Greenpeace Australia Pacific is again turning up the pressure on AGL after the company confirmed its intention to demerge.
Any warm and fuzzies AGL may have cultivated after recently announcing it was installing a bunch of solar systems for St. Vinnies in Victoria has been overshadowed by controversy generated from an announcement yesterday confirming the intention.
In a nutshell, it’s proposed AGL Energy Limited is to be split into two separately ASX-listed businesses. Accel Energy will carry the electricity generation portfolio – much of which is coal power – and AGL Australia will be the retail and flexible energy trading, storage and supply business.
But of course, AGL Australia will still be sourcing electricity from Accel Energy. Accel Energy will also retain a 15-20 percent shareholding in AGL Australia.
AGL Energy Chairman Peter Botten, who is tapped to be Accel Energy’s Chair, said:
“..AGL Energy is now at an inflection point, as the transition of the energy sector accelerates, driven by the rapid evolution in renewables and decentralised energy technology, customer needs and community expectations.”
According to Investopedia, the term “inflection point” used in business means “a turning point after which a dramatic change, with either positive or negative results, is expected to result.”
AGL’s Board believes the move will be in the best interests of shareholders.
A cynical person might think this is mainly about putting some perceived distance between the AGL brand and its substantial emissions. And on that note..
Accel Energy An “Epic Dud Of An Investment”
Greenpeace Australia Pacific has been targeting AGL in a campaign claiming the company is Australia’s biggest domestic contributor to climate change – and there’s been some legal biffo going on around it. So, there’s not a lot of love lost between the two and it’s no surprise Greenpeace has come out swinging after this announcement.
While AGL has significant renewable assets in its electricity generation portfolio, including wind and solar power, Greenpeace says 85% of the electricity AGL generates comes from coal power – and AGL wants to keep burning coal until 2048. That’s the year it’s currently expected1 the Loy Yang A power station (pictured above) will close. AGL’s Bayswater Power Station, another coal burner, is scheduled to close in 2035. Liddell Power Station will start closing next year, with the completion in 2023.
Senior campaigner for Greenpeace Australia Pacific Glenn Walke said the “dodgy demerger” was simply AGL trying to hide its greenhouse gas emissions. He also had a warning for investors.
“Accel Energy is an epic dud of an investment, and investors know it – who would fund coal in an increasingly renewable-powered world?” said Mr. Walker. “It’s time to drop the facade and actually get on with the job of switching to renewable electricity generation.”
In light of the announcement, Greenpeace has vowed to increase pressure on AGL. That will be quite a feat given what the organisation has already thrown at the campaign. After what Greenpeace called AGL’s “humiliating loss” in recent legal action relating to Greenpeace’s campaign – and the attention it attracted – AGL’s lawyers might be be a little more cautious in having another go.
Footnotes
- If you’re interested in keeping tabs on expected power station closure dates, you can download a spreadsheet from the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO). ↩
About Michael Bloch
RSS - Posts
AGL is preparing to shut down all its base-load generators (coal) so that it has no liability to AEMO for the consequences. We will be closing all coal-fired power stations before the publicly-declared dates and this allows the earlier retirement of these assets. Gas may be a little harder to deal with but closure will come also.
Can Australia actually afford to shut coal and gas power stations? Yes most have been scheduled for closure sometime in the next 30 years, but not all.
According to 2019-2020 figures from energy.gov.au, coal still provides roughly 55% of Australia’s power, Natural Gas another 21%. By contrast wind and solar provide less than 16%.
Bad as that sounds, some states are even worse. NSW is 76% reliant on Black Coal, Victoria is 69% reliant on Brown Coal, Queensland 68% reliant on Black Coal and 16% reliant on Natural Gas, West Australia 62% reliant on Natural Gas and 22% reliant on Black Coal, South Australia 44% reliant on Natural Gas, the Northern Territory 85% reliant on Natural Gas, and Tasmania the only state or territory able to rely on hydro – it supplies 85% of their power.
It’s easy to say close coal and gas power stations, but what, other than nuclear power, can they be replaced with? Yes obviously the assumption of this site will probably be solar, but can that be done affordably? And will that power be reliable? Some folk focus on different aspects of environmental impacts of the various forms of power, others focus on economics, performance, and\or strategic implications.
George Kaplan,
You ask: “Can Australia actually afford to shut coal and gas power stations?”
Yep. We’ve covered this earlier, George.
See my reply to you earlier at: https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/solar-wind-coal-land/#comment-1102855
As more cheaper renewables are deployed, fossil fueled (and aging and increasingly less reliable) electricity generators are at increasing risk of going broke.
https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/coal-power-stations-going-broke-schott-20210216-p572xn
You also ask: “It’s easy to say close coal and gas power stations, but what, other than nuclear power, can they be replaced with?”
Why nuclear, George? Nuclear fission electricity generation technologies:
1. are horrendously expensive compared with renewables with ‘firming’ – See Lazard’s LCOE analysis 2020 & AEMO/CSIRO’s “GenCost”;
2. are too slow to deploy – proven 10+ years and usually significantly more from conception through to operation;
3. are reliant on unsustainable finite fissile fuels – at CURRENT consumption, global high-grade uranium ores would likely be fully depleted by 2100;
4. create a toxic waste legacy that will long outlast any energy benefits gained – a generational inequity issue;
5. increase nuclear weapons proliferation and terrorist risks;
6. have no social license here in Australia;
7. are prohibited by federal (and various state) laws in Australia.
Are these enough reasons to reject nuclear, George? Or is this inconvenient for your narrative?
You then ask: “Yes obviously the assumption of this site will probably be solar, but can that be done affordably? And will that power be reliable?”
Affordable? Yep. & Reliable? Yep.
Renewables (wind & solar) + energy storage + transmission + demand management
See one solution at: https://reneweconomy.com.au/for-100-billion-australia-could-have-a-low-cost-and-reliable-zero-emissions-grid/
I see there are also various other solutions/studies.
IMO, it just requires knowledge, imagination and the will to proceed.
I’d suggest the alternative is for humanity to continue along the path of wilful ignorance and denial that leads to reaping the consequences of civilisation collapse due to worsening energy security and an increasingly more hostile/hotter planet.