Misleading claims about renewables, backed by the influence of the fossil fuel industry, are slowing Australia\u2019s transition to a cleaner and more secure energy system.<\/p>\n
The transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy is driven by public concern about global climate change, the favourable economics of renewable electricity, and now the constraint on oil supply resulting from the war in the Middle East. However, this green energy transition is being slowed by the political power of the fossil fuel industry.<\/p>\n
Even though climate science demands an urgent transition, the Australian government still supports the development of new coal mines and gas fields. Furthermore, the multinational fossil gas industry profits while paying little tax<\/a> on the vast resource it exports each year.<\/p>\n In an interview on the ABC<\/a>, Minister for Resources, Madeleine King, responded to the question \u201cAs minister, why do you think the current system, when it comes to tax for the gas sector, is working well\u201d, with the statement \u201cthis is an extraordinarily complex industry\u2026(that) does require\u2026hundreds of billions over many, many decades of foreign investment\u2026building these facilities are complex\u2026thousands of jobs in construction and there are less ongoing jobs\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n The Minister\u2019s reply obfuscated the point, also missed by the interviewer, that most of these investments have already been paid off and there is no need for any new investment in gas fields. Australia has more than enough gas to supply future declining demand in Australia as gas heating is replaced by electric heating and gas-fired peak-load power stations are replaced by energy storage technologies.<\/p>\n Furthermore, the gas industry has already reaped enormous profits. Gas prices nowadays are much higher than the costs of production, so a tax would not make the industry unviable as it claims.<\/p>\n The interviewer gave the Minister an easy time on other obfuscations and non-answers to the questions. Yet previous Ministers and their staff from both major political parties have, upon retirement, been appointed to highly paid jobs in the fossil fuel industry, a situation known as \u2018revolving door jobs<\/a>\u2019. Ministers in such potential conflict of interest must be questioned rigorously.<\/p>\n Incidentally, the revolving door rotates in both directions \u2013 some Ministerial advisers are appointed from the fossil fuel lobby.<\/p>\n An old myth that\u2019s still frequently uttered by the Coalition and even sometimes by Labor is that \u201cTo be reliable, an electricity supply system needs some baseload power\u201d. (A baseload power station is one that generates 24\/7 at rated power except when it breaks down or undergoes maintenance. In the energy debate, \u2018baseload\u2019 is code for coal or nuclear, although hydroelectricity in Tasmanian is also baseload.)<\/p>\n Contrary to the myth, as low-cost wind and solar expand to provide most electricity generation, coal and nuclear are too inflexible in operation to balance the variability of the renewables. In the past, the variability of electricity demand was managed by peak-load power stations, namely gas turbines and hydro, which can vary their output rapidly in response to changes in demand. Nowadays, batteries and other forms of storage, such as pumped hydro, are gradually replacing gas peakers to manage the variabilities in both supply and demand.<\/p>\n Three-quarters of South Australia\u2019s annual electricity generation is currently generated from wind and solar. Despite having no baseload power stations, South Australia is committed to achieve 100 per cent renewables<\/a> by 2027 or 2028. Baseload power stations are not needed<\/a>.<\/p>\n For infrequent periods of low wind and overcast days, known as \u2018Dunkelflaute\u2019 (literally \u2018dark doldrums\u2019), gas turbines and a store of fuel can be kept in reserve. In future, gas turbines would burn renewable fuels such as green hydrogen or green ethanol.<\/p>\n Gas turbines have low capital cost and, because they will rarely be operated in the near future, low annual operating costs. Therefore, they can be considered reliability insurance with a low premium. It will not matter that, in some years, they may not operate at all.<\/p>\n Another myth is: \u201cwind and solar occupy vast areas of land and so compete with food production\u201d. To the contrary, wind farms occupy tiny fractions of the land they span, typically about 2 per cent<\/a> according to the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and are compatible with essentially all forms of agriculture. Offshore wind and rooftop solar occupy no land. Solar farms are increasingly being built sufficiently high above ground for sheep farming and horticulture to continue, a practice known as agrivoltaics<\/a>.<\/p>\n Yet another myth is: \u201cRenewable energy technologies will always need fossil fuels for mining the raw materials, minerals processing and manufacturing\u201d. However, in the real world, electricity generation for mining and minerals processing is increasingly being transitioned to renewables, which are much cheaper than diesel in most mining locations. Even Gina Reinhardt, a public opponent of renewables, is privately powering her new off-grid lithium mine with mainly wind and solar<\/a>. The next step, just beginning, is to transition heavy vehicles at mine sites from diesel to EVs.<\/p>\n Myths, lies and obfuscations are some of the tools of the fossil fuel industry for slowing the energy transition, so that the industry can sell as much coal, gas and oil before the inevitable end. The industry has largely captured Labor, the Coalition and One Nation with political donations, revolving door jobs, lobbying and so-called \u2018think tanks\u2019 such as the Institute of Public Affairs, funded by millions of dollars from Gina Reinhardt<\/a>.<\/p>\n