Selling renewables – a marketer's dream

If you follow energy news in Australia you will appreciate the strength of our devotion to renewable energy. The primary measure is in the ballot box. For years we've been voting for governments at every level that enthusiastically support ambitious clean energy growth policies and a coming "clean energy transition". Out with those grubby fossil fuels, in with clean green renewables!

There are some specific renewables technology preferences. Google it, and an AI summary of Australia's energy policy will soon confirm "that a large majority of Australians favour a shift towards renewable energy sources, with solar and wind frequently cited as the preferred renewable energy options".

The enthusiasm for renewables starts at the top. Our Prime Minister consistently declares his faith in an "82% renewables target" by 2030 (whatever that means). One step down, his Minister for Climate Change and Energy, the Hon Chris Bowen MP, regularly delivers messages about our renewables strength. Australia is a "renewable energy superpower", rich in energy from wind and sun. Aided by energy storage in batteries and hydroelectric dams, renewables will provide us with a clean, green, electricity supply as reliable as we've always expected.

What's more, renewables are the "cheapest and fastest" option. And there will be plenty of surplus to export to a grateful world, especially via the medium of electrochemically synthesised Green Hydrogen (which should make an electrochemist like me very proud but doesn't).

It's not just the politicians and their bureaucrats. There's a whole renewables industry enthusiastically enhancing the buoyant national outlook. Their public faces, like the Clean Energy Council and the website RenewEconomy ("since 2012, Australia's best informed, most respected most read website focusing on the green energy transition") show obvious delight in reporting good news on renewables, record-breaking renewables performance, and attractive imagery of shiny new solar, wind and battery installations.

Governments, voters and an industry all on side! Surely a marketer's paradise. What could go wrong?

You have to look hard to find any clues. There's the occasional sceptic. Here in On Line Opinion there was recently a chilling tale of the effects of "cold windless evenings" on renewable energy supplies. Also, criticisms of rising electricity prices surface regularly. And our rural population often mourns the defilement of their countryside by large solar and wind farms and associated transmission lines.

But these blows land softly. It's hard to see how such objections can derail the reputation and progress of the renewables behemoth.

That might change with evidence mounting that today's clean energy plan is simply not working. The combined outputs of solar and wind energy are growing much too slowly to meet government and voters' expectations. Without an increase it could take 60 years or more to reach the target output level.

You haven't heard? Why no outcry? How is that possible?

My theory is that the marketer's paradise, a product of collusion, deception and wishful thinking in Australian energy politics, has led to a cosy relationship between governments, the renewables industry and a range of dedicated advocates in institutions, the media, and the energy industry, as well as in universities and other professional bodies such as CSIRO. These have lost any interest in, or capacity for, critical thinking on the subject. Good news stories are boosted, bad news played down. And the traditional ignorance and lack of rigour about electrical energy quantities means that renewables advocates can say what they like about growth without fear of correction.

My earlier evidence rested on a seven-year set of energy data rigorously formulated to give the true picture of Australia's solar/wind clean energy growth. Now another year's growth, for 2024, has been published, in the 74^th edition of the respected Statistical Review of World Energy. It is included in the updated table below. The key numbers showing total growth of solar/wind energy over each calendar year are in the bottom row.

In the early days of the renewables boom, growth began quite slowly, then accelerated to reach a fairly steady range (31.2 to 41.9 PJ, average 34.9 PJ per annum) over five years. Now we can see that in 2024 (the latest year available) growth suddenly fell to just 21.6 PJ.

The data do not merit calculating a statistical trend but seem sound enough for comparing growth numbers with expected clean energy needs of a future Australian economy. For that comparison we need to estimate a longer term national clean energy generation target.

A proper clean energy target is not simply a derivative of the "% renewables" targets in vogue in today's energy politics. A true target must be set in energy terms, like petajoules or terawatt-hours, because energy, not power, is the fundamental quantity relating to the economics of a nation's production.

There is no agreed Australian clean energy target or method for estimating it. The subject receives little attention. We do know that any clean energy economy will be heavily electrified. It will rely on electricity in quantities much higher than now prevail. There are some "educated guesses" for those quantities, based on first principles. The lead to a rough estimate of 2.5 to 3 times present electricity consumption. That is, a fully electrified clean energy economy, if ever feasible, will need at least 2.5 to 3 times more electricity than today.

Quite apart from its clean electricity requirements, "full electrification" is a serious technology challenge. There is much naïve speculation regarding the hurdles faced, especially for heavy industries like fertilisers and explosives that rely on fossil fuels for their chemical content rather than their energy. Without a suite of new electrified technologies, tested and proved at scale, the energy guesswork will be wild. Don't believe anyone who tells you otherwise.

Despite the uncertainties it's worth taking a look at how much clean electricity might be needed. Assume a conservative 2.5 multiplier and a base figure of 1,000 PJ for Australia's present total annual electricity consumption. The rough annual target becomes 2,500 PJ clean electricity generation, from solar and wind sources. Today those sources generate 300 PJ per annum. So there's a gap of 2,200 PJ per annum. That gap has been closing in recent years at rates between 21.6 PJ to 41.9 PJ per annum.

Simple arithmetic says that at the highest rate the target will be reached in 52 years and at the lowest rate in 102 years. 52 years? 102 years? That doesn't line up with the hype of modern clean energy marketing. Looks like solar/wind growth rates are being seriously exaggerated.

Also the extremes of the above time estimates reveal the volatility of Australia's solar/wind growth rates. This behaviour is rarely discussed. It seems to be related to the basic structure of Australia's clean energy market and the drivers for its growth. Growth strategy is based entirely on market signals and incentives; the growth rates as documented here did not result from planning. Indeed they seem to be uncontrolled and apparently fickle consequences of governments avoiding direct planning and involvement. The only firm finding here is that the outcome of such a strategy is unpredictable. This should hardly surprise.

Uncontrollable and unpredictable clean energy growth rates are just one part of the sad tale. The other is that the growth rates themselves are far too low to meet any sensible emissions reduction strategy. The present solar/wind growth strategy cannot succeed.

It looks like Governments have been trying to avoid "picking winners" in their clean energy policymaking. Instead, they are picking losers. Another surprise? Not really.

A further obvious conclusion is that nuclear energy must become part of any successful clean electricity growth strategy. In contrast to the feeble capacities of solar and wind farms, a typical thermal power station rated at say two gigawatts (2 GW) and running 85% of the time has an annual output around 55 PJ electricity. That's how Australia used to run its electricity grids. Clearly a handful of such power stations running on nuclear energy would make a big contribution to the kind of clean energy targets discussed here.

Australia should drop its renewables dreams and immediately adopt a plan to legitimise nuclear energy. It will take years to undo the damage done to date. Further delays won't help.