Are we on the right path to net zero? | John Anderson

John Anderson, former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, and Aidan Morrison Director of Energy at the Centre for Independent Studies discuss the energy transition. According to John Anderson we are at a civilisational moment in the West as a result of the climate debate. The stakes are high for finding an energy solution that does not require reducing the living standards of everyday Australians.
Australia stands at a fork in the road. The current plan to transition to a system dominated by wind and solar is encountering headwinds, with infrastructure investments facing unexpected social, economic, and environmental challenges. Are we still on the optimal path to net-zero? Are we on a viable one?
To watch to full event video head to the link here: • Aidan Morrison and Joh...
Or you can watch other content from our Energy Program here: • Energy & Climate
______________________________________________________________________________________________
CIS promotes free choice and individual liberty and the open exchange of ideas. CIS encourages debate among leading academics, politicians, media and the public. We aim to make sure good policy ideas are heard and seriously considered so that Australia can prosper. Follow CIS on our Socials;
Twitter - / cisoz
Facebook - / centreindependentstudies
Linkedin - / the-centre-for-indepen...
Telegram - t.me/centrefor...
📖 Read more from CIS here: www.cis.org.au/
💬 Join in the conversation in the comments.
👍 Like this video if you enjoyed it and want to see more, it really helps us out!
🔔 Subscribe to our channel and click the bell to watch our videos first: / @cisaus
⏲️ Missed this event live? Subscribe to CIS to be up to date with all our events:
www.cis.org.au...
📝 Subscribe to CIS mailing list- www.cis.org.au...
💳 Support us with a tax-deductible donation at - www.cis.org.au...

[@mariokery7155]

Australian taxpayers are being charged with the highest prices for gas. Australia is one of the world's largest suppliers of natural resources, and Australia spends subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. The multi national corporations are making billions and paying what taxes and royalties. The entire parliament has always been a corporate takeover and not for the benefit of the people.

[@traceyhamilton8481]

At 63 years of age this is the first time in my life I have had to go without heating. Not good enough in a country like Australia. Worked and paid taxes all my life. One person looking at $500 for a month of electricity. Usual bill is less than half that.

[@paulpayne2212]

So sorry to hear of your circumstances, but maybe NOW you'll start to pay attention to the phony green agenda that screwed you!

[@peterralph6112]

Essential viewing for all engineers, scientists, and economists. Oh, and I hope some politicians in government try and get their brain around the true issues, and that will be hard! A great talk, John and Aden.

[@davefoord1259]

Doesnt take a very big brain to get across all these issues. Unfortunately most of our pollies dont even have enough of a brain to do it

[@fairgo4156]

We also need to avoid confusing what may work in Northern Europe. Australia that has a massive comparative economic advantage in renewables. What we need are properly fact-based options for Australia to decide what the future energy plan should be. A viable option may be renewables with gas peaking, it could be nuclear, it could be renewables and storage. I despair that both side of the debate are often ignoring facts and logic. This is a great debate and a necessary one. Well done panel.

[@factnotfiction5915]

Agreed. However, the 'comparative advantage in VRE' is difficult to see. Sunlight is correlated - if sunny in one part of Australia, it is likely to be sunny in other parts, and vice-versa; Wind is correlated - If windy in one part of Australia - ditto Aiden referred to this as 'flooding in and out and gushes' - and that is what it is: * too much at one time (meaning you over-invested), * but also too little at one time (meaning you under-invested), * then you add transmission and storage to reduce the floods and gushes to something a bit more manageable Those assets all cost money - and that is where the 'comparative advantage' isn't so much at high penetration. This is where Finland's gloom is helpful - it causes them to force them to think and get to a solution faster. Australia will believe in 'comparative advantage' even when that isn't the correct framing of the issue. ps - don't forget nuclear + storage (which, because nuclear permits planning of charging storage, is more valuable for nuclear than for VRE).

[@vivianoosthuizen8990]

It’s like believing you can walk on water and then tell everyone they have to as well. Many will drown in this.

[@davefoord1259]

Great comment vivian

[@iantag]

Great to see Aidan's media skills and media presence increasing month by month. His challenge to CSIRO and the ISP has benefited the rest of us. Constantly amazed by folk who continue assert that "CSIRO science is above reproach !! ". Appreciate this work - thanks to all involved.

[@drdoug007]

Declare that wind and solar are not renewable…. How are they renewable?? They goes against the laws of thermodynamics.

[@mfield3831]

I can’t see my energy bills going down like labor promised. I had a letter from AGL this week that my rate was increasing from a flat rate of 31c/kWh to 48c/kWh (peak 2-10). Now having a family this is the time we naturally use the most electricity. So I’m very excited to see my next bill.

[@davesmith1553]

What an excellent presentation. Pity our leaders don't have such a good grip on reality.

[@emmanuelcarydis9084]

I would like to see the nuclear debate also take into account the Molten Salt Reactor designs based on the Thorium Fuel Cycle - eg. LFTR etc.

[@vivianoosthuizen8990]

Recently I learned about a year in mid 1800’s that had no summer it remained winter all year because of there being so many volcanic eruptions. There were famine immediately just one summer and nothing could be grown but the next year it returned to normal.

[@michaelnunn1805]

The determining driver of energy generation and delivery is simply PEAK power demand: it is rediculous to believe that we can store (and generat energy for storage) enough energy to fill the gap between base load and peak demand.

[@Mysay9962]

Thanks for the truth stop the b/s

[@petertimp5416]

I disagree about the carbon price. All it does is pass financial pressure onto the community without achieving anything substantial and helps support a fantasy that CO2 is bad.

[@jasonhopkins7120]

Good talk. I analyzed the CSIRO GenCost report and get very different conclusions. I compared the cost of renewable systems with storage to large nuclear. Large nuclear could save of lot economic damage long term. I remember when I was young they told us electricity was made cheap by government to stimulate economic growth. It sounds like the current path will have the opposite effect.

[@IK-wc4od]

Its been a deliberate campaign to get higher prices > less utilisation > less carbon emissions. That its going to ruin us is.. not in the equation

[@iainw5081]

The other factor is that nuke power stations will leverage the existing grid architecture and will avoid the lunatic costs to accommodate the so called renewables.

[@Wacko2-wrx]

Firstly it’s the 2 major political parties, Labor and the Coalition who have created the high energy costs in Australia. The Greens and Independents have never been in power as all they can do is vote with or against the party in power. Australia is extremely lucky to have all of the options of coal, gas, sunshine, wind and uranium unlike most countries throughout the world. The original proposal to reduce our emissions was to go with wind and solar with gas being the base load option. Gas as a base load obviously emits harmful emissions but they can be turned on and off unlike coal and nuclear. It’s the Labor and Coalition parties that have made gas so expensive and it’s availability so unreliable. Gas power plants are considerably cheaper than nuclear, requiring less security, less maintenance, easier to rehabilitate retired facilities and no nuclear waste for future generations. John Anderson spruiking nuclear shows no evidence of discussion just driven ideology just like Snowy 2 which is now costing 6 times its original quoted price and we taxpayers end up paying for this extreme waste.

[@graemeharris9779]

The problem for nuclear is reputational, and this is emotional. Why not concentrate on making renewables grid friendly?

[@peterwundersitz3715]

South Australia had synchronous condensers running in the 60's and earlier. McGill substation and one other that I worked on.

[@iareid8255]

Peter, synchronous condensers are an expensive parasitic sticking plaster answer to the lack of proper generators which provide the reactive power input and inertia. The difference between inertia from a synchronous condenser and a conventional generator is that if the frequency drops it can increase output to prevent it dropping too far.

[@innocentbystander5404]

Netzero smacks of the blind hope we enjoy when we say the troops will be home by Christmas. Though it never happens.

[@uhtredlundar8394]

Excellent discussion - one addition regarding a 'Carbon' price would be the example of Canada. We have imposed a 'Carbon' price on Hydrocarbon fuels. The short answer is go for it if your goal is to fuel inflation and suck the life out of your economy. Canadians, on average, did not realize that a 'Carbon' tax is a tax on energy and that translates into a tax on everything. With any luck the next election will usher in some sanity and eliminate the 'Carbon' tax.

[@paulpayne2212]

YES.....I hope Western Canada can clean house of the Green mush minds that have damaged Canada, and the world economies!

[@detectiveofmoneypolitics]

Detective of Money Politics is following this very important issue for Clean energy cheers VK3GFS and 73s Frank

[@mrw_6462]

The plebs are to live a 'modest' life, but the elites won't have to worry

[@HMASJervisBay]

Mr Anderson is too soft in his assessment. The energy transition we're facing in Australia is critically important, and we must consider all angles carefully. The current push towards wind and solar dominance in our energy mix is proving more challenging than initially anticipated. Firstly, the infrastructure required for large-scale wind and solar farms faces significant hurdles. We're seeing unexpected social resistance in rural communities where these projects are planned. Concerns about land use, visual impacts, and potential effects on local ecosystems exist. These aren't just NIMBY issues - they reflect real concerns about how we're reshaping our landscape. Economically, the costs of this transition are ballooning. The grid upgrades required to handle intermittent power sources are far more extensive and expensive than initially projected. We're also finding that the lifespan of some renewable technologies is shorter than hoped, leading to higher replacement costs. Environmental challenges are emerging, too. The raw materials required for solar panels and batteries have their ecological footprint. We're trading one form of environmental impact for another. If we continue down this path without addressing these issues, we risk creating an energy system that's unreliable and prohibitively expensive. This could have severe long-term consequences for both households and industry. Energy-intensive industries might relocate to countries with more stable and affordable power, leading to job losses and economic decline. If we can't provide reliable, affordable energy over a 100-year timeframe, we risk becoming an economic backwater. Our standard of living would decline significantly as energy costs consume more of household budgets and all industries struggle to hold a competitive edge. We need to reevaluate our approach. Perhaps we should only consider more singular long-term low-emission technology like nuclear power. The stakes are too high to commit fully to a plan that is already showing significant flaws. Our goal should be an energy transition that maintains or improves our standard of living, supports our industries, and achieves our highest priorities in economic goals. The current path risks failing on all three counts. We need a robust, national discussion without ideological misinformation about our energy future that considers all options and their long-term implications. The Australian parliament is elected to improve Australian lives, not to send them back to the bush caves where the only mark of their existence may one day be handprints on a rock wall. Therefore, what guarantees does the current Prime Minister give that the future of Australia will be affordable to every citizen?

[@carlmcewen8739]

an intelligent debate about energy - what a surprise?

[@andrewm190E]

Let's unpack this LNP propaganda piece. 1, The LNP sold of Australia's gas supplies when John Howard allowed the overseas owned gas industry to sign deals prioritising gas supply to China, Japan and Sth Korea instead of making them supply Australia first at cost plus margin , then sell the rest. That stuffed our manufacturing industry and started the huge increase in cost of living to ordinary Australians. 2, Due to the ineptitude of those gas deals, Japan takes our gas and onsells it at a huge profit, further making their costs cheaper while maintaining a gas supply shortage in eastern Australia. 3, The LNP did nothing over 13 years of governance about nuclear power generation. The only thing they did about nuclear was cancel the French diesel sub deal ( that cost us $500 million for no result) and sign us up for the AUKUS nuclear subs which will cost us $368 billion ( in todays $$$) which we won't get for 25 years, which we don't have the infrastructure to maintain, fuel, service or crew. 4, With renewable energy, the LNP signed away on Snowy 2.0 which has had a HUGE 6X cost blowout ($28 billion) because no geological soil testing was done and it'll be delivered 8 years later than when first proposed. 5, Now you think you can arrange a nuclear energy industry to magically appear, across 7 sites in Australia when we have no experience AT ALL....in ridiculously short construction times that other countries literally laugh at (the UK) because with their 70 years of delivering nuclear power for themselves they take 14 years with a cost blowout from £18 million to £45 million on a 3200mW plant (Hinkley C) and Victorian alone needs a 4800mW plant, let alone WA, NSW, QLD and SA. You people are either corrupt or stupid...and either way should NEVER be in a position of power again.

[@Hitman-ds1ei]

Net zero should be considered a by-product of low cost clean energy policies at best

[@michaelthird8230]

My job was for 35years was operating Milk powder Dryers they run on N-Gas and power . you can not run on unreliable and expensive N-gas and power supply the dairy industry is already dying in Victoria

[@GeoffTrevenen]

Net Zero is a" Greta Pie in the sky".

[@johnleebold8894]

You’re wrong regarding risks from Nuclear Accidents. Here is the facts in regard to Chernobyl The official death toll directly attributed to Chernobyl that is recognized by the international community is just 31 people with the UN saying it could be 50. The initial steam explosion resulted in the deaths of two workers. 134 plant staff and emergency workers suffered acute radiation syndrome (ARS) due to high doses of radiation The total number of cases of thyroid cancer registered in the 1991-2015 period among those under 18 years of age in 1986 (for the whole of Belarus and Ukraine, and for the four most-contaminated oblasts of the Russian Federation), approached 20,000. About 5,000 thyroid cancer cases were attributable to radioactive iodine (iodine-131) exposure to those who were children or adolescents at the time of the accident. The remaining 15,000 cases are due to a variety of factors, such as increased spontaneous incidence rate with aging of the population, awareness of thyroid cancer risk after the accident, and improved diagnostic methods to detect thyroid cancer.

[@warrencarter194]

Aidens comments about a Nuclear Referendum fail to consider the result from the Voice. Australians voted No but State snd Federal Labor are now rolling out the Uluru Statement by stealth. Why would nuclear be any different if we voted Yes. Labor has to go.

[@DennisSpicer-q7r]

The debate should be about how to counter the extreme waste of money on an inefficient and costly power generation system. The fraction of CO2 produced by Australia is very low in the order of 0.0004%. Industry and hence our economic future is based on a reasonable power cost. China knows this and added more coal fired power stations to their grid last year than the whole of Australia's power production and we are supplying the coal to do this. Why are our governments doing this when there is no proof that we are causing a crisis. Please everyone look at the facts from people who have spent their life studying the climate and how it works and impacts us. Look at the facts that we are sending millions of our wealth to China for a system that will last 15 to 20 years max before the whole sorry cost will nee to be spent again on repairs and replacement not to mention the massive waste from failed solar panels which are not recyclable. What happened to educated people who should be helping the government put together a sensible and economic solution to this mass hysteria ????? Nuclear is one solution but if we value our planet is this really the best solution to release onto future generations? Installing wind farms and solar panels at this concentration is surely worse than what we are currently doing as this is destroying food producing land causing bird life loss on a large scale both on land and sea and removing forests that we fought to save. This is truly collective madness. Wake up Australia and remove any politicians who want to do this to the lucky country as it will surely change that situation for our children's future. Its time for ordinary people to push back against this madness.

[@MDZzzzz]

What we need to do is get rid of the term Net Zero. Net Zero doesn't mean 0 Emissions! It should be called: Carbon Neutral, where we define what we are reducing and that is the emissions humans produce (through waste, manufacturing, energy consumption etc). Australia are already doing one better and that is looking at ways to reduce non-human emissions, such as that from livestock. So be that Humans are producing emissions, there are other smart humans reducing emissions other ways, which in turn could make us Carbon Neutral. However: What is Carbon Neutral, how do we measure emissions. If humans have produced 4% emissions globally and that's enough to cause the Earth to heat up, then how do we know what has been done so far has not made us Carbon Neutral? To me Net Zero is a catch cry to sell false hope which in turn is wasting everyone's money!

[@HarryGuy-b5u]

Nuclear power plant 90 years, that means solar farms and wind farms will have to be built, used and dismantled and disposed off between 4-5 times to match nuclear. How much will that cost. The other real question is at the end life of RE who will dismantle and dispose of equipment. Will off shore and on shore owners structure their companies to have little to no assets to carry out end of life works and leave the waste to the Australian tax payers. ?????

[@petersulzberger6188]

Nothing wrong with coal powered power stations

[@brianwolthers2762]

Most people have no idea what exists in order for them to live their lives. All the industry, mining agriculture, transport and every aspect of those things go into making for example a supermarket have food on the shelves. People i know recently had a conversation that went like, it would be really nice if we could just put a few solar panels on our roofs and charge our electric car and run our household as well. Then we would be carbon neutral. Its all wishful thinking and our government seems to buy into it as well.

[@oz1953]

When talking about moving to net zero we should first ask the question why. When looking at whether there is any threat due to global warming then we need to keep in mind that there is no climate emergency, there is no threat of extinction, there is no threat of major sea level rise and there is no threat of major human migration due to extreme heat. There is climate variability - has always been and will always be - there is climate uncertainty, but there certainly is no emergency that hasn’t existed from the beginning of time. The threat is not due to man made influence on the climate - the real threat in the world today that is killing millions of individuals is due to man made power struggles, rampant militarism with a view to get access to resources of countries other than one’s own, which is simply another form of colonialism. The maintenance of the status quo, as in suppressing the economic rise of the Global South through an imagined climate threat, not allowing them to realize an industrial revolution in order to gain financial prosperity in the same way that the West has done previously and keeping the Global South in economic servitude for the benefit of the West - this is the political nonsense behind the global warming psychosis, created by the West for the benefit of the West - that is sweeping the world today.

[@questionable1789]

To extent the word you are trying to achieve you may want to reach the more indoctrinated humans in our society and use social media e.g shorts to inform. I am of opinion that you preach here to the informed not the ones that need a different perspective. I normally don't comment, but thought it was important as I listen regularly to the CIS podcasts. Great work keep it up

[@williamblue9996]

well that was one side of the argument off to fact check now

[@Robert-xs2mv]

Realty has no sides!

[@christophergame7977]

John Anderson, you can laugh at people who think that batteries generate electricity. But what about you, who don't question the supposed "need" to go to net zero?

[@bruceevennett955]

Aiden, to say you could build a nuclear plant and have it online in 10 years is fantasy and casts doubt on your credability