Anyway, seeing as how you've probably gone into your cry-closet for a timeout, I'm going to continue.
I'll concede that the battery is able to make money under a slightly dubious, ancilliary services AKA frequency control. This can only be limited in scope due to the limited inertia that a 150MW generation can provide, meaning it won't be doing any frequency control during a more serious step-change in supply or demand as occurs with a supply failure or very big industrial customer on/offlining.
The battery was introduced following the 2016 outage and therefore it isn't fair to claim that there was never a goal to support the S.A. grid in the case where S.A. grid becomes islanded.
Second, either it is your goal to eliminate fossil fuels or it isn't. You can't have it both ways. I laid out in my so-called 'maths fail' what would happen if the only non-fossil despatchable generation had to support the S.A. temporarily-islanded grid. I stand by the so-called maths fail and I challenge you to prove me wrong in that approximately 94% of the 2500MW demand would have to be shed for the 150MW battery to be online, and when online would supply the remaining 6% for at most 1.3hrs.
In a real-world scenario there exists both gas and diesel in addition to the battery. Only despatchable counts.
Either you start making actual valid argument or you go away.
