Why does our energy transition seem so slow? Because it is.

My concerns about energy policy began when I saw how difficult it was to interpret the main renewables policy "performance indicator" in Australia, "percent renewables". This indicator is a measure of the contributions of each of the several energy sources making up our electricity supplies. The indicator is easily determined and technically valid. But it is prone to misleading its users on the true progress of an energy transition. Worse it does not convey a true picture of trajectories for continuing fossil fuel usage and accompanying emissions of carbon dioxide.

"100% renewables" is a particular stumbling block. Let's look at an electricity supply claiming to comprise "100% renewables". Canberra's (the Australian Capital Territory grid) has officially been "100% renewable" since 2020. Does this mean Canberra can boast zero carbon dioxide emissions? No, it doesn't. All one needs for proof is a quick check of the traffic on Canberra's (very nice) roads.

So, what exactly does "100% renewables" mean, in terms of emissions? It's helpful to start with data from early in the transition. Most electricity then was generated in Australia by burning fossil fuels, mainly coal, in traditional thermal power stations. The statistics for 2019, for example, showed that only 37% of Australia's fossil fuel consumption was burnt in power stations. The other 63% was used elsewhere. Renewables can replace the 37% used for electricity generation. That's it.

How could cleaning up all of that 37% by running power stations on renewables possibly eliminate fossil fuel usage?

It can't.

In 2019 fossil fuels continued to be consumed in transportation, in heavy industries like smelting of metal ores and production of nitrogenous fertilisers, explosives and plastics, and in many smaller uses. (One can easily find long and fascinating lists of such minor applications. Claims that these amount to 6,000 items regularly pop up. It seems there's no "official list".)

The continued reliance on fossil fuels well after electricity generation switches over to renewables leads to only one possible conclusion. "Percent renewables" is a useless measure of progress in reducing fossil fuel consumption and associated carbon dioxide emissions. All the boasting and back-slapping that accompany hitting a "percent renewables" target are to do with politics, not reducing emissions.

There's no scientific rigour in Australia's energy policies.

Can we do better? Is there a correct, workable metric for assessing the true progress of this energy transition? Yes, there is.

Firstly, there's no doubt that clean energy in the form of electricity remains the key to any future clean economy. Electricity generated with low accompanying levels of carbon dioxide, as with renewables and nuclear energy, must remain the core contributor to a clean energy transition.

How should progress of that transition best be measured? Obviously, accounts for clean electricity production must still be maintained. Annual growth should be documented. The quantity of clean electricity needed to complete the transition must be estimated on some credible basis (and clearly "100% renewables" won't do). And such procedures should enable calculation of a date for completion of the transition.

The table gives a definitive example. It shows the past eight years of data, in energy units, starting from the early days of renewables policies. The numbers all come from the official statistical sources for all of Australia's electricity supply, the Energy Statistics and Analysis Section of Mr Bowen's Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water.