Okay Baldy, firstly no need for response that indicate you are...

Okay Baldy, firstly no need for response that indicate you are somewhat childish

The argument is that LYP was slated as one of the last power stations to close and has been tagged for early closure.
It follows after Bayswater, Erraring, Gladstone, Mout Piper also moved forward, Torrens, Callide just to name a few. At present the average grid contribution from black and brown coal is 16 MW and this is the goldilocks period for energy, not too hot, not too cold, energy demand at its lowest. Aemo stated input is 26 GW from coal. 26 GW/0.4 (your utopic capacity factor) = 65 GW, somewhat more than that of wind turbines planned.

On these wind turbines, none of the off shores have even started construction, some except approval by 2030. The Star of the South is meeting spirited opposition by the Nimby crowd and doesn't expect the technical analysis to be completed by 2025. Using 4 MW maximum size as a guide, the amount of turbine required is 10000 for the proposed 40 GW. Do thinks its feasible for 10000 to be installed in the 5 years from 2030 to 2035, so that LYP can close as one of the last stations to do so? You did not comment on the projected energy growth due to the electrification of households and industry by removing gas, or the projected increase for the supply of electric vehicles, both of which makes the early closure unlikey.

The prices on the NEM were negative in Victoria yesterday and guess what, LYP was operating at 80% (3 units cause one is broken), Yallourn was operating at near capacity and Loy Yang B was also at 80% It appears negative prices cannot be relied upon as an indication of "surplus" renewables. LYP and LYB have been successfully tested down to 50% capacity so plenty room to move lower if renewables were greater

The BESS you stated do make money, yes they do as they are paid for a service. All the current installed batteries do is provide load levelling, system stability (or firming as it is now called) and time for other generation to start, other than that they do not provide any meaningful long time storage,

I also stated that the infatuation with pumped storage is absolutely ridiculous and here is something I posted on another stocks threads supporting nuclear

Firstly pumped hydro was first used when older power stations needed to be kept at a fairly constant load. At night baseload energy was used to supply the pumping energy required, when load increased the hydro generator operated. It pretty simple stuff but its important that the pumping energy came from BASE load. And this is the issue, pumped hydro IS NOT suitable for a peaking supply situation and despite this it is being touted as the long term storage (> than a few hours) of choice, and the reason for this conclusion is equally as simple. The maximum rate of filling a storage will be less than its maximum output due to losses.
The AEMO modelling considers that the biggest increase in future energy is solar, wind still take a back seat. We all know that even in summer the solar output is very peaky and the high output duration for 4 to 6 hours even in the best conditions So we may have 4 hours of huge generation to pump up all these hydro storages. Trouble is as stated they are limited by the rate of pumping available.

Example: The Kidstone project in Queensland can supply 250 MW maximum for eight hours (2000 MW.hrs), To replenish this storage would take at least 9 hours of excess 250 MW continuously. A peaking power supply is not suitable. If you had 10 times (2500 MW) available for 1 hour it won't help, the maximum the pumps operate at would be around 200 MW, and for 1 hour so you would only replenish an 8th of the storage. I can see somebody shouting from the rooftops "batteries". None of the proposed batteries go anywhere near the long-term duration required, It appears that baseload power will be required to maintain the energy storage just like the old days except in reverse, the base load is levelling out renewables! If it's not fossil fuels will need to be something else.

As a footnote, I see ARENA has finally come to their senses and are now promoting increased efficiency and load management by providing funding rather than just trying to produce more energy. Load shifting is available (I still know people who have their hot water services on the old "night" tariff to save money). They should be encouraged, not penalised to shift load to solar peak period. The same with industry, they get paid to shutdown during high demand, why cant they get some of the "negative" costs displayed on the NEM is they agree to load shift. I know there are PPA etc that are used for this, but more can be done.