Renewables are cheap, reliable, clean. Hubris, hype or hope?

The Albanese Government has made several power promises.

(i) A 43% cut in greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) by 2030, and zero net emissions by 2050.
(ii) Australian electricity 82% fuelled by renewables by 2030, (currently about 25%).
(iii) 'Keeping the lights on', excluding 'unexpected' supply outages.

We can control price or quantity, but not both, unless we have enough policy levers. For now, high fossil fuel prices, plus slowing growth, might help reduce GHGs a bit. How can both be delivered?

The Government says 'renewables'. Low emissions, relatively cheap. The physics says otherwise.

(i) Solar, wind and hydro are intermittent. Reliability standards are high (0.002% outages in the NEM).
(ii) Averaged over a year, solar provides power about 15% of the day, wind maybe 30%, and hydro depends on water.
(iii) Sunless, windless, or waterless periods often exceed one day
(iv) These intermittencies require multiplied generation capacity (over 3-7 times as much as fossil fuels).
(v) Plus multiplied storage capacity in manufactured batteries (over 2.5-6 times as much as fossil fuels).
(vi) Plus upgraded existing and new transmission capacity to get power from where generated to where needed.

The Energy Minister correctly says massive investments are needed in harvesting, transmitting and storing solar, wind and hydro energy for it to be a practical option for reliable 24/7 power. Doable by 2030 or even 2050? Cost?

To reduce emissions, GHGs from the entire supply chain (equipment production, power generation, transmission, storage, equipment disposal) must be included. Are these less than using existing fossil fuels? We should know the 'clean' answer up-front. Do we?

The immediate Australian focus is reliability and price of energy. The political focus on reducing GHGs should highlight the net cost of reducing Australian emissions, too. It hasn't. Why?

Many urge more renewables generation, transmission, and storage. Calls for less use of fossil-fuelled energy have already seen faster withdrawal than earlier planned. Total power supply has been falling relative to demand. We can't do much about overseas causes of this. But Australia's energy problems are partly own-goals.

We can fix these by reducing electricity demand or increasing supply. Global recession seems possible. That might deliver less power demand. More supply requires massive investments in renewables generation, transmission, and storage. Who pays? How?

Our energy own-goals reflect attempts to reduce our GHGs.

Australia constitutes a small percentage of global GHGs (1.1%-1.2% and falling). We should make a similarly proportionate contribution to cutting them. Others should, too. A global effort is essential to have global effects.

How best to reduce GHGs? We need to price emissions, encouraging their reduction, and say so, clearly. Politicians deny this, asserting 'there will be no carbon tax under my government', etc, while claiming to cut their countries' GHGs.

Untrue. Any policy that reduces any GHGs puts a price on them. This includes subsidies for renewables, ultimately paid by taxpayers.

Politicians prefer measures (including subsidies) making emissions prices non-transparent. Result? Selective, distorting, higher prices for GHGs actually reduced than otherwise needed.

A broad-based, transparent price on emissions high enough to deliver any target reduction in GHGs is the least-cost option.

Pretending preferred initiatives don't price emissions allows them to be rorted, and outcomes to be fiddled, not measured properly.

It encourages 'pass the parcel' emissions reduction responses between countries, as we've seen over the last three decades or more.

Sure, getting a global deal to cut GHGs is very difficult. Can we improve its chances?

Some in Europe and the USA recently proposed 'border tax adjustments' on imports from countries not cutting their GHGs. All VAT or GST consumption taxes do exactly this, across all imports, based on the taxing country's GST or VAT rate. Pricing GHGs based on national consumption of them is entirely consistent with this well-established value-added tax approach.

Consider pricing emissions consumption, not production. Globally, GHG production equals GHG consumption, anyway.

This would reduce threats to national trade competitiveness from unilateral action, minimising 'pass the parcel' incentives. It can be adopted at different times and at different rates, just like VATs and GSTs are today.

That would help confidence-building towards a truly global approach, if that's what we're after.

Some say doing the same thing again and again, and expecting a different result, is a sign of insanity. After over three decades of failing to reduce global emissions production, you don't need to be Einstein to figure that out.

There's a wider policy reality we should well understand.

Simply promising a policy doesn't deliver it.