Collusion and deception in Australian energy politics

These numbers are derived directly from Australia’s official energy statistics. And they provide an entirely different picture.

Irrepressible? Hardly. In fact, the annual growth increment of combined solar and wind energy (in red) is nearly constant over the past five years and is quite modest, averaging just 35 petajoules growth per annum.

Is the prevailing 35 PJ of solar/wind growth per annum enough to meet future clean energy targets? Let’s have a look. Unfortunately, despite all the excitement about growth rates, there is no agreed growth target. The issue is simply ignored. However, there are some agreed principles. A clean energy economy will be heavily electrified, needing much more electricity than now. How much more? There are some “educated guesses” suggesting that about 2.5 to 3 times present electricity consumption would be needed for a fully electrified economy. For want of better estimates, let’s take 2.5 as a minimum multiplier, remembering it’s a guess.

From the table, in 2023 Australia used 983 PJ of electricity. On that basis we would need 2.5 × 983, say 2460 PJ, of clean electricity to displace all fossil fuel use.

• Renewables now: 343 PJ
• Clean energy target: 2460 PJ
• Gap: 2460 – 343 = 2117 PJ
• Growth rate: 35 PJ per year
• Time to target: 2117 ÷ 35 = 60 years

60 years! How can this figure be reconciled with the breathless hyperbole from the renewables lobby? It can’t. Hence the conclusion in my July 2024 article Australia’s Clean Energy Experiment:

As I’ve been arguing for over five years in previous opinion pieces, Australia’s official power generation statistics make it obvious that we have no chance of meeting the clean energy needs of an all-electric fossil-fuel-free modern industrialised economy.

No chance!? How do renewables advocates manage to create a totally opposite impression of irrepressible headlong growth? It’s simple. They use just one confusing tactic, referring only to power data and avoiding all mention of energy.

It is true that energy data can be slow to appear in the statistics and power information is generally available instantaneously, for example on AEMO’s easily accessed Dashboard for the National Electricity Market. Sadly, the energy transition can only be followed and assessed properly via energy data. Power is a useless metric for that purpose. Power is a temporary instantaneous measure. In the case of Australia’s renewables, for solar it holds on average just 25% of the time and for wind 35%.

The big question in energy politics is whether concentrating on power figures for influencing public opinion on renewables is just an unfortunate habit acquired accidentally by renewables advocates or a neat trick to muddy the waters? Make up your own minds. My view is that renewables publicity qualifies as propaganda and it comprises big doses of wishful thinking cemented together with creative falsification.

Am I the only numerate scientist/technologist alert to the truth of renewables growth rates in Australia? Seems unlikely. Leaders of the renewables lobby have indicated to me that they are aware of what they choose to call a “growth pause” in solar and wind, as shown by the red numbers in the table above. They just wave it aside. Even the central planning and delivery authority for Australia’s main power grid, AEMO, admits the problem, calling recently for a sixfold leap in energy output growth rate. That’s a lot! It made headlines for a day then disappeared.

Clean electricity statistics are routinely presented in a misleading and deceptive way. There’s nothing “stunning” about the true speed of renewables growth.

What do the statistics tell us about the ultimate feasibility of clean energy hopes and dreams of the “Net Zero Emissions” policies? The theory is that all or most energy-consuming activities can and will be converted to electricity; we will manage to generate enough clean green electricity to do the job. And should that dream fall short, then there will be novel processes to neutralise and remove the resulting net flow of carbon dioxide emissions to the biosphere and atmosphere.

Is net zero feasible? So far I have seen nothing persuasive. Embellishing the true growth rates of renewable energy won’t help. Australia in particular must face its special clean energy handicap. Unlike many developed economies, for geographic reasons it has relatively little hydroelectricity, and for political reasons zero nuclear power; the Australian Parliament banned nuclear 27 years ago. We are one of only seven nations with a legal ban.

Nuclear energy is, for practical purposes, zero emissions. The rising interest in clean energy globally seems not to have dented Australia’s cultural antinuclear sentiment. Interestingly, Australia’s long-term aversion to nuclear energy has never been properly explained. It’s easy to suggest the main reason as a simplistic connection voters make between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. Perhaps we will wake up and join the world.