Following Labor's landslide victory in the 2025 federal election, the Australian government, led by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Energy Minister Chris Bowen, has doubled down on its ambitious renewable energy policy, aiming for 82% renewable electricity by 2030 and net-zero emissions by 2050. While framed as a response to climate change and a path to cheaper energy, this aggressive push toward wind and solar power risks plunging Australia into an electricity crisis. The intermittent nature of renewables, combined with inadequate infrastructure and reliance on aging fossil fuel backups, threatens reliability, drives up costs, and undermines economic competitiveness. This angry post explores how Labor's "manic embrace" of renewables, as critics describe it, contributes to a looming energy catastrophe, particularly when the wind doesn't blow, and the sun doesn't shine.
Australia's electricity sector has made significant strides in reducing emissions, with renewables rising from 7.5% to over 40% of the National Electricity Market (NEM) in the past 15 years, cutting emissions by 26%. Labor's target of 82% renewables by 2030, backed by the $20 billion Rewiring the Nation fund and the Capacity Investment Scheme, aims to accelerate this transition. Proponents, including Bowen, argue that renewables like solar and wind are the cheapest forms of generation, citing low incremental costs when conditions are favourable.
However, the intermittent nature of wind and solar creates significant challenges. Unlike coal, gas, or hydro, which provide consistent "baseload" power, renewables depend on weather conditions. During "wind droughts" or prolonged cloudy periods, known as Dunkelflaute in Germany, generation drops sharply, leaving gaps in supply. South Australia's 2016 blackout, triggered by a storm but exacerbated by reliance on wind without adequate backup, serves as a cautionary tale. A similar event in Spain in April 2025, where a renewable-heavy grid (60.64% solar, 12% wind) collapsed for 18 hours, underscores the vulnerability of systems lacking sufficient firming capacity.
Bowen's claim that renewables are the cheapest energy source overlooks the systemic costs of integration. First, renewables require extensive new transmission infrastructure to connect dispersed wind and solar farms to urban centres, unlike centralised coal plants. The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) estimates that 50% of the transmission needed for a clean, reliable grid by 2050 must be built within six years, but most projects face delays due to regulatory hurdles and community opposition. These costs, passed on to consumers, contribute to rising electricity bills.
Second, renewables' intermittency demands backup from fossil fuel plants or storage solutions like batteries and pumped hydro. Coal plants, forced to cycle on and off to accommodate renewables, face higher maintenance costs and outages, reducing reliability. For example, unplanned coal outages in 2019, 2021, 2022, and 2024 drove severe price spikes, with coal availability dropping 10-20% during high-risk periods. Gas, while cleaner, is increasingly expensive due to global demand and domestic shortages, with projections estimating $2.3–$3 billion in gas-fired electricity costs by 2030 if renewable rollout stalls.
Storage solutions are critical but underdeveloped. Batteries can stabilise short-term fluctuations but lack the capacity for multi-day shortages. Pumped hydro, while reliable, faces long lead times and environmental concerns. The Clean Energy Council estimates that stalling renewables could increase household bills by 30% ($449/year) and small business bills by 41% ($877/year) by 2030, but even the current path risks price hikes due to infrastructure and backup costs. Economist Bjorn Lomborg's analysis of 70 countries found that a 10% increase in solar and wind correlates with an 8% rise in electricity prices, contradicting Bowen's narrative.
Labor's renewable push aligns with its "Future Made in Australia" vision, aiming to create jobs and revive manufacturing. However, high energy costs undermine this goal. Energy-intensive industries like nickel refining, fertiliser production, and glass manufacturing have already shut down, citing rising electricity prices. The Australian Energy Regulator announced price increases of up to 9% in NSW starting July 2025, with average household bills rising over $1,000 since Labor took office.
The government's targets are also faltering. In 2023, investments in renewables slowed, with solar farm approvals dropping by over a third and no new wind farms funded. By year's end, only 56 renewable projects were under construction, down from 72 in 2022. Community resistance in regional areas, where wind and solar farms encroach on agricultural land and landscapes, has stalled projects. A Queensland wind farm was recently cancelled after 96% local opposition, reflecting growing regional backlash. Rising development costs further hinder progress, with emissions rising 0.05% in 2024 due to reduced hydro output and increased fossil fuel use.
AEMO warns of power shortages starting in 2025 in NSW and Victoria, extending to South Australia by 2026, as coal plants retire. Up to five coal plants will close by 2030, slashing east-coast capacity by 13%. Without rapid renewable and storage deployment, blackouts loom, particularly during summer heatwaves when demand spikes. Critics argue Labor's exclusion of gas from the Capacity Investment Scheme ignores its role as a reliable backup, risking grid fragility.
Australia's pursuit of net-zero emissions, contributing just 1.1% of global CO2 (down from 1.5% in 2000), has negligible impact on global climate. Meanwhile, China and India's combined emissions rose from 18% to 40% over the same period, with China building more coal plants than the rest of the world combined. The U.S. has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement, and European nations are scaling back commitments due to energy costs and security concerns. New Zealand's recent withdrawal further isolates Australia's stance.
Critics, including American energy expert Robert Bryce, argue that Australia's policy prioritises "optics over outcomes," punishing consumers with expensive energy for minimal environmental gain. Professor Bruce Mountain estimates Australia has "no chance" of meeting its 43% emissions reduction target by 2030, requiring a fivefold increase in clean energy expansion. Labor's proposed 2035 CO2 target, potentially as high as 65–80%, appears increasingly unrealistic.
Labor's renewable energy policy, based upon woke environmentalism risks an electricity catastrophe by opting for intermittent wind and solar without adequate backups or infrastructure. When the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine, Australia's grid falters, threatening blackouts, higher prices, and industrial decline. The government's failure to meet targets, coupled with global trends undermining net-zero ambitions, exposes the futility of Australia's solitary crusade. As a global energy power, Australia should leverage its resources to deliver cheap, reliable power, balancing environmental goals with economic realities. Without urgent course correction, Labor's renewable rush will leave Australians in the dark—literally and figuratively.
https://goodsauce.news/australias-looming-electricity-catastrophe/
"The overwhelming victory by Labor in the recent Federal Election will have many flow-on effects. One of the more disastrous will be Labor doubling down on its renewable energy policy.
Chris Bowen is already claiming the victory as a mandate to continue his reckless pursuit of renewable energy. It is an assertion that is pretty hard to contest, given the magnitude of the defeat of the opposition. But I will continue to try and expose the folly of this policy.
Recent natural disasters, as always, are portrayed as proof of climate change causing catastrophic impacts on our lives. The link between these natural disasters and climate change is dubious to say the least. Our problem, as I have often said, is that we rely on our personal experience and anecdotal evidence to make such judgments. Commentators talk breathlessly of "unprecedented" disasters whereas perusal of historical reports shows that is not the case. Despite the earth being more closely settled today than it ever was, analysis of insurance statistics around the world show that fewer and fewer people are actually dying from the impact of natural disasters. And despite what the climate catastrophists might want you to believe life threatening events such as tropical cyclones are actually less frequent and, on average, less severe than they were in the past.
We are also limited in our ability to understand climate because most societies only have reliable records of weather events over a couple of centuries. (And sometimes, as is the case of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, those records have been manipulated to support the climate change thesis.)
Moreover the long-term records we have derived through analysis of Ice cores and the study of the earth's geology show radical long term climate cycles occurred in the distant past.
Whereas the underpinning thesis of climate change by its zealous proponents is that it is caused by the anthropogenic creation of CO2, these records of the distant past show periods in the earth's history where such concentrations were far higher than today but the earth's surface temperature was cooler.
But even if we were to believe that global warming was a product of human induced increases in atmospheric CO2, we should still take pause to consider the effectiveness of Australia pursuing a net zero target to mitigate global warming.
Between 2000 and 2023 Australia's contribution to the planet's atmospheric CO2 declined from 1.5% to 1.1%. At the same time the combined contribution of India and China increased from 18% of the global total to 40%. Meanwhile the USA has withdrawn from the Paris accord and many other European countries are walking away from their commitments because of the rising costs of their electricity and the waning security of their networks.
This is a fool's errand. Australia on its own, as once the Chief Scientist conceded, can have no demonstrable effect on the World's climate.
Our futile efforts to have Australia mitigate climate change, however, comes at a high cost, Let us now investigate that,
Now of course Chris Bowen insists that renewable energy is the cheapest form of generation. But he misleads us. When the wind is blowing and the sun is shining it is true that the incremental cost of renewable generation is low. But the equation is complicated by other factors.
To begin with renewable energy generation is intermittent. But our modern society (particularly our industry) relies on being able to access electricity at whatever time it chooses. Consequently we can't have an electricity grid that relies entirely on renewable energy. Renewable energy needs to be supplemented by other sources so that electricity can be accessed at will 24 hours a day. In the past it was our coal fired and to a lesser extent our gas fired generation that provided that secure platform for our generation. But under the electricity market rules, when renewables are actually generating they are scheduled first onto the grid. This means that the fossil fuelled generators are forced to cycle their generation requiring them to reduce load and sometimes to come off line. This style of operation is detrimental to this plant and leads to higher operating costs, maintenance costs and sometimes unplanned outages.
We are still relying on our coal fired plant to back up our renewables but this has changed the role of this plant in a significant way. Bowen is prone to say that problems with energy security are due to the outages of coal fired plant. But this plant, treated well is more reliable than other forms of generation. During my time at Stanwell we had a unit that remained on line for three years without interruption. Surely that is the basis of a more reliable generation system than relying on the sporadic inputs of renewable installations!,
But beyond this Bowen fails to mention the costs associated with connecting renewable generation to the grid. In the past we were supplied by major power stations that were connected by high voltage transmission lines to distribution centres. Renewable generation tends to be of smaller size and widely dispersed necessitating a far more extensive transmission and distribution network. The construction and maintenance of these assets adds considerably to your electricity bill.
Internationally acclaimed economist Bjorn Lomborg recently published a report where he had analysed data from the International Energy Agency, covering 70 countries. He found a clear correlation between the usage of solar and wind power and higher energy prices. He deduced that for every 10% in the increase of solar and wind there was a rise of nearly 8% in electricity prices. Yet Chris Bowen insists that renewable power is cheaper than the alternatives. It is clear he has little understanding of how the electricity system actually functions.
Furthermore the Australian Energy Regulator recently announced that from 1 July there will be further increases of different amounts across the states but as high as 9% in NSW. So well done Mr Bowen your policies are really working!
It is paradoxical that a government who states they want to create an Australia where we can "make things again" keeps imposing impediments on industries that want to do so. Most manufacturing is energy intensive and labour intensive. But the Albanese government has thwarted such ambitions by increasing energy costs and, through its union friendly policies, increasing labour costs.
Already as a result of this disastrous policy we have had nickel refining, fertiliser production and glass manufacturing close down in Australia. Despite your optimistic rhetoric Mr Albanese, you are ensuring that we make even less in Australia!
Notwithstanding that, in its frenetic, misguided efforts to accelerate renewable energy projects, the Government is falling well short of its targets. The reasons for this seem to be largely twofold.
Firstly, the cost of renewable developments has been increasing rapidly.
Secondly regional areas where these investments are trying to be made are protesting vehemently against them. This is because they encroach on agricultural land, and degrade the natural landscape.
The chief proponents of renewable energy are "woke" inner city dwellers but the burden of these projects is suffered by regional communities who are starting to rebel against these impositions.
In my own regional area, the new state LNP government has just cancelled a major windfarm that the previous Labor government had approved on the basis that 96% of the local community were opposed to the development.
Prior to the US Climate Change Conference in November, Australia must settle on its 2035 target for CO2 abatement. Bowen has previously suggested that the target could be as high as 80+%, but insiders are suggesting that the target is likely to be moderated to perhaps 65%. Whatever target is set, it won't be achieved.
Whilst Minister Bowen continues to maintain, "We are on track to reach our 2030 target", industry experts tell us he is deluding himself. In fact figures released by the Climate Change Department showed emissions had actually increased by 0.05% in the calendar year 2024. Most of this seems to be attributable to lower Hydro generation out of Tasmania (due to water shortages) leaving a void to be filled with gas and coal generation.
There are few signs on the horizon that there will be dramatic improvements in the near future.
Of the more prevalent forms of renewable energy, hydro is the most dependable. Wind and solar are far less reliable. Whenever there are wind droughts and prolonged periods of cloudy weather, it is the fossil fuelled generators which will take up the slack to ensure our reliability of electricity supply whilst also increasing the emissions from the electricity sector.
In the press Professor Bruce Mountain from the Victoria Energy Policy Sector (which is an economic research centre) has been quoted as saying,:
I don't think there is a chance that Australia will get 43 per cent below 2005 by 2030. It needs to increase the rate of expansion of clean energy by five times the rate they did over the last term of government – and that just does not seem likely at all.
Despite Bowen's protestations, there can be no doubt that Albanese's government energy policy is resulting in higher electricity prices. Moreover it is reducing our confidence about reliability of supply.
Internationally there are few electricity grids that aspire to have such a high input of renewables as Australia. A week or two ago we saw the vulnerability of electricity grids that rely substantially on renewable energy when the Spanish grid failed leaving consumers without electricity. If the government continues on its relentless renewables push this is the likely fate for Australia as well.
Robert Bryce is an American author and public speaker who has written and spoken extensively about energy policy and climate change. In a recent article in The Australian he wrote:
There is no reason average Australians should be punished for the sake of climate policy that is more about optics than outcomes. Expensive energy is the enemy of the poor and the middle class. Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the foundation of prosperity. Australia is a global energy superpower. It should start acting like one.
Now Bryce, of course, is right. We are damaging the Australian economy, ruining our international competitiveness, rendering our electricity less secure and increasing our threats of blackouts for no discernible benefit.
We live in a sparsely settled Island/Continent that houses just one third of one percent of the world's population and contribute just over one percent of the world's CO2 emissions. At the same time China, USA, India, Russia, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, who collectively are responsible for over 64% of such emissions have made no such commitment and continue to increase their emissions. Furthermore many European countries that had initially signed up to the Paris accord are walking back their commitments. New Zealand also recently withdrew.
Whilst the Albanese government might find solace in such virtue signalling it is easy to dispute the efficacy of this approach. It is time to abandon the net zero delusion and get back to doing what's best for Australia's own interest.
To avoid energy disaster we need to abandon the futile net zero ambition! It would also help if we had a minster who actually understood the complexities of the electricity market."