Renewable Energy Sources vs Fossil Fuels – Solar and Wind Power Ahead in Australia

Australia’s Murdoch led NewsCorp media and Koch Network think tank promote climate science denial talking points, especially the IPA Institute of Public Affairs (founded by Murdoch’s father), with fossil fuel and mining players, have been denigrating transition to renewable sources and their reliability, for decades; now playing the need for nuclear to delay transition.

However, the reality is different, like elsewhere, the take up of renewable energy sources is accelerating (though not as fast) away from fossil fuels, while Australian governments of the centre left following climate science become electorally wedged by the same Murdoch media and think tank talking points.

Fact is, renewable sources whether solar or wind, plus EV’s or electric vehicles, work economically and effectively as has been shown elsewhere, while supporting economic growth. 

From Renew Economy Australia:

‘Renewables hit record high in Australia, as green energy transition rolls on

Renewable energy hit a record high of 72.9 per cent of total generation on Sunday, as a wave of wind and solar across Australia’s main grid sent coal output and operational demand to new lows.

The new peak of 72.9 per cent on the National Electricity Market (NEM), the country’s main grid, was reached for a five minute interval at 12.45pm (AEST), according to data collectors at GPE NEMLog2, beating the previous peak of 72.5 per cent set late last month (October 24).

The bulk of the renewable energy came from rooftop solar from households and businesses, which accounted for around 44 per cent of total generation. Utility scale solar and large scale wind had shares of just over 14 and 12 per cent each, while hydro played a minor role with just over 1.1 per cent.

The new peak for renewables was especially noticed in Victoria, where the share of variable renewable energy (wind and solar) hit a new record high of 95.7 per cent earlier that day (10.10am AEST), well beyond the previous peak of 88.5 per cent set on October 22.

The new peak just happens to correspond to Victoria’s renewable energy target for 2035 (95 per cent), although that will be measured on an annual average basis, rather than a single five minute dispatch period. But the trend is clearly there.

NSW has the biggest fleet of coal generators in Australia, with 8,200MW of coal fired capacity, but coal output hit a new low of just 1633 MW at 9.15am (AEST), more than 100 MW below its previous low, highlighting the assault on its business case and “baseload” assumptions.

It also reflects the fact that one third of its units were out of action for maintenance and upkeep, and the second unit at Mt Piper also wound back to zero on Saturday.  Coal power accounted for just 16.4 per cent of the state’s demand when renewables hit their peak at 12.45pm on Saturday.

Network demand also hit a new low in Victoria (1724 MW), while battery discharge hit a new high in NSW (209 MW), indicating the early but accelerating shift to different forms of dispatchable energy.

On Friday, as GPE NEMLog’s Geoff Eldridge reports, a bunch of solar output records tumbled across the grid, with the gap between solar power and coal output stretching to nearly 10 GW at one stage.

Australia’s target renewable share is 82 per cent by 2030, based around the modelling of the Australian Energy Market Operator’s Integrated System Plan.

Across the last 12 months, the NEM has average 38.7 per cent renewables, so it needs to more than double that share in the next 6-7 years.  Across the last 30 days, the average share of renewables has been a more promising 45.8 per cent.’

For more blogs or articles on Australian Politics, Climate Change, Economics, Environment, EU European Union, Fossil Fuel Pollution, Koch Network, Media, Political Strategy, Science Literacy and Vehicle Usage click through

Libertarian Nativist Lobbying Against EV Electric Vehicles in Support of Fossil Fuels

Posted on September 20, 2022

Not only is Australia out of step with the developed world, including the US, but another example of how fossil fuel, road, traffic and transport lobbies have been effective in avoiding or limiting environmental regulation and standards, using libertarian economic arguments as promoted by Koch Atlas Network think tanks e.g. the IPA Institute of Public Affairs.

What has been missed is the white nativist ecological NGO influence of the US Tanton Network linked to Sustainable Population Australia, with the latter based on and replicating the US fossil fueled ZPG Zero Population Growth, promoted by media and politicians of both left and right, blaming humanity i.e. immigrants and population for environmental issues, to deflect from fossil fuels and climate science.

French Farmers, Truckers and Covid Freedom Rallies Astroturfing vs. Science, Environment and EU European Union?

Posted on March 5, 2024

Farmers protesting in France and probably elsewhere are more about astroturfing by Big Ag to oppose the EU European’s Union Green Agenda, threats to CAP Common Agricultural Policy, pesticides and fossil fuels; does not seem to be a genuine issue of small farmers especially with indirect support of Le Pen?

Further, not only have similar protests occurred on the border of Poland and Ukraine, and other points, with allegations of Russian influence, there seems to be resonance with the US fossil fuel Koch Network ‘freedom rallies’ globally against Covid science, vaccinations and health mandates vs. centrist governments.

Degrowth Economics – Greenwashing Fossil Fuels and Nativism for Authoritarian Autarky?

Posted on March 13, 2024

Is ‘degrowth’ genuine economics theory or astroturfing for greenwashing the status quo i.e. by demanding degrowth that leaves already wealthy or <1% with existing economic and social mobility or status, but precludes upward mobility for 99%> of future generations?

Why? Creates confusion and delay for the economic, industrial and fossil fuel status quo of over a century to transition away from carbon to renewable sources.

Although not cited by either The Conversation or Grist below, the degrowth, steady state and autarkist constructs are not new, see 1930s Italy and Germany, then fast forward to the Club of Rome which promoted the construct ‘limits to growth’; good things like technology grow linearly vs. bad things like emissions and people grow exponentially. 

COP28 Climate Science Denial – Avoiding Transition to Renewable Energy Sources

Posted on December 10, 2023

There were recent comments by the COP28 President in UAE denying climate science around fossil fuels, hence, no need to transition from the same; but no credible support for his claims?

These talking points are very common across right wing media for ageing and less educated voters to support fossil fuel right wing policies, often with ‘Koch Network’ in the background, but simply promoting deflection and conspiracies?

Financial Times: Opinion Data Points. Economics may take us to net zero all on its own The plummeting cost of low-carbon energy has already allowed many countries to decouple economic growth from emissions.

COP28 Climate Science Denial – Avoiding Transition to Renewable Energy Sources

There were recent comments by the COP28 President in UAE denying climate science around fossil fuels, hence, no need to transition from the same; but no credible support for his claims?

These talking points are very common across right wing media for ageing and less educated voters to support fossil fuel right wing policies, often with ‘Koch Network’ in the background, but simply promoting deflection and conspiracies? 

In 2022 Burn-Murdoch showed in Financial Times how following economics makes for fast transition from fossil fuels & carbon emissions to renewable sources, result? Lower emission and higher economic growth.

‘FT Opinion Data Points Economics may take us to net zero all on its own. The plummeting cost of low-carbon energy has already allowed many countries to decouple economic growth from emissions’

‘COP28 president is wrong – science clearly shows fossil fuels must go (and fast)

Steve Pye

Associate Professor in Energy Systems, UCL

According to the president of COP28, the latest round of UN climate negotiations in the United Arab Emirates, there is “no science” indicating that phasing out fossil fuels is necessary to restrict global heating to 1.5°C.

President Sultan Al Jaber is wrong. There is a wealth of scientific evidence demonstrating that a fossil fuel phase-out will be essential for reining in the greenhouse gas emissions driving climate change. I know because I have published some of it.

Back in 2021, just before the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow, my colleagues and I published a paper in Nature entitled Unextractable fossil fuels in a 1.5°C world. It argued that 90% of the world’s coal and around 60% of its oil and gas needed to remain underground if humanity is to have any chance of meeting the Paris agreement’s temperature goals.

Crucially, our research also highlighted that the production of oil and gas needed to start declining immediately (from 2020), at around 3% each year until 2050.

This assessment was based on a clear understanding that the production and use of fossil fuels, as the primary cause of CO₂ emissions (90%), needs to be reduced in order to stop further heating. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that net zero CO₂ emissions will only be reached globally in the early 2050s, and warming stabilised at 1.5°C, if a shift away from fossil fuels to low-carbon energy sources begins immediately.

If global emissions and fossil fuel burning continue at their current rates, this warming level will be breached by 2030.

Since the publication of our Nature paper, scientists have modelled hundreds of scenarios to explore the world’s options for limiting warming to 1.5°C. Many feature in the latest report by the IPCC. Here is what they tell us about the necessary scale of a fossil fuel phase-out.

Fossil fuel use must fall fast

A recent paper led by atmospheric scientist Ploy Achakulwisut took a detailed look at existing scenarios for limiting warming to 1.5°C. For pathways consistent with 1.5°C, coal, oil and gas supply must decline by 95%, 62% and 42% respectively, between 2020 and 2050.

However, many of these pathways assume rates of carbon capture and storage and carbon dioxide removal that are likely to be greater than what could be feasibly achieved. Filtering out these scenarios shows that gas actually needs to be eliminated twice as fast, declining by 84% in 2050 relative to 2020 levels. Coal and oil would also see larger declines: 99% and 70% respectively.

In fact, oil and gas may need to be eliminated even quicker than that. A study by energy economist Greg Muttitt showed that many of the pathways used in the most recent IPCC report assume coal can be phased out in developing countries faster than is realistic, considering the speed of history’s most rapid energy transitions. A more feasible scenario would oblige developed countries in particular to get off oil and gas faster.

A fair and orderly transition

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has added to evidence in favour of phasing out fossil fuels by concluding that there is no need to license and exploit new oil and gas fields, first in a 2021 report and again this year.

This latest IEA analysis also estimates that existing oil and gas fields would need to wind down their production by 2.5% a year on average to 2030, accelerating to 5% a year from 2030 (and 7.5% for gas between 2030-40).

A separate analysis of the IPCC’s scenarios for holding global warming at 1.5°C came to the same conclusion. Since no new fields need to be brought into development, global production of oil and gas should be falling.

A fair and orderly transition

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has added to evidence in favour of phasing out fossil fuels by concluding that there is no need to license and exploit new oil and gas fields, first in a 2021 report and again this year.

This latest IEA analysis also estimates that existing oil and gas fields would need to wind down their production by 2.5% a year on average to 2030, accelerating to 5% a year from 2030 (and 7.5% for gas between 2030-40).

A separate analysis of the IPCC’s scenarios for holding global warming at 1.5°C came to the same conclusion. Since no new fields need to be brought into development, global production of oil and gas should be falling.’

For more related articles and blogs on Climate Change, Economics, Environment, Fossil Fuel Pollution, Koch Network, Political Strategy and Science Literacy click through:

Environment – Fossil Fuels – Climate Science Denial – Populationism – Anti-Immigration – Far Right – Tanton Network

Jeff Sparrow in Overland rebuts a counter critique of his book ‘Crimes Against Nature’ by a faux expert Edward Smith who appears to be au faire with faux environmental and anti-immigrant arguments promoted by the US Tanton Network linked NGO Sustainable Population Australia.

One would not bother using high level analysis to rebut low level faux science nativist agitprop inspired by former ZPG Zero Population Growth types, namely deceased white nationalist John ‘passive eugenics’ Tanton whose colleague was Paul ‘Population Bomb’ Ehrlich, with support from the Rockefeller Bros., ‘limits to growth’ PR constructs promoted by Club of Rome and drawing on Malthus, Galton and Madison Grant.

Conspiracy of Denial – COVID-19 and Climate Science

Some would not be surprised with the doubts and confusion being created round the COVID-19 crisis, especially by those wanting all economic activity to continue and ignore the human costs. 

However, much of this agitprop, astro-turfing and junk science used by non experts has much in common with the information, media and political techniques used by radical right libertarian think tanks funded by the fossil fuel sector and related media, to influence society on climate science to avoid constraints and preserve income streams, with some eugenics in the background.

Nativist Conservative MPs for Fossil Fuels versus Science, Education, Research, Analysis & Society

Interesting article from a science journalist at The Guardian on comments made about ‘woke’ science by the Tories in the UK at the Conservative Conference in  ‘Science hasn’t gone ‘woke’ – the only people meddling with it are the Tories’ by Philip Ball.

However, this is neither unique to the UK Conservatives nor dissimilar elsewhere, but it is a long game strategy against grounded science, research and analysis, like Trojan horses to disrupt curricula and universities, why? 

Climate Change Science Attitudes Australia and Koch in USA

Climate science or climate change denialism have been apparent for some decades since the 1970s with Koch Industries being central along with ‘big oil’ of Exxon Mobil etc. in funding through ‘Dark Money’ academia, research, think tanks, media, politicians and PR techniques to influence society.  Now we see the results including wide-spread climate denialism, avoidance of environmental protections and negative media PR campaigns; meanwhile the roots of this strategy have become more transparent with legal action following.

Australia the Lucky Country?

“Australia is a lucky country run mainly by second-rate people who share its luck. It lives on other people’s ideas, and, although its ordinary people are adaptable, most of its leaders (in all fields) so lack curiosity about the events that surround them that they are often taken by surprise. A nation more concerned with styles of life than with achievement has managed to achieve what may be the most evenly prosperous society in the world … According to the rules Australia has not deserved its good fortune.”

Donald Horne, The Lucky Country

From Stephen Dark in The Fifth Estate:

Cruising down the road to Donald Horne’s Lucky Country

For near on 30 years we have cruised down the road of economic growth feasting on the fruits of the “lucky country”. 

Sure, there were a few speed bumps along the way, a few wrong turns, and more than a few prime ministers, but it was mostly smooth sailing. 

Hit in the face by a pandemic!

Then, suddenly, we were hit in the face by a pandemic, thrown into lockdown, and our fragility as a nation was fully exposed. 

While frontline workers took it on the chin and rallied, others were reduced to fighting over toilet paper in our supermarkets. 

Shameful disparities between the social value of what essential workers do and the low wages they receive were splashed across our screens. The now-familiar failure of a free market economy to adequately value our most valuable asset; “human capital” writ large!

And as maddening as our political leaders are, with their misguided priorities and penchant for finger-pointing, in the world we live in today, they are not so much the cause of our broken political system, but a product of its decline. 

To say that we have lost faith is an understatement

But this by no means absolves our political leaders from their obligations going forward — a few points worth pointing out from the 2019 ANU Federal Election report:

Satisfaction with democracy is at its lowest level (59 per cent) since the constitutional crisis of the 1970s

Trust in government has reached its lowest level on record, with just 25 per cent believing people in government can be trusted.

56 per cent of Australians believe that the government is run for ‘a few big interests’, while just 12 per cent believe the government is run for ‘all the people’.

Life’s little anomalies

Life is full of anomalies. Note this one: 

Australia has the 12th highest average income in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) — for those who are lucky enough to have a job.

Of course, using an average instead of median creates an obvious distortion: in 2017-2018 average full-time earnings were $82,436 while the median wage — the one that most of us are on — was just $48,360 before tax. Politicians prefer to spout the former; the latter is simply an “anomaly”.

And we work pretty hard for it too, with the fifth highest hours worked per capita in the OECD. 

But could it be that simple?

In short: as a consequence of our laid back opulent lifestyles — a perpetual hangover from living in the lucky country — we are all suffering from intellectual atrophy! 

Although stagnant wages and underemployment suggest something else is in play. Or perhaps we might pin it on the steady decline in funding for research and development in our universities. R&D has never been a biggy for recent governments!

But we’re still living in the lucky country, aren’t we?

In the 1960s and 70s, we gave each other a slap on the back and called ourselves “the lucky country”. 

But the book of the same name, by Donald Horne (1921-2005) — a social researcher, philosopher, and historian — from whence it came, was actually a disparaging critique of Australian society: “an indictment of a country mired in mediocrity and manacled to its past.” 

The reference to “lucky country” was satirical in the sense that we were lucky to have made it this far. Whoops!

The dumbest, or not-so-smart country

So, we might now more solemnly call ourselves “the dumb country” — as Horne had intended. Or at least one of the dumbest countries in terms of our technological capability. 

That is, we are still riding down that same old road on the coattails of our top three exports: coal, iron ore, and liquified natural gas (LNG); inclusive of the old-world technologies which they sustain.

Innovation: now that’s an idea!

Sustainable economic growth and genuine prosperity are powered by the accumulation of knowledge which is used to create increasingly innovative industries that benefit “everyone”. 

However, perception only creates reality to the point that reality eventually dismantles your economy. Read a little further ….

The latest Harvard Growth Lab Atlas of Economic Complexity — a guide to the level of technological knowledge and its use in the production of complex products — has Australia at 87th as of 2018, lagging well behind Kazakhstan, Uganda, Senegal, and Vietnam, and sitting just above Pakistan and Mali. 

Forget lucky, let’s make it “the progressive country”

Just imagine that we lived in a more progressive time, with more progressive leaders — or if ours was a more progressive country. 

People would be more willing to give more of themselves; we would be more productive, more enthusiastic, and our children would be more optimistic about what the future holds for them.

One thing is for sure, we wouldn’t wake up in the morning, not nearly as often anyway, fraught with despair for the welfare of the next generation and our beautiful blue planet.

For more articles and blogs about ageing democracy, Australian politics, demography, economics, management & leadership, political strategy and populist politics click through.