Policy2026-11-11· RenewEconomy

Wind and battery project called in by LNP trims turbines by 10, adds 3,429 pages of “more information”

Cubico Sustainable Investments has submitted a 3,429-page planning application to Queensland for its 700 MW Marmadua wind project and 200 MW battery after the state planning minister called it in for higher-level review in June 2024. The new submission trims the turbine count by 10 units and responds to 28 separate information requests from the Department of State Development. The minister's intervention and demand for extensive additional documentation extended the approval timeline by 16 months before resubmission.

Where this fits

Project delays under regulatory scrutiny add time and cost to grid infrastructure that Australia is racing to build. Wind projects already face approval timelines measured in years; extended minister-level review cycles compound this friction. The Marmadua battery component nominally adds "4-hour" storage, yet without firm generation to back it during multi-day low-wind periods, the system still depends on gas for firming, a cost the headline does not surface. Regulatory burden falls equally on wind farms and the firm nuclear alternative, but only one is banned by law.

What it means

Australia is building a weather-dependent grid on a slower, more uncertain approval path than coal plants faced. The 16-month delay for additional documentation represents real capital cost and postponed grid contributions at a moment when generation margins matter. More fundamentally, every year spent reviewing wind-and-battery combinations is a year not spent on firm, low-emissions generation that would not require the same regulatory intensity or backend gas support. The trade-off is being made, not stated.

By the numbers

Taking the article's figure of 700 megawatt (MW) wind project, at indicative Australian build costs:

What it costs to buildA$1.4bn–A$2.2bn

at ~A$2000–3200/kW installed. Source: CSIRO GenCost 2024-25. Indicative.

What it generates~2.3 TWh/yr

at a ~38% capacity factor, and only when the wind blows, so it still needs firming.

The same money in nuclear0.1–0.3 GW

enough for 1–2 TWh a year of firm, always-on power, generating for ~60 years. Source: CSIRO GenCost 2024-25 (A$8.5–13.2bn/GW), IAEA capacity factor.

Figures are indicative conversions from the article's stated quantity using published cost, material and capacity factors (CSIRO GenCost, BNEF, IEA, IAEA). Ranges, not precise forecasts.

Taking the article's figure of 200 MW, four-hour battery, at indicative Australian build costs:

What it costs to buildA$480m–A$800m

at ~A$600–1000/kWh installed. Source: BNEF, CSIRO GenCost 2024-25. Indicative.

What it actually stores~0 hrs

of average national (NEM) demand if fully dischargeable, then it needs recharging. Storage shifts power, it does not generate it.

Critical minerals it consumes~1,584 t

lithium, graphite, nickel, copper and cobalt (~80 t lithium content). Replaced roughly every 12 years. Source: IEA, Argonne GREET. Indicative.

Money into China's economyA$360m–A$600m

~75% of cells are China-made. Source: IEA cell-manufacturing share.

The same money in nuclear0–0.1 GW

enough for 0–1 TWh a year of firm, always-on power, generating for ~60 years. Source: CSIRO GenCost 2024-25 (A$8.5–13.2bn/GW), IAEA capacity factor.

Figures are indicative conversions from the article's stated quantity using published cost, material and capacity factors (CSIRO GenCost, BNEF, IEA, IAEA). Ranges, not precise forecasts.

Go deeper on the numbers

Are renewables cheaper than nuclear? →The Energy Realism scorecard →

The bigger picture

Energy security is national security. This connects to the wider case at Unprepared: Australia's dependence on a strategic rival, and how ready it is for the world that is coming.

The preparedness pillars →How we score preparedness →Unprepared: the book →