Energy.

Curriculum

SACE Board of South Australia, Stage 2 Earth and Environmental Science Subject Outline (accredited for teaching at Stage 2 from 2018, reissued for 2025), Topic 3: Earth’s sustainable future. NT students take the subject as part of the NTCET. The topic outline says:

Students investigate how effective use of resources is constrained by factors such as waste disposal, and the efficiency of energy technologies. They consider how the desire to use more renewable sources to increase supply has generated discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of renewable and non-renewable resources, and changes in practice that might lead to a more sustainable future.

Students explore the consequences of using various types of renewable energy resources, and factors affecting the sustainability of soil, water, and energy resources. They investigate a range of aspects of soil, water, and energy use, and use critical-thinking skills to evaluate data and develop logical solutions.

The topic has three Science Understanding statements. This lesson covers the first statement’s dot point on renewable energy, and the third statement with its dot point. The Water and soil lesson covers the rest of the first statement and the second.

Renewable resources include some that are available regularly and others that are replenished at time scales from years to millennia.

• Discuss the need for, and limitations of, renewable sources of energy, including biofuels, solar, wind, and geothermal energy.
• Determine whether a renewable resource is either diminished or sustained over time, given the abundance of the resource and how readily it can be replenished.
• Investigate how the timescale required to replenish a large groundwater system, such as the Great Artesian Basin, is influenced by the rate of depletion of the system.
• Discuss the sustainability of soil and water at local, regional, and global scales.

The availability and quality of fresh water can be influenced by human activities, and natural processes at local and regional scales.

• Discuss how stormwater run-off in urban areas may be recycled for community use so that it is not wasted and does not pollute waterways.
• Explain how overextraction of groundwater from near-coastal aquifers may cause inflow of sea water.
• Explain how pollution of groundwater can result from a variety of rural, urban, and industrial activities.

The effective use of energy resources is constrained by factors including waste disposal, and the efficiency of available technologies to collect, store, and transfer the energy.

• Compare the advantages and disadvantages of using renewable and non-renewable energy resources.

Where the lesson covers them:

• The need for, and limitations of, renewable sources of energy: screen 2 (the world’s energy since 1965, Australia’s fossil fuel reserves and South Australia’s electricity since 2011–12), screen 3 (biofuels, solar, wind and geothermal, a sort of twelve statements, the hot rock project near Innamincka and a chart of temperature against depth), and exit questions x1 and x2.
• The efficiency of technologies to collect the energy: screen 4 (100 units of energy followed through seven technologies, a wind turbine model, and solar panel prices and efficiency from 2014 to 2025), and x3.
• The efficiency of technologies to store and transfer the energy: screen 5 (a model day with three kinds of storage, round-trip efficiency, the links to other states and losses on long lines, the 2016 blackout and the Hornsdale battery), and x4.
• Waste disposal: screen 6 (ash, gases, tailings, spent fuel, panels, blades and batteries, a sort of ten wastes by where they end up, a chart of how much there is, and the Port Augusta ash dam), and x5.
• Comparing renewable and non-renewable resources: the decision matrix built across screens 2 to 6, screen 7 (weights, cut-offs, a sensitivity test and the averages for each group), screen 8 (a mix tested against three model weeks) and x6 to x8.

The lesson also uses these of the outline’s possible contexts:

Research the development of wind farms in a chosen location (region, state, or territory) and/or arrange a local visit to report on current and proposed electricity generation, costs of construction, and ongoing maintenance needs.

Evaluate the economic, social, and environmental impacts of the use of hydrogen as an energy source.

Investigate the cost and efficiency of solar panels over the past decade.

Screen 3 gives a starting point for the first two (Goyder South near Burra, and the Whyalla hydrogen plan), and screen 4 has the prices and efficiency of solar panels from 2014 to 2025. The outline’s context on the benefits of new technology for a local community names a “Jamestown solar/wind hybrid plant” but links to Iberdrola’s page for its Port Augusta project; screen 8 uses the Port Augusta project. Hornsdale, near Jamestown, has the wind farm and battery on screen 5. The lesson does not use the contexts on carbon calculators or on the hydroelectricity plants in the Italian Alps and São Paulo; the data notes below say what we found about the second.

Screen 3 also draws on Stage 1, Topic 3: Processes in the Geosphere, which has:

Interpret graphs of the Earth’s geothermal gradient.

Describe the transfer of geothermal energy from the decay of naturally occurring radioactive elements to rocks.

Science as a human endeavour runs through the lesson. Its key concepts in the outline include these, used in the screens shown:

The acceptance and use of scientific knowledge can be influenced by social, economic, cultural, and ethical considerations.

Screen 3: the Habanero pilot plant made electricity, but Geodynamics judged that the spending needed to develop the resource was “not economic”, and the Whyalla hydrogen money went to the steelworks; screen 6: two federal laws prohibit nuclear power plants; screen 7: the weights students choose are values, not measurements.

Scientific knowledge, understanding, and inquiry can enable scientists to develop solutions, make discoveries, design action for sustainability, evaluate economic, social, cultural, and environmental impacts, offer valid explanations, and make reliable predictions.

Screen 4: CSIRO’s GenCost estimates of what each technology costs; screen 5: the Hornsdale battery, the first big battery in the world to provide inertia services; screen 8: AEMO’s yearly studies of South Australia’s supply.

The use of scientific knowledge may have beneficial or unexpected consequences; this requires monitoring, assessment, and evaluation of risk, and provides opportunities for innovation.

Screen 5: a control setting in wind farms turned storm damage into a statewide blackout in 2016, and the settings were changed; screen 6: the Port Augusta ash dam blew over the city after the power station closed; screen 8: so many rooftop panels that the state now has a rule to switch them off remotely as a last resort.

Science informs public debate and is in turn influenced by public debate; at times, there may be complex, unanticipated variables or insufficient data that may limit possible conclusions.

Screen 4: GenCost’s nuclear costs have been argued over in federal politics; screen 7: a ranking that can change with one weight; screen 8: the June 2026 still spell, when several limits arrived together.

Assessment design criteria the tasks give practice for: KA1 and KA2 (the checks and sorts), KA3 (the decision itself, where evidence meets values), KA4 (the recommendation on screen 8 and the decision sheet), IAE2 and IAE3 (reading the charts, the matrix and the model results to justify a recommendation) and IAE4 (judging the matrix method, its weights and cut-offs, and the limits of the grid model).

How the lesson is taught

The lesson is a socioscientific decision: what should make South Australia’s electricity? It follows the three phases of socioscientific decision-making in a review by Fang, Hsu and Lin (2019): students formulate the decision space (screens 2 to 6 build a matrix of seven options against six criteria, each with its evidence), posit a decision-making strategy (screen 7: weighing, cut-offs or both) and reflect on the process (screen 8 tests the choice and asks what would change their mind). Fang and colleagues reviewed 24 studies and found that students struggled with ranking criteria and choosing a suitable strategy, so screen 7 makes both explicit. Eggert and Bögeholz (2010) found that the more advanced strategies weigh trade-offs between criteria and reflect on how the decision was structured, while basic strategies rely on cut-offs. In a study of 386 upper secondary students, training in decision-making strategies improved their decisions, and the gains were still there three months later (Gresch, Hasselhorn and Bögeholz, 2013).

• Timing. About two to two and a half hours: three 50-minute lessons, or two 60-minute lessons with the notebook questions for homework. Lesson 1: screen 1 together (the first answers in the notebook and how the decision works), then screens 2 to 4. Lesson 2: screens 5 to 7, ending with a class comparison of the rankings. Lesson 3: screen 8, the recommendation, screen 9 and the decision sheet.
• Pairs or alone. Pairs work well on screens 7 and 8: each student sets weights alone, then the pair compares rankings and has to agree a mix for screen 8.
• Discussion points. After screen 7, ask the class to share their top source and their heaviest weight. With every weight equal, geothermal ranks first, because the matrix scores each source on its evidence, not on whether it can be built here now; screen 3 shows why it has not been. Ask what criterion the matrix leaves out (whether a source is proven here, how long it takes to build, who it affects), and try the cut-off for sources already in commercial use. After screen 8, ask whether importing electricity is a sustainable answer: in the model it counts as non-renewable and carries the emissions of Australia’s average power station.
• The decision sheet has a matrix to fill in as students go, a table for the need and limits of each renewable, and a page for weights, test results and the recommendation. Collect it as evidence of learning.

Handle with care

• Nuclear power is part of a live political debate in Australia. The lesson gives nuclear’s evidence and scores like any other source, states the federal prohibition as the law now stands, and takes no side. Let students argue from the evidence, and note that the weights they choose carry their values.
• Some students’ families work in gas, mining, the electricity industry or renewables, and Port Augusta lost jobs when its coal power station closed. Keep the discussion on evidence and on the choices a state faces, not on whose work is good or bad.
• Goyder South is on the lands of the Ngadjuri Nation, and the decision to build a national radioactive waste facility near Kimba was set aside by the Federal Court after a challenge by the Barngarla people. The lesson names these facts and tells no other story about them. If you discuss them, follow your school’s protocols and, where you can, the guidance of the communities involved.
• Blackouts, heatwaves and power bills can be real worries at home, and some families remember the 2016 blackout. Keep the focus on how the grid works and how it has changed since.

Misconceptions the screens target

• Renewable energy has no emissions and no waste (screens 2 and 6, x5). Over their whole lives, wind and solar cause about 11 and 52 g of CO₂-e per kWh, and panels, blades and batteries become waste.
• Nuclear power releases a lot of carbon dioxide (screen 2’s matrix, x6). Its lifecycle emissions, about 5.6 g per kWh, are the lowest of the seven; its lowest scores in the matrix are for lasting, cost and waste.
• Gas is clean because it emits less than coal (screen 2’s matrix). About 439 g per kWh is less than half of coal’s 970 g but about forty times wind’s, and methane leaks from wells and pipes.
• A more efficient technology is always the better source (screen 4, q-collect). A panel’s 23% costs it area and materials but no fuel; a gas plant’s 45% still means fuel burned and carbon dioxide released for every unit lost.
• Batteries make electricity, or store it without loss (screen 5, q-store). A battery gives back about 82 to 85% of what it takes in, and only what was put in.
• Solar caused the Alice Springs blackout (screen 5, q-isolated). A sudden fall in solar output started it, but the investigators did not find cloud cover to be a root cause, and the Utilities Commission found it could not be attributed to a single point of failure.
• Enough batteries can cover any gap (screen 5, q-still, x4). A battery charged within a day cannot cover a still week, because there is little spare wind or solar to charge it.
• Hydrogen is an energy source (screens 3 and 5). It has to be made, from natural gas or with electricity, and turning it back into electricity returns about 30 to 40%.
• Geothermal energy needs volcanoes (screen 3). The hot granite of the Cooper Basin is heated by radioactive decay and kept hot by the sediment above it.
• South Australia’s 100% net renewable target means renewables supply every hour (screen 2). Net means over a year: the state still imports electricity and burns gas when the wind and sun drop.
• A decision matrix gives the right answer (screen 7, x7). The ranking depends on the scores and the weights, and the weights are choices.
• Waste from renewables is the same problem as waste from coal (screen 6, q-waste). Coal ash runs to millions of tonnes a year; panel and blade waste is growing but is tens of thousands of tonnes, and much of it can be recycled.

About the data and the models

• The world’s energy (screen 2): Our World in Data’s energy dataset, from the Energy Institute’s Statistical Review of World Energy (2025) and the US Energy Information Administration. Electricity from nuclear power and renewables is counted as the fuel a power station would need to make it (the substitution method). Renewables are hydro, wind, solar, biofuels and other renewables. The world used 43,194 TWh in 1965 and 175,272 TWh in 2024, 4.1 times as much, and 81% of the 2024 total came from coal, oil and gas (our arithmetic).
• South Australia’s electricity (screen 2): AEMO’s South Australian Historical Market Information Report (2016, 2017) for 2011–12 to 2016–17, and its South Australian Electricity Report (2019 to 2023, and 2025) for later years, each year taken from the latest report that gives it. Solar is rooftop panels, solar farms and PV non-scheduled generation (100 kW to 30 MW). Other is batteries, diesel and other small generators. Net imports are interstate flows into South Australia less flows out.
• The Alice Springs system black (screen 5): 11,996 customers and an incident lasting 605 minutes are the Utilities Commission’s figures (2021); the Australian Energy Council (2020) gives an estimated 12,000 customers. The account of the first event and of cloud cover comes from the Entura report as quoted by the Australian Energy Council.
• The decision matrix: each score comes from the evidence beside it by the rule stated for its column. Some scores are judgements, and students may move any score one point if they can back it with evidence. The judgements are: lasting (geothermal 4, because taking the heat out can cool a reservoir for centuries; bioenergy 3, because crops regrow only if the land is looked after); land (wind and gas scored on the land their equipment covers, not the whole area they are spread across; solar on solar farms, though rooftop panels take no extra land); cost (geothermal and bioenergy have no GenCost figure, so geothermal is scored 2 from Australia’s deep, costly wells and the closed Habanero plant, and bioenergy 3 from IRENA’s world average, more than twice that of wind and nearly twice that of solar); on demand (gas 5 because it can be turned up when needed, as AEMO describes its role; coal, nuclear, geothermal and bioenergy 4 because they can run at any hour but are built to run steadily); and the whole Waste column, which ranks very different wastes by amount, how long they last and where they go.
• Lifecycle emissions: UNECE (2021), as transcribed by Our World in Data, for coal, gas, nuclear, onshore wind and solar; NREL (2017) for hot rock geothermal; IPCC (2014) for electricity from crops grown for energy. Land use: the medians of Lovering and others (2022). Costs: the indicative ranges in CSIRO’s GenCost 2025–26 draft (December 2025), as listed by the Clean Energy Council; the final report (July 2026) gives each technology’s range only in its charts and data tables. The GenCost technology costs used here leave out firming; GenCost’s whole-system estimates, such as the final report’s cost for 2050, include it.
• Efficiency (screen 4): solar from Fraunhofer ISE (2026); the Betz limit and “typically, below 50 %” for real turbines from a University of Illinois lecture (2018); coal from the IEA (2012); gas and nuclear from the US Energy Information Administration’s heat rates for 2025 (3,412 Btu per kWh divided by the heat rate; our arithmetic); photosynthesis from Zhu, Long and Ort (2008). Network losses of 4.2% are Australia’s for 2025 (World Bank, from IEA data).
• The wind turbine model (screen 4) uses the Vestas V162-6.2 MW’s rated power, cut-in and cut-out speeds (Vestas) and its rated wind speed of 10.5 m/s (a turbine database). The power in the wind is ½ρAv³ with air at 1.225 kg/m³. Between 3 and 10.5 m/s the turbine’s output is a smooth curve capped at 48% of the power in the wind, not the manufacturer’s measured curve.
• The grid model (screens 5 and 8) is a simple hourly balance, not a forecast. Demand includes what homes make and use from their own panels. Its weather and demand are drawn to show the pattern of each real event named, scaled to South Australia; they are not measured data. Each hour, coal, nuclear and geothermal run steadily at 90% of capacity, wind and solar make what the weather allows, and the rest of demand is met by the battery, then bioenergy, then other states, then gas. A surplus charges the battery, then goes to other states, and the rest is wasted. Each period is run twice and the second run kept, so the battery starts with the charge the same days would leave it. The “South Australia, 2026” mix is wind 2,800 MW (2,763 MW registered at the end of 2024–25), solar 4,200 MW (3.1 GW of rooftop panels in the third quarter of 2026, plus 729 MW of solar farms and 339 MW of PV non-scheduled generation), gas 2,600 MW (2,569 MW registered), batteries 1,700 MW for 3 hours (the state government’s “around 1.7 GW of power and close to 5 GWh of storage”) and links of 970 MW (Heywood’s 600 MW testing limit into South Australia, Murraylink’s 220 MW and Project EnergyConnect’s 150 MW). In the winter week the links bring in only half their limit on the three still days, to stand for the constraint AEMO reported on imports in June 2026; AEMO did not give its size, so the half is our choice. Emissions use lifecycle averages, with 0.62 t per MWh for electricity from other states, the 2024–25 average of the direct emissions of Australia’s power stations (Clean Energy Regulator; our arithmetic). The model leaves out lines inside the state, inertia and system strength, breakdowns and prices, and it uses the battery as soon as supply falls short, which is simpler than how real batteries are run.
• The waste chart (screen 6) puts estimates from different years on one scale that rises ten times at each step. Coal ash is an estimate for Australia (Environmental Justice Australia, 2019, year of the estimate not stated); solar panel waste is a prediction for 2025 (NSW Government, 2025); blade waste is the most in any one year to 2034 (Clean Energy Council, 2023); lithium-ion waste covers all uses (CSIRO, 2024); spent fuel is one typical overseas reactor (IAEA, 2017).
• Where the sources disagree, the page or these notes say so. Hydrogen’s round trip: about 30% (Pellow and others, 2015), about 35% (NREL, 2019) and around 40% (Sandia); the page gives 30 to 40. Batteries: 82% measured for the US fleet in 2019 (US Energy Information Administration) and 85% assumed by NREL (2024); the page gives both. Heywood: designed for up to 650 MW either way, with a testing limit of 600 MW into South Australia in 2026 (AEMO); the page gives the design figure and the model uses the limit. The Cooper Basin: about 250 °C at the bottom of Habanero 1 at 4,421 m (Wyborn and others, 2005) and more than 270 °C at 4,911 m (Geoscience Australia, about 2010); temperatures differ by well and by date. South Australia’s record low demand in October 2024: −205 MW as generated or −209 MW sent out, on the same day in the same report (AEMO, 2025). The Hydrogen Jobs Plan: $593 million in the government’s and CSIRO’s accounts and about $600 million in news reports, and “deferred” (Government of South Australia, February 2025) or “officially cancelled” (RenewEconomy headline, May 2025); the page uses $593 million and deferred. South Australia’s batteries in 2026: the state government gives “around 1.7 GW of power and close to 5 GWh of storage”, but AEMO’s account of 21 and 22 June 2026, when the fleet fell to “well below 200 MWh or around 10% of storage capacity”, points to about 2 GWh of storage then (our arithmetic); screen 5 and the model use the government’s figures. GenCost’s nuclear costs: in March 2024 the federal opposition’s energy spokesman called the report “largely discredited” and CSIRO’s chief executive defended it (RenewEconomy, 2024); in 2025 an expert quoted by AAP FactCheck said he had no confidence in anyone’s predictions of what nuclear power would cost in Australia.
• The hydroelectricity context in the outline: we found no source that identifies the well-managed plant in the Italian Alps. Foam on the Tietê River near São Paulo “is caused mostly by untreated household runoff from nearby São Paulo” (National Geographic, 2010) and forms where the polluted water is churned at dams and rapids; it was first seen a few years before 1993 (National Geographic, 2010). We found no report of a black foam. The nearest is black, pasty water at Salto on 27 November 2014, which the state environment agency put down to heavy rain washing waste into the river (Estado de Minas, 2014).

Answers at a glance

• Screen checks: q-need, fossil fuels are not replenished and release carbon dioxide while demand grows; q-sources, the hot rock is deep and remote so the wells cost too much; q-collect, low efficiency costs a panel area but a gas plant fuel and carbon dioxide; q-store, about 820 to 850 MWh; q-still, little spare wind or solar to charge it; q-isolated, an isolated system cannot import, so its own generators must cover a sudden shortfall; q-waste, coal leaves far more solid waste, plus carbon dioxide; q-weigh, the comparison that names geothermal and bioenergy; q-strategy, a grid can combine sources; q-test, a still spell can last days.
• Needed or limited: needed, E10 ethanol, liquid fuels for aviation and heavy transport, half of homes with panels, wind as the biggest source, the lowest-cost new supply and geothermal running day and night; limited, food and feed competition, demand below zero, no electricity at night, the June 2026 lull, deep and costly geothermal wells, and rock cooled for centuries.
• Temperature against depth: at 4 km the average is about 140 °C and the Cooper Basin granite about 229 °C, so about 90 °C hotter. The heat comes from the decay of uranium, thorium and potassium in the granite, held in by about 3.8 km of sediment.
• Collecting: a rooftop panel turns about 23 of 100 units into electricity; a wind turbine can catch at most 59.3 and real turbines below 50; coal sends out about 33 and delivers about 31.6; combined-cycle gas about 45, open-cycle about 31, nuclear about 33; photosynthesis stores at most 4.6 to 6. The turbine at 8 m/s: the wind carries about 6.5 MW through the blades and the turbine makes 2.7 MW. Module prices fell from US$0.79 to US$0.12 per watt between 2014 and 2025, about 85%.
• The day model, sunny and still, with the 970 MW links: with no storage, about 840 MWh of gas and 13,080 MWh from other states. A 2,000 MWh battery takes in about 2,170 MWh of spare wind and solar, gives back about 1,840 and cuts gas to about 200 MWh, under 1% of demand. A 10,000 MWh battery leaves about 130 MWh of gas, used in the morning after the battery has run down overnight, and cuts imports to about 4,570 MWh. Hydrogen of 15,000 MWh takes in 5,000 MWh and gives back only 1,750. On the cloudy, still winter day there is no spare wind or solar, so storage of any size changes nothing: gas supplies about 24% of demand and other states about 58%.
• Where waste ends up: into the air, carbon dioxide from coal and gas and leaked methane; dams or tailings on site, coal ash and the Olympic Dam tailings; isolated for thousands of years, spent fuel; recycled or landfilled, panels, blades and battery cells; back underground, geothermal water.
• The matrix with every weight equal: geothermal 77%, wind 73%, solar 70%, gas and nuclear 63%, bioenergy 60%, coal 43%. If on demand does not count, wind comes first; if cost and on demand count most, gas and geothermal tie. With the cut-off for sources already in commercial use, wind comes first. Group averages, renewable against non-renewable: greenhouse gases 4.0 and 2.7, lasting 4.3 and 1.0, land 3.3 and 4.0, cost 3.5 and 2.7, on demand 2.5 and 4.3, waste 3.5 and 2.3.
• The mix model: South Australia’s 2026 mix keeps the lights on in all three weeks, with renewables meeting 100%, 49% and 85% of demand hour by hour in the spring, winter and summer weeks, and 120 kt of emissions in all. Each source alone, at the size the preset sets: geothermal (2,500 MW) leaves 18 hours of the heatwave unmet; wind (6,000 MW) leaves 122 hours of the winter week unmet; gas (3,500 MW) keeps the lights on but emits about 330 kt; bioenergy (2,500 MW) is renewable but emits about 170 kt, more than the 2026 mix. Mixes that meet all three goals include wind 6,000 MW, solar 8,000 MW, batteries 4,000 MW for 12 hours, links 1,700 MW and gas 2,600 MW kept for backup; or wind 4,000 MW, solar 6,000 MW, batteries 3,000 MW for 6 hours, geothermal 1,000 MW, links 1,700 MW and gas 2,600 MW. There are many others.
• Exit check: x1 energy use grows and fossil fuels are not replenished; x2 biofuels compete with food and feed; x3 combined-cycle gas burns less gas than open-cycle; x4 wind fell, imports were limited and the batteries ran flat; x5 spent fuel; x6 gas against wind; x7 the ranking depends on values; x8 wind and solar with storage, links and some firm supply.

Saved progress

Answers, choices and notes are saved only in this browser on this device. Nothing is sent anywhere.

References

• ANZ (2026). From feedstocks to fuels: Australia’s evolving biofuels sector (discussion paper).
• Australian Energy Council (2020, 14 February). Is there a cloud over NT’s energy transition?
• Australian Energy Market Operator (2017). Black System South Australia 28 September 2016 (integrated final report).
• Australian Energy Market Operator (2018). Initial operation of the Hornsdale Power Reserve Battery Energy Storage System.
• Australian Energy Market Operator (2016, 2017). South Australian Historical Market Information Report; (2019 to 2023, 2025). South Australian Electricity Report.
• Australian Energy Market Operator (2025, 2026). Quarterly Energy Dynamics, Q4 2024, Q4 2025, Q2 2026 and Q3 2026.
• Canadell, J. G., and others (2021). Global carbon and other biogeochemical cycles and feedbacks. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 5. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
• Clean Energy Council (2023). Winding up: Decommissioning, recycling and waste management of Australian wind turbines.
• Eberle, A., Heath, G., Carpenter Petri, A., & Nicholson, S. (2017). Systematic review of life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from geothermal electricity (NREL/TP-6A20-68474). National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
• Eggert, S., & Bögeholz, S. (2010). Students’ use of decision-making strategies with regard to socioscientific issues: An application of the Rasch partial credit model. Science Education, 94(2), 230–258. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20358
• Environmental Justice Australia (2019). Unearthing Australia’s toxic coal ash legacy: How the regulation of toxic coal ash waste is failing Australian communities.
• Fang, S.-C., Hsu, Y.-S., & Lin, S.-S. (2019). Conceptualizing socioscientific decision making from a review of research in science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(3), 427–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9890-2
• Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems (2026). Photovoltaics report.
• Geoscience Australia (2026). Australia’s Energy Commodity Resources 2026.
• Geoscience Australia and ABARE (2010). Australian Energy Resource Assessment, Chapter 7: Geothermal energy.
• Graham, P., Hayward, J., & Foster, J. (2026). GenCost 2025–26: Final report. CSIRO.
• Gresch, H., Hasselhorn, M., & Bögeholz, S. (2013). Training in decision-making strategies: An approach to enhance students’ competence to deal with socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 35(15), 2587–2607. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.617789
• Headley, A. J., & Schoenung, S. Hydrogen energy storage. In Energy Storage Handbook, Chapter 11. Sandia National Laboratories.
• IEA Bioenergy (2024). Implementation of bioenergy in Australia: 2024 update (country report).
• International Energy Agency (2012). Technology roadmap: High-efficiency, low-emissions coal-fired power generation.
• IRENA (2026). Renewable power generation costs in 2025. International Renewable Energy Agency.
• Lovering, J., Swain, M., Blomqvist, L., & Hernandez, R. R. (2022). Land-use intensity of electricity production and tomorrow’s energy landscape. PLOS ONE, 17(7), e0270155.
• NT Government (2019). Media release on the independent investigation into the Alice Springs system black. Minister for Renewables, Energy and Essential Services.
• Pellow, M. A., Emmott, C. J. M., Barnhart, C. J., & Benson, S. M. (2015). Hydrogen or batteries for grid storage? A net energy analysis. Energy & Environmental Science, 8, 1938–1952.
• Rybach, L. (2003). Sustainable use of geothermal resources: Renewability aspects. United Nations University Geothermal Training Programme.
• Schlömer, S., and others (2014). Annex III: Technology-specific cost and performance parameters. In Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
• UNECE (2021). Life cycle assessment of electricity generation options. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.
• Utilities Commission of the Northern Territory (2021). Northern Territory Power System Performance Review 2019–20.
• Utilities Commission of the Northern Territory (2023). Northern Territory Electricity Outlook Report 2022.
• Wyborn, D., de Graaf, L., Hann, S., & Nicholson, B. (2005). Progress in geothermal energy development, Cooper Basin, South Australia. The APPEA Journal.
• Zhu, X.-G., Long, S. P., & Ort, D. R. (2008). What is the maximum efficiency with which photosynthesis can convert solar energy into biomass? Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 19(2), 153–159.

Sources

• SACE Board of South Australia: Earth and Environmental Science; Fang and others (2019); Eggert and Bögeholz (2010); Gresch and others (2013)
• Screen 2: Our World in Data: energy dataset; Energy Institute: Statistical Review of World Energy; Geoscience Australia: AECR 2026 coal, oil, gas, uranium and thorium and overview; IPCC AR6 WG1 Chapter 5; AEMO: SAHMIR 2016; SAHMIR 2017; South Australian Electricity Report 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2025; InDaily (2016); Government of South Australia: Energy; Clean Energy Regulator: electricity sector emissions 2024–25 and data by facility; matrix: UNECE (2021), as transcribed by Our World in Data, NREL (2017), IPCC (2014) Annex III, US EIA: Biomass and the environment, Rybach (2003)
• Screen 3: ANZ (2026); Argus (2026); DCCEEW (2026); AEMO: Quarterly Energy Dynamics Q4 2025; Q2 2026; ARENA: Solar energy; ARENA: Wind energy; Neoen (2025); Neoen (2026); Electricity Authority (2026); Government of Iceland: Energy; Geoscience Australia: Geothermal energy resources; Australian Energy Resource Assessment (2010), chapter 7; AusGeo News (2007); AusGeo News (2009); Wyborn and others (2005); ARENA: Geothermal energy; ARENA: Cooper Basin project; Geodynamics (2013); RenewEconomy (2013); Arup for DESNZ (2025); Geoscience Australia: Hydrogen; Oresome Resources: Hydrogen fact sheet; CSIRO HyResource; InDaily (2025); Office of Hydrogen Power SA: annual report 2024–25; InDaily (2026); matrix: Lovering and others (2022)
• Screen 4: Fraunhofer ISE: Photovoltaics report; University of Illinois (2018); Institute of Mathematics and its Applications; IEA (2012); US EIA: operating heat rates and tested heat rates; Zhu and others (2008); World Bank: transmission and distribution losses; Vestas: V162-6.2 MW; wind-turbine-models.com; Our World in Data: solar panel prices; CSIRO: GenCost 2025–26 final report and executive summary; Clean Energy Council: GenCost draft; IRENA (2026); RenewEconomy (2024); AAP FactCheck (2025)
• Screen 5: US EIA: batteries and pumped storage (2021); NREL: Annual Technology Baseline 2024; NREL (2019): days of storage; Pellow and others (2015); Sandia: Hydrogen energy storage; AEMO: Interconnector capabilities (2026); AEMO: Heywood interconnector (2015); Murraylink (2017); US EIA: HVDC transmission (2018); AEMO: Black System report (2017); AEMO: Hornsdale Power Reserve (2018); Neoen: Hornsdale Power Reserve; ARENA (2020); CEFC (2022); matrix: US EIA: capacity factors (fossil and nuclear) and (renewables); IEA Bioenergy (2024); Utilities Commission: NT Electricity Outlook Report 2022; NT Power System Performance Review 2019–20; Australian Energy Council (2020); NT Government (2019)
• Screen 6: Environmental Justice Australia (2019); Clean Energy Regulator (2020); RenewEconomy (2019); ABC News (2018); SBS News (2017); Informed Infrastructure; ARPANS Act 1998; EPBC Act 1999, section 140A; BHP Olympic Dam (2020); IAEA (2017): Keeping it safe; AFP (2026); World Nuclear News (2026); ANSTO (2021); ARWA: national inventory (2025); Federal Court of Australia (2023); Minister for Resources (2023); NSW Government (2025); federal ministers (2026); ATSE (2026); Solar Victoria; Clean Energy Council (2023); CSIRO (2024); US EIA: Geothermal energy and the environment
• Screen 7: Fang and others (2019)
• Screen 8: AEMO: Quarterly Energy Dynamics Q4 2024; Q3 2026; InDaily (2016); Enel (2018); RenewEconomy (2016); Iberdrola: Port Augusta project; Government of South Australia: Smarter Homes; AEMO (2021)
• Teacher notes: National Geographic (2010); Estado de Minas (2014)