Environmental acts of faith are seriously misdirecting public investment in our electricity sector

The subsidies for (largely imported) household solar panels and for wind turbines (and the prices paid for intermittent electricity fed into the grid) are so high that some suppliers are claiming, for example, that solar panels are almost free.

Under a scheme now closed to new participants, the ACT is paying households feed-in tariffs of up to 50.15 cents per kWh. A more recent scheme involves a $2.8 million community owned solar farm in the ACT's Majura Valley, announced in 2019, which is expected to produce up to one megawatt of electricity (enough to power up to 260 homes). The ACT Government reportedly is subsidising the farm to the tune of 19.56 cents per kilowatt hour for 20 years.

Free registration for electric cars and interest-free loans of up to $15,000 will be funded in next month's ACT Budget, with the goal of pushing the ACT towards a carbon-neutral future. A $150 million loan scheme will offer finance for electric cars, solar panels, purchasing battery storage, buying an electric vehicle or for efficiency upgrading of appliances. Other states (e.g. Victoria, SA and NSW) are headed in the same direction.

Australia and some other Western countries are destroying their electricity system in the name of preventing man-made global warming. Consequently energy intensive industry is being outsourced to other countries, especially China. Rising greenhouse emissions from these countries are more than offsetting cuts in the West, and it is mainly economic recession and the rising use of cheap gas (in countries like the US) that is restraining total emissions for the moment. Xi Jinping's announcement in September that China will be carbon-neutral by 2060 was merely appeasing rhetoric not to be taken seriously.

Australian coal resources are akin to Saudi-Arabia's oil. There is simply no prospect of Saudi-Arabia stopping its use of oil and gas, and switching entirely to renewable electricity and electric cars, because such a policy is inconsistent with its national interest. So why is Australia even considering abandonment of coal-fired power?

Australia can power its industry most economically (while making a substantial cut in emissions) by building new generation coal-powered stations at coalfield locations. (High-energy low-emissions plants operate at higher temperatures and air pressure to more rapidly convert water to steam. This significantly improves the efficiency of boilers and turbines, saves fuel, and reduces CO2 emissions by up to 50 per cent.)

Instead we are banning such plants, while countries like China, India and Japan ship our coal halfway around the world (at considerable monetary and Greenhouse expense), while our power bills soar. China has more coal-fired power under development than the entire coal power capacity of the United States, and uses coal-fired energy to make the solar panels, turbines and batteries we use. Australia also refuses to consider another source of base-load power, nuclear, which for us is the most practical alternative to coal.

Bedsides soaring costs, blackouts costing hundreds of millions of dollars annually have already happened in some Australian states, and regulators warn of growing instability in the electricity grid. Energy Security Board (ESB) chair Kerry Schott recently warned that Australia must confront the impact of renewables or face higher costs, stating that the rules for our national electricity market are "no longer fit for purpose''. The ESB has said the security of power supply to the east coast market remained its "most concerning issue".

Politicians, including leading Liberals, have caved in completely to the Green lobby, and are offering no sensible solutions.

There is a Commonwealth proposal to build a gas power station in the Hunter, which makes no economic sense given our high domestic gas prices. The Turnbull-inspired Snowy 2 pumped hydro scheme (now estimated to cost at least $5.1 billion) is going ahead despite being both uneconomic Aand threatening to cause considerable environmental damage. The main reason governments support hare-brained schemes like these is that such schemes have political appeal being neither coal, nuclear, wind nor solar, which each have detractors.

The NSW government recently unveiled a $32 billion electricity infrastructure roadmap it says will cut red tape, emissions and the state's reliance on coal, by facilitating private investment in renewable energy. The NSW government is to incentivise the replacement of all coal-fired power plants with renewable energy by 2042, in a policy that will supposedly "keep electricity prices low".

Two of the world's biggest batteries, worth a combined $1bn, will be built at the sites of NSW coal plants in a move to ease strains in the power grid when Liddell closes in 2022-23. Origin's 700MW battery at Eraring (for example) will be able to send power into the grid only for "up to four hours". The problem is that it is base-load coal power that allows our electricity system to function, and there will soon be little to fall back on when we have prolonged periods of low wind and sun, and a much larger renewables sector.

Bob Hawke famously wanted Australia to become the "clever country", while Donald Trump had a major concern with putting America First (in ways beyond mere isolationism). The irresponsible destruction of the base-load element of Australia's electricity system (i e coal-generated power) and its replacement by intermittent power, is neither clever nor putting Australia's interest first. Australia really is only seeking to appease alarmists both here and overseas.

We could all pray and seek the intercession of St Greta, but this, if anything, has potential to only make matters worse. It will take a crisis in the power grid to make governments see sense. In the meantime, those who are religiously inclined and want cheap reliable electricity, might be better-off seeking the intercession of St Jude (the patron saint of desperate cases and lost causes).