But they BOTH agree on rooftop PV Generation of about 120TWh/yr.
This pic has the more familiar TWh/yr units.
,,, and yes, #NZAu predict 1,000TWh/yr by 2060, NOT the 500TWh in the ISP.
I can explain that though when we chat.
the ISP and #NZAu are not the same scope.
It's also worth saying that #nzau does not refer to New Zealand Australia.
It refers to Net Zero Australia, which should now have a presence on Bluesky!
In the meantime, find their website here.
www.netzeroaustralia.net.au
my pleasure, i struggle to find anyone who will talk with me about the #NZAu, very sad.
Is there scope for more collaboration between AEMO/ISP and #NZAu?
anyway @xiaowang1984.bsky.social that gives you a little taste of the #NZAu (and why i like it). after you have read that appendix i look fwd to revisiting this thread with you.
the resulting A$230Bn to $335Bn investment in the Distribution network calculated in #NZAu is one of the reasons i despair at people who keep using the ISP for these discussions.
Correct.
That's why I send people to the #NZAu.
And why #NZAu cost to 2060 is A$4Tn (Domestic), compared to the A$250Bn narrow scope of the ISP.
Yes, better to look at #NZAu
So ISP has 12 nodes?
How many in #NZAu?
Didn't it have a lot more?
Are these your assumptions about the ISP assumptions, or your assumptions about the #NZAu assumptions, or your assumptions about both assumptions, getting a bit fuzzy here...
Ok, so ISP doesn't say'minimal investment'.
The CER augmentation work is outside the scope of the ISP.
If you want an estimate of the cost of the total CER augmentation you can find it in #NZAu in the capital mobilisation appendix.
It is not a minimal investment...
