GILES PARKINSON. Coalition’s stunning hypocrisy – and ignorance – on renewable energy.


The Coalition appears to have abandoned all pretence that it supports renewable energy, now contradicting assurances by the grid owner and market operator – and now the biggest generator in the country – that the source of energy was not at fault for the massive blackout in South Australia last week.

After Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg used the opportunity to use the blackout to try to force the Labor states’ targets. They were joined by Industry, Science and Innovation Minister Greg Hunt on Monday.

In an opinion piece written for the Australian Financial Review, reported as the front page lead, “SA blackout could have been avoided”, Hunt claimed that a coal fired generator could have kept the lights on in Olympic Dam and Whyalla and avoided much of the damage. He also chastised the states for chasing unrealistic targets.

This is what Hunt said last December, while Environment Minister and speaking in Paris during the climate talks:

 “I have encouraged the states that if they want to do something extra, (they should) apply reverse auctions to the renewable energy target in the way the Australian Capital Territory has done.”

So there’s a change of tune: on the one hand urging the states to do more; on the other hand, chastising them for doing exactly that.

As for the statements about the ability of coal power to withstand the catastrophic event that brought down 23 transmission towers in five different locations and took out three of the four major lines linking South Australia’s north to the south east, Hunt appears to be taking his cue from the fossil fuel lobby.

He wrote in the AFR:

“As the Australian Industry Group has observed, if SA policy had not deliberately forced the Northern base load power station offline, supply to Whyalla’s Arrium Steel plant and to BHP’s Olympic Dam smelting operations would almost certainly have been continuous. This would not only have saved millions of dollars of lost income, but provided a basis for future investment security.”

This, of course, is contradicted by Electranet, the Australian Energy Market Operator, and today also by AGL Energy, which has the biggest portfolio of coal fired generators in the country and has the dominant market position in South Australia.

“It doesn’t make any difference what is hanging off the end of those wires,” AGL chief executive Andrew Vesey told the All Energy conference in Melbourne on Tuesday. “When you lose significant transmission and have significant change in real time between load and supply, bad things happen.” 

“The minister’s comments show a fundamental lack of understanding around how the system works and responds to such a dramatic fault, and what it takes to perform a “black start”/restart the system,” said Melbourne Energy Institute’s Dylan McConnell.

As Vesey said on Tuesday: “They (supply and demand) have to be in balance in real time.”  When they are not, he repeated, “bad things happen.” He went on to say that if Australia wanted the best system security, they would be better off with local generation and microgrids, and they could only do that with more renewable energy.

Electranet and the Australian Energy Market Operator have made it clear that the source of the energy – coal, wind or gas – made no difference to the outcome, such was the stunning nature of the event. But since it happened, the Coalition has been able to orchestrate a campaign that deliberately sows doubt about these claims.

The Murdoch media fell into line and David Salter chronicles how virtually every commentator sought to blame renewables even though some of the news stories “admitted” that renewables were not at fault. It’s depressing reading from the “dependable” twice weekly doomsday Judith Sloan …

Successive Labor administrations have embarked on the folly of thinking that the state’s economic future could be based on wilful over-promotion of intermittent, expensive and unreliable renewable energy. South Australia has paid a high price for this deluded approach.”

To political reporter Sid Maher, who elevated this nonsense to the level of wishful surmise:

Wednesday night’s total failure of power in South Australia … is a disaster for renewable energy zealots and should be a wake-up call for political leaders. Energy experts told The Australian yesterday the cascading shutdown … could have been caused by wind farms closing in sequence as the storm hit.

We chronicled last week, here and here, how the ABC also blamed renewables, with political correspondent Chris Uhlmann and filtering down to its news reports. The Conversation followed this up with its own criticism of Uhlmann. We also pointed out how Fairfax energy reporter Brian Robins did the same, and the AFR took up the cudgels on Monday, with its page two columnist Jennifer Hewett writing: “It seems likely that a full blackout of the state could have been avoided” if it had coal fired caseload generation. She didn’t say how or why.

The Coalition, with media support, appears to be taking the line successfully adopted by Donald Trump, that if you simply repeat a whole bunch of untruths, something will stick. And how!

The idea appears to be to throw confusion and doubt about renewable energy, and then exploit a backlash to force a slowdown in policy. So far, though, the states are resisting.

But the more worrying factor is this: that the government and the fossil fuel lobby is succeeding – with the help of Fairfax, the Murdoch media, the ABC and of course talk-back radio – in filling the newspaper, the airwaves and the internet with ill-informed and misleading rubbish.

As Clean Energy Council CEO Kane Thornton said: “No form of electricity generation can provide power to consumers when the electricity grid is lying on the ground.” Challenges will only be addressed by new market rules, making the grid fit for the 21st Century (as the Victoria Energy Minister Lily d’Ambrosio and AGL’s Vesey pointed out today) and by encouraging new technologies and practices.

As energy expert Alan Pears has pointed out, the South Australia government has tried several times to get the CoAG Energy Council to implement demand side bidding, which would have reduced the impacts of the recent interruption, and the gas price blip.

Under lobbying from the fossil fuel industry, which has opposed other initiatives, this was rejected by CoAG.

Giles Parkinson is the publisher of This article was first published in Reneweconomy on 4 October, 2016.


This entry was posted in Economy, Environment and climate, Infrastructure, Media, Politics and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to GILES PARKINSON. Coalition’s stunning hypocrisy – and ignorance – on renewable energy.

  1. Andrew Deakin says:

    Parkinson’s contribution to the debate about SA’s power outage and the remarks sourced to AGL are not necessarily the complete picture. Pre-outage reports by AEMO, Deloitte, and the Grattan Institute drew attention to the asynchronous nature of wind generators, and the consequent reduction in reliability and security of power supply on a wind-dominant SA grid.

    Had synchronous generators been the main suppliers in SA during the recent storm, it may have been likely that the transmission failures would have caused only localized outages, rather than a state-wide blackout. AEMO’s preliminary report on the outage hints that the wind generator failures, rather than the transmission tower collapse, may have been the primary driver of the supply failure. The final report will make interesting reading.

    This is not to deny a role for renewables in grid development and GHG abatement. However, reliability and security of supply should have priority. Renewables investment should proceed where economic. To date, that is a high hurdle, given the substantial subsidy required to support wind generators.

    Hunt’s quoted remarks on reverse auctions for states wanting to mandate levels of investment in renewables greater than that supported by the national RET seems poor public policy. Regional measures in a national energy market can easily distort energy investment, reliability, and security. It also adds to prices faced by consumers, in a market where Australia has, in the past ten years, ceded its comparative advantage in power costs (initially due to deficient regulation of network investment, and more recently, to the costs of the
    RET and related measures). State renewable targets such as that proposed by Victoria will recover their costs by adding them to network charges, thereby increasing bills even further.

    More generally, where the case for renewables, including the localized grid development options referenced by Parkinson, cannot be justified on a least cost test, then the remaining justification of GHG reduction ought to be treated warily. Australia cannot materially affect the level of global emissions, and consequently climate developments. We are hostage to the rest of the world in this regard, rather like a conventional price-taker in global commodities. Hence, GHG abatement should be a national policy matter, optimized to achieve an efficient cost for Australia in a global context. State and regional measures cannot be justified in these circumstances.

    It is ironic that the SA Premier is copping the political fallout from the recent blackout, when, assuming wind power was a major contributory factor, it is the national RET that drives the investment in his State. A more sober Premier might use the damage done to SA to argue the federal target should be applied more carefully, to ensure that it does not compromise security of supply.

  2. Niall McLaren says:

    Re the comment by Industry, Science and Innovation Minister Greg Hunt in AFR on Monday, viz:
    “As the Australian Industry Group has observed, if SA policy had not deliberately forced the Northern base load power station offline, supply to Whyalla’s Arrium Steel plant and to BHP’s Olympic Dam smelting operations would almost certainly have been continuous. This would not only have saved millions of dollars of lost income, but provided a basis for future investment security.”

    Does this not constitute a lie?

  3. Marilyn says:

    Not one of the fools have bothered to ask anyone in SA if we actually have a reliable power supply, we do.

Comments are closed.