Eraring Power Station. By CSIRO, CC BY 3.0, Link

Aussie Coal Closure Delayed, to Lower Prices and Stabilise the Grid

Essay by Eric Worrall

I know you will all be surprised as I am that $10s of billions spend on renewables has failed to produce a viable replacement for a single coal plant.

Eraring coal-fired power station to stay open until 2029

In short: 

The country’s biggest coal-fired power station will stay open for another two years.

The Eraring plant in New South Wales was due to shut next year. 

What’s next?

It will now close in April 2029 to “support energy supply” through the transition to renewables. 

The planned closure of Australia’s largest coal-fired power station will be delayed by two years, until 2029.

Origin Energy’s Eraring power station, on the shores of Lake Macquarie, south of Newcastle, was due to shut down in August 2027.

“Good progress is being made on the delivery of new energy infrastructure including major transmission works and projects like our large-scale battery at Eraring, but it has become clear Eraring Power Station will need to run for longer to support secure and stable power supply.”

RBC Capital Markets analyst Gordon Ramsay said it was “no surprise” to the market Origin had decided to extend the life of the plant.

Mr Ramsay said the decision was a “result of the slower than expected rollout of renewables in Australia (other than rooftop solar)” which was taking longer than the federal government’s forecast.

“We also assume the government likely has growing concerns about the reliability associated with Australia’s aging coal-fired generation fleet and its possible future impact on electricity supply and prices, particularly after Eraring’s closure,” he said.

Mr Ramsay believed it might also “reduce what may have been higher future wholesale electricity pricing in NSW” had Eraring closed next year.

Read more: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-01-20/eraring-coal-fired-power-station-to-stay-open-until-2029/106247568

I’m confused. If renewables are cheaper than coal, how can keeping a coal plant open help reduce wholesale prices? And if coal is a far greater threat to grid reliability than renewables, as our Aussie federal energy minister has assured us, why does our reliable renewable grid need backup from an unreliable old coal plant?

The next Aussie federal election is due mid to late 2028, so maybe the plan is to shut down the coal plant early in the next election cycle, just in case there are a few minor teething problems with Australia’s Net Zero power grid.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 20 votes
Article Rating
81 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
January 20, 2026 6:10 pm

Australia seems determined to follow California, Germany, and the UK off a net zero cliff.
I used to live in California, and have some
idea of the politics there (illegals and other ghost “voters” for one). Australia apparently does not have that problem.

Leon de Boer
Reply to  Tom Halla
January 21, 2026 3:05 am

Only four states really Victoria, NSW, South Australia and Tasmania. The rest of us just laugh at them and wait for the inevitable crash.

bobclose
Reply to  Tom Halla
January 21, 2026 3:37 am

Well Tom the politics are more similar than you think as the Labor government is very similar to your Democrats. They remain in obedience to UN climate dictates almost if it were a religion and are prepared to sacrifice our fossil fuel economy on the altar of climate change to gain points in the global power lottery. What stupid naive intellectual pygmies they have proved to be, so I hope they get their comeuppance soon when this whole energy transition blows up in their faces.

Reply to  bobclose
January 21, 2026 4:44 am

I think you meant ATTEMPTED transition.

In reality there will never be a “transition,” because it was never possible to begin with.

oeman50
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
January 21, 2026 5:07 am

Eraring Power Station will need to run for far longer to support secure and stable power supply…”

Fixed it.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  bobclose
January 21, 2026 6:37 am

They continue on the path to genuflect to the new UN One World Order and command (socialist) world economy.

Denis
Reply to  bobclose
January 21, 2026 7:55 am

The problem Bob is that it will blow up in everybody’s face.

January 20, 2026 6:37 pm

London to a brick, Albo’s replacement will go nuclear. They have given themselves no choice.

Reply to  Mike
January 20, 2026 6:44 pm

The most rational thing to do is build at least one new large modern coal-fired power station in each eastern state.

We have some of the best thermal coal in the world, and very large amounts of it.

Unfortunately, this anti-CO2 nonsense has made people totally irrational.

Nick Stokes
January 20, 2026 7:24 pm

renewables has failed to produce a viable replacement for a single coal plant”

Just not true. In NSW, Liddell (2GW) closed in 2023. In Qld Callide A closed in 2016, Callide C blew up, and has been pretty useless since. In Vic Hazlewood was demolished, as was the complete coal site in SA, and Kwinana in WA. All successfully replaced by renewables.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 20, 2026 7:41 pm

The system only survived because there was still just enough COAL and GAS available for the often times wind and solar provide basically nothing.

Lose much more coal, without gas replacement, and there won’t be enough.

Then the figurative s**t hits the fan.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 20, 2026 7:50 pm

Chuckle, chuckle… who says there is no comedy on WUWT!

Reply to  whsmith@wustl.edu
January 20, 2026 8:00 pm

South Australia is currently the only state without a coal power producer, although they do use natural gas. Interestingly, South Australia has the highest cost power of any state in Australia.

Reply to  gilbertg
January 20, 2026 8:24 pm

Dispatchable power is dispatchable power, whether it is coal, nuclear, or NG. It is NOT wind and solar as all are aware.
The only dispatchable power resource without CO2 as a combustion product is nuclear.
Since China operated nearly 1200 GW of coal fired capacity in 2025, and Australia operates under 10 GW, when Australia dynamites coal fired power plants, it has only ONE effect.
It makes Australia POORER.

Eng_Ian
Reply to  whsmith@wustl.edu
January 20, 2026 10:03 pm

And hydro, (add to your dispatchable list).

Tom Halla
Reply to  Eng_Ian
January 21, 2026 3:45 am

Can you make it rain?

Reply to  Tom Halla
January 21, 2026 4:48 am

Yes the assumption is there will always be sufficient water flow.

But given that, it is dispatchable. And the “bet” on sufficient water flow in most places the choose to build hydroelectric is, shall we say, a “sure thing” compared with betting on the wind to blow at the “right ” speeds or for the Sun to shine.

Tom Halla
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
January 21, 2026 4:59 am

Oh, hydro is better than wind as far as dispatchability. But droughts are real.

Bob B.
Reply to  whsmith@wustl.edu
January 21, 2026 3:30 am

as all are aware’ perhaps with the exception of Nick.

Reply to  whsmith@wustl.edu
January 21, 2026 4:40 am

Right, but it frees up all that coal for China!

Scarecrow Repair
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 20, 2026 7:58 pm

Whoops! You missed a word —

“renewables has failed to produce a viable replacement for a single coal plant”

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Scarecrow Repair
January 20, 2026 8:17 pm

The power has stayed on.

Scarecrow Repair
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 20, 2026 9:03 pm

Only because wind/solar were not the only power source. They are not stable by themselves.

Mr.
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 20, 2026 9:40 pm

and it’s costing ordinary consumers a MOTZA

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 21, 2026 4:50 am

Thanks to coal and gas!

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 21, 2026 4:55 am

The power stayed on IN SPITE of wind of solar, not because of it.

Gnrnr
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 22, 2026 4:03 am

only because they have at least installed more gas plants and haven’t closed down all the coal plants. Renewables can never be cheaper as for every renewable installation you need to also install a gas plant of at least equivalent size if you want reliable power. You now have the overhead costs of 2 plants whereas with coal you only had the overheads from a single plant. Our power in my location has become significantly less reliable since they installed all the solar farms around us here in central vic. when we moved here 25 years ago the power rarely if ever went out. the last 5 years we average once every couple of months, often for more than a day. This was after them installing capacitor systems to stop momentary tripoouts as well.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 20, 2026 8:27 pm

“… but it has become clear Eraring Power Station will need to run for longer to support secure and stable power supply.”

Speaks for itself. All this free renewable energy seems to be very expensive, doesn’t it, Nick? And not nearly secure or stable enough!

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
January 21, 2026 2:08 am

Well, it speaks for Origin Energy, who you are quoting. And they would say that, wouldn’t they? It’s their plant.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 20, 2026 8:34 pm

Nick,
There two basic types of energy: electrical energy and thermal energy. In modern economies ca. 80% of energy usage is thermal energy. Major users of thermal energy are the heavy industries and transportation. I read here that an aluminum plant was going to close due the high cost of electricity but was given a government subsidy to prevent closure and loss of jobs.

The heavy machines used in mining, construction and agriculture will always use diesel fuel as will the Ghan and the Indian Pacific railroads and these will never be electrified. Wind turbines and PV panels could never enough energy for these.

What type of car do you have? ICE or EV

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Harold Pierce
January 20, 2026 8:49 pm

I don’t have a car.

The heavy machines used in mining, construction and agriculture will always use diesel fuel”

Not true. The biggest of them all, draglines, are electrically powered.

Scarecrow Repair
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 20, 2026 9:04 pm

Oh well, if you’re going to play stupid games, I reckon underground mines which string lights along the tunnels are even bigger.

Neither one is mobile.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Scarecrow Repair
January 21, 2026 1:04 am

Draglines walk.

Leon de Boer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 21, 2026 3:24 am

Type of dragline varies by country. Worldwide it’s about 63% electric and 37% diesel but if you are USA based it would be much higher diesel. The reason for the differences is because upfront cost for an electric is much more than a diesel.

Realistically there are many many haulpaks running around per dragline and they are mostly diesel producing electricity for each wheel motor. So does that make them diesel or electric?

What we can say is none of this stuff runs off renewables which is a bit of a problem for net-zero 🙂

Randle Dewees
Reply to  Leon de Boer
January 21, 2026 8:52 am

I was stationed on the USS Sperry AS-12 1978-1980. It had (I think) 4 large diesel engines powering generators for the 2 electric motors driving the main shafts. So, which is it, diesel or electric?

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 20, 2026 9:11 pm

 Their power consumption on order of several megawatts is so great that they have a direct connection to the high-voltage grid at voltages of between 6.6 and 22 kV.”

So, POWERED BY COAL OR GAS.

Wind and solar need not apply !!!

altipueri
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 20, 2026 11:49 pm

You don’t have a car?
Even the petulant way you express it seems to betray mental health issues. You appear to have some obsessive single issue disorder.
Most children get over the discovery that Father Christmas does not exist. Climate obsessives should get over the realisation that carbon dioxide emissions do not cause climate change.
I lived in Australia for a while a few decades ago and I am so disappointed with the follies of so many governments, exceeded only by the follies here in the UK.
..
Ok, New Zealand has made some daft decisions too.

Cultural decadence seems to have taken over the West, especially the English speaking bits. Great countries aren’t sustained by hand wringing and virtue signalling.
The cure I recommend is a few months work in the outback of the Northern Territory. That’s what taught me the difference between stuff in books and the way the world is.
..
Blimey that became bit of a rant for 7 am here in the dipstick UK.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 21, 2026 2:40 am

And charged with diesel generators.

Leon de Boer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 21, 2026 3:17 am

You are brave with the way your state does bush fire management I would think a car is a survival tool.

Gnrnr
Reply to  Leon de Boer
January 22, 2026 4:06 am

he obviously lives in a city where that is absolutely not an issue.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 21, 2026 3:47 am

The heavy hauler trucks which take the ore from the draglines to the plant for processing or for export use diesel fuel. Bucket end loaders are used in mine sites when electricity is not available.

I have seen videos on TV of Rio Tinto’s heavy trucks hauling iron ore away from the mine site.

Reply to  Harold Pierce
January 21, 2026 8:12 am
Mr.
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
January 21, 2026 8:22 am

How are the batteries charged?

Reply to  Mr.
January 21, 2026 9:58 am

It looks like with more and more renewable energy.

Leon de Boer
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
January 21, 2026 3:57 pm

The troll won’t respond but for edification of others reading

The article is about test electric haulpaks to assess viability for BHP and Rio with Caterpillar footing the bill and it’s a bit of green-washing for all parties. No company has commtted to buy the electric versions as they will be significantly more expensive and the whole charging infrastructure is a whole development program on it’s own.

Don’t expect EV haulpaks to be sold in numbers any time soon.

Gnrnr
Reply to  Leon de Boer
January 22, 2026 4:07 am

can you imagine how many megaawatts of input are needed at the charger to charge one of those.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 21, 2026 12:31 pm

So draglines do all the work eh?

Petey Bird
Reply to  Harold Pierce
January 21, 2026 7:46 am

Electricity is not an energy source. It is a means of transporting energy from a source to a usage device.

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
January 21, 2026 1:41 pm

Wind and solar miss the last category completely because it is so intermittent and erratic…

… and are irrelevant to any other category

4 Eyes
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 20, 2026 10:13 pm

All successfully replaced by renewables.”… because we still have enough coal generation to fill in the gaps like bnice says. Nick, please tell me what the final renewable generation set up will be when the Australian East Coast + SA undergo the worst case wind and solar circumstances which, I am sure you know, were experienced in May and June 2024 when we got down to 5% renewables for several days at a time and around 10% for over a week, assuming that all coal has been shut down. What will the ultimate backup be? Batteries? or Gas? Or a combo of both? I am just a dumb retired engineer who would’ve killed people if I didn’t design for the worst case so your thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Just think about it. If we opt for 50% gas i.e.18GW then we will need a huge increase in the amount of gas turbines, and pipeline and gas storage just for a few days of the year. Won’t happen. 50% batteries will cost about A$0.5 trillion for just a few days of the year. Won’t happen.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  4 Eyes
January 21, 2026 1:07 am

Probably batteries and gas, but with much better use of hydro.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 21, 2026 6:45 am

You do not have a technical degree, obviously.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
January 21, 2026 9:58 am

So like most here?

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
January 21, 2026 11:10 am

Actually, many here do have technical degrees..

You are not one of those.

Gnrnr
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
January 22, 2026 4:09 am

Speak for yourself.

paul courtney
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
January 22, 2026 6:59 am

Mr. loaded: For most here, it’s not obvious. For Mr. Stokes, he obviously misuses whatever education he has acquired. For you, an advanced degree in gaslighting, but it ain’t technical.

Leon de Boer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 21, 2026 2:55 am

Kwinana in WA, mate don’t dribble about things you know nothing about …. ROFL

Start here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwinana_Power_Station

Never really was a coal power station it could burn diesel, gas or coal.

Has not been replaced by renewables it was replaced by gas
https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news-and-insights/latest-market-news/2685224-australia-s-agl-to-expand-kwinana-power-station

There is a pipe dream to connect it to the Southwest Interconnected System (SWIS) by 2030 but at this stage there is no viable transmission line. They only just submitted EPA approvals and they will face the powerline across peoples land issue same as Eastern States. If you believe something still in the planning phase will be operational by 2030 you are pretty gullible.

Oh I am sure the Labor party tries to pretend it was replaced by renewables but it has the old pending* sticker still on it which will probably be faded and drop off before it happens.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Leon de Boer
January 21, 2026 2:51 pm

OK, Here is a statement from Synergy, the operator:

“The chimney stacks are being taken down as part of end-of-life decommissioning and demolition of the old Kwinana Power Station.

Synergy’s Acting Chief Executive Officer, Kurt Baker, said the demolition of the stacks highlighted the changing nature of the Kwinana site.

“Synergy’s Kwinana location is a microcosm of the energy transition. The site not only has an old coal-fired power station that is being deconstructed, but also is the home of two of Synergy’s renewable battery energy storage systems and three gas turbines.”

Leon de Boer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 21, 2026 4:11 pm

Yes it;s a lovely green-wash PR piece from synergy and it’s FACTUALLY WRONG … ..take it up with them rather than quote bullsh*t back to me.

Even in their bullsh*t statement they tell you it was closed by 2015 the very year the Paris agreement was struck and it’s closure had nothing to do emission control or renewables.

Simple internet searches will show you it’s complete rubbish which you are trying to treat as a fact just because some semi WA government company put out a bullsh*t PR press release.

This is the sort of press piece you are all over if it was the other way around and shows you are very selective about the truth and facts.

Chris Hanley
January 20, 2026 8:02 pm

From ABC (government owned Australian Broadcasting Commission):

It will now close in April 2029 to ‘support energy supply’ through the transition to renewables …
… [electricity supplier] Origin will extend the operation of the power plant until April 30, 2029, to ‘support energy supply in New South Wales through the energy transition’.

Not ‘a transition’ or ‘proposed transition’ but ‘the transition’ as if the use of the definite article somehow removes any doubt of the outcome.
As the charts here indicate the trend of so-called ‘low carbon sources’ of primary energy consumption has levelled, any increase coming from rooftop solar which is the most temporary (say10 – 15 years) and least efficient source of all, even in the ‘sunshine state’ of Queensland the sun doesn’t shine for 24 hours a day.
Without nuclear which is banned by government fiat fossil fuels will be the basis of energy supply for the indefinite future despite the ABC fantasies.

Leon de Boer
Reply to  Chris Hanley
January 21, 2026 3:02 am

Yeah I had same issue when Nick picked up some sort of glossy pipe dream story about Kwinana Power Station replacement being renewable as if it had actually happened. It got replaced by GAS generation that may one day connect to renewables in government estimates 2030. Reality is more like 2040-2050 if it ever happens lots of hurdles to cross.

January 20, 2026 8:23 pm

“Good progress is being made on the delivery of new energy infrastructure including major transmission works and projects like our large-scale battery at Eraring, but it has become clear Eraring Power Station will need to run for longer to support secure and stable power supply.”

So you’re doing really well at all the new renewable energy plants and costly support infrastructure, but you also need to have a secure and stable power supply, so you’re keeping coal plants going for that. Got it.

Bob
January 20, 2026 8:58 pm

Australia, wake up you are only embarrassing yourself with this net zero claptrap. CO2 can’t cause catastrophic runaway global warming .

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Bob
January 21, 2026 6:49 am

But, but, but, climate is temperature and temperature causes all these weather events which is climate.

Funny how the definitions are so fluid.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
January 21, 2026 11:49 am

Funny how the only place where the weather gets worse in a warmer climate is in the climate model world.

Here in reality, not only has the weather not gotten worse, but the most severe types of the most severe weather on Earth has seen a significant REDUCTION (EF3, EF4 and EF5 tornadoes).

expublican
January 20, 2026 9:54 pm

Good progress is being made on the delivery of new energy infrastructure

Yeah right, the main reason it will remain running is because of the failed Waratah Battery Project suffering a catastrophic failure.
https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/catastrophic-failure-delays-massive-1b-waratah-super-battery-20251110-p5n90f

Eng_Ian
Reply to  expublican
January 20, 2026 10:09 pm

I think the main reason that it is staying on line is because no matter which ruinable power generation system, (including multiple combinations of the same), is because when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow, the lights go out.

It’s hard to get your smug face on TV if the lights have all gone out, even politicians know this little detail.

CFM
January 20, 2026 11:58 pm

Aussie Climate Minister = Large Language Model

Bruce Cobb
January 21, 2026 2:13 am

So, coal is helping them “save the planet”. Got it.

January 21, 2026 4:29 am

Story Tip – UK Telegraph

Two of Britain’s oldest nuclear power plants could be kept running for an extra two years because of an acute electricity shortage in the UK.

Hartlepool and Heysham 1, owned by EDF, were due to shut down in 2028, but ministers want to extend the operating licences to at least 2030 because the UK faces “a dangerous gap” in power supplies if they shut.

Both have already been operating for 42 years despite being scheduled to close for safety reasons in 2008.

Same basic story – you cannot run a country on wind and solar. The attempt is what is causing the ‘dangerous gap’ If you persist in the attempt the result will be rationing and blackouts. So they will keep trying to extend the existing nukes, risking a real genuine catastrophe, till they finally cannot be extended any more, and pretending that this is all part of a successful move to net zero in generation.

When its in fact a confession that net zero as planned is impossible. Postpone for as many years as you like, you are never going to be able to close everything except wind solar and batteries.

The other part of this story, for the UK, is that their gas generating plant is ancient and is about to start failing. Much of it will probably not be repairable when it does.

The country is being driven into the ground by a tiny bunch of religious fundamentalists, condoned by a political and media establishment dominated by incompetent cowards whose main fear is that questioning this madness may offend some of the maniacs.

Dave Andrews
January 21, 2026 8:08 am

While Australia is virtue seeking by closing down its coal plants let’s not forget that the IEA say in coal mining for export projects it leads the world by a huge margin with 46 such projects. Next in line is South Africa with 14. The 46 is almost half of the total 95 such projects worldwide.

Reply to  Dave Andrews
January 21, 2026 8:24 am

The question is who will buy all this additional coal?

Dave Andrews
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
January 21, 2026 8:54 am

I doubt any of the 13 countries involved in this activity would do so if it didn’t have buyers for the coal. Australia for example sends a lot of coal to China. 37 of the projects are new ones and 39 expansions of existing projects.

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
January 21, 2026 11:19 am

Record global coal usage 2024, broken again in 2025.

Seems everybody sane is using coal.

Leon de Boer
Reply to  bnice2000
January 21, 2026 4:22 pm

Looks likely coal will show growth again in 2026-2028 unless there is a change in market conditions.

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
January 21, 2026 11:53 am

China, India, and other “developing” nations, no doubt.

Leon de Boer
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
January 21, 2026 4:23 pm

China and India are 70%

Leon de Boer
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
January 21, 2026 4:18 pm

China and India are expected to account for over 70% of global consumption.

Here is current Australian forecast:

Australia: Exports are forecast to remain strong in 2026, with metallurgical coal volumes hitting 150 Mt for the 2025–26 financial year. However, Treasury forecasts suggest thermal coal spot prices could fall to US$70/t by the end of December 2026

The softening price is based on oil prices being expected to drop after Trumps recent actions with Venezuela.

ResourceGuy
January 21, 2026 12:29 pm

Does this mean they crack the whip harder on the backs of the slave labor in western China to supply Aussie solar and batteries and magnets in those supply chains? And no Australia does not have the answers for certifying non slave labor components like they claim to.

conrad ziefle
January 21, 2026 2:39 pm

Even Mussolini had to keep the trains running.