“A big problem:” Big battery developer says cancelling transmission links as bad as delaying co... - Renew Economy

A battery developer has flagged transmission infrastructure cancellation as a critical risk to grid reliability, equating it with delays to conventional generation capacity. The statement reflects growing tension in energy policy: as renewable capacity multiplies, the grid requires either massive new transmission to move that variable output across regions, or firm dispatchable plant to balance it locally. Without transmission expansion, batteries alone cannot reliably cover the mismatch between wind and solar output across Australia's geography.

Where this fits

This is a cost and reliability story masquerading as a transmission story. Renewables require either transmission overbuild or firm backup. The electricity transition has under-counted both. Cancelling transmission does not solve the problem; it exposes it. A firm generation fleet, whether gas or nuclear, would reduce transmission demand and lower total system cost. Australia's nuclear ban forecloses that option.

What it means

Grid planners are caught between two expensive paths: build vast transmission networks to move renewable output across regions, or deploy storage and gas to firm it locally. Cutting transmission without replacing firm capacity leaves the grid exposed to extended periods of low wind and solar output. Battery storage alone cannot fill multi-day gaps. The real cost of a renewables-only grid is not the panels and batteries; it is the redundancy required to make them reliable. Australia is paying that cost without naming it, and without exploring the lowest-emission firm alternative already proven at scale elsewhere.