Table of Contents
The late Carl Sagan praised the value of back-of-the-envelope calculations. Scribbling a few equations and approximate values “cut[s] through nonsense like a knife through butter”.
Nonsense, though, is the stock-in-trade of the mainstream media — and most journalists seem incapable of performing even the most rudimentary calculations.
I’m far from the most mathematically gifted person around, but I can at least do some basic, back-of-the-envelope maths. And it cuts through the nonsense of “Net Zero” like light sabre through soggy tissue paper. If only Chris “Boofhead” Bowen, the grinning bonehead Australia calls its “Minister for Climate Change and Energy”, had a spare envelope or two, and a pencil, lying around.
A vast black hole in the federal government’s energy plan has been exposed by industry experts and the Coalition, who say Labor’s renewables blueprint fails to account for more than $60bn in mega energy projects it has committed to build by 2030.
Frankly, they’re being generous.
According to new analysis conducted by Australian Resources Development executive director David Carland, Labor has failed to bake in $62bn in budgetary spending required to lift renewables from 20 per cent of the nation’s energy production to the government’s stated 56 per cent target.
The new figure comes after Mr Carland wrote to both Energy Minister Chris Bowen and the CSIRO GenCost review – which underpins the government’s renewable energy targets – raising questions over the cost to integrate Australia’s energy system by 2030, including transmission, batteries and gas peaking plants.
Perhaps they ought to read Net Zero Australia’s latest report: according to that, $62bn is just a rounding error.
Mr Carland’s figures estimate that a range of projects – including Snowy 2.0, Tasmania’s “battery of the nation” plan and various transmission expansion projects — would be significantly more expensive if they were costed correctly, taking into account annual government subsidies and projected cost escalations and delays.
Oh, come on: when has a government project ever blown out its budget and come in years late, if at all?
The analysis comes as Anthony Albanese comes under significant pressure to reach his 82 per cent renewables target by 2030 despite a number of major energy projects being delayed, including Snowy 2.0 and the Kurri Kurri gas plant.
Opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien used the analysis to attack Mr Bowen for misrepresenting the GenCost review, which the Energy Minister has used to support his claim of renewables being the cheapest form of energy.
“Labor is either wilfully lying to the Australian people about the true cost of its transition or it has absolutely no idea how Australia’s energy system operates. It’s time for an honest debate about the true cost of Labor’s radical energy experiment,” Mr O’Brien said.
A cost which will ultimately be borne by every Australian household.
Coalition analysis obtained by The Australian suggests the failure to account for $62bn in necessary spending equates to about $5626 in extra costs per household.
As dodgy politicians will, when caught out, Bowen tries the “Trust the Science™” gambit.
But Mr Bowen hosed down the new figures, telling The Australian “Mr O’Brien may think he is a better energy analyst than AEMO and the CSIRO, but he isn’t.”
But, as any scientist should know, starting assumptions can dramatically alter calculations. CSIRO’s “modelling” treats costs like rebuilding transmission lines as a given. Which is a bit like climate models treating solar output as a constant.
In a submission to Treasury earlier this year, Mr Carland warned the GenCost report failed to take into account the cost of integrating renewables above the 56 per cent renewable share of generation by 2030 assumed in CSIRO’s model. He said the report relied on the flawed assumption firming had already taken place, treating future spending on renewables as a sunk cost even before spending had occurred.
The Australian
Their modelling is foolproof… assuming a spherical solar panel in a vacuum, of course.
