Party sold them—privatised them. What the Labor Party does is a bit clever—I get this. It is privatisation by stealth. That is the Labor Party’s energy policy—privatisation by stealth. It is selling off bits and pieces. It will have the private sector build some of the new distribution network. The previous Minister for Energy wanted to nationalise that, a bit like the crayfish exercise, but possibly it might. I am happy with build, own and operate. The Labor Party is having the private sector build the batteries it needs. The private sector is building the generation it needs. Do members know what? If it were open and honest, I would probably give it a round of applause—well done, parliamentary secretary, on the government agenda to privatise the energy system as much as it is able! It is not a bad policy, necessarily, because it saves the government having to put its hand in its pocket, take some of the money out of Metronet and put it into poles and wires. Privatisation is the Labor Party state government’s agenda for the energy system in this state—brilliant!
