Going back to the ABC segment, the TV one, not the written...

Going back to the ABC segment, the TV one, not the written article, where the ECNT representative seemed to indicate the concerns around water were no longer an issue, but spent time focussed on greenhouse gas emissions - a criticism more directed at the NT govt for not yet having a policy in place than TNG's proposal.

That said, TNG's CO2eq emissions from memory will be around 1.2mtpa - a small amount comparatively when you know how large an expansion in coal exports are planned in NSW\QLD, but a valid one when considering Darwin/NT emissions on their own.

Were this to be a part of a TNG response, because I expect further comments on CO2 from Darwin Stakeholders, a 5 year plan to source power from Suncable & also build their own battery storage manufacturing capacity & VRFBs, well that would be something.

33GWh demand for VRFBs would mean massive scale in manufacturing - it will also mean people hear about this technology, including decision makers.

33GWh - ~1T per MWh - 1000 MWh per GW - 33,000T V205 - TNG's plant will manufacture 6,000tpa of V2O5
TNG as a V2O5 battery electrolyte producer (remember their V2O5 costs were industry lowest cost) rather than just a V2O5 producer, could make VRFBs quite competitive with Li-Ion.