Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A letter has been received from Senator Van:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

"Australia's renewable energy capacity is being severely underutilised, with wind and solar is currently being curtailed on average 16% per day. That is a huge amount of clean, renewable energy not being delivered to consumers and industrial users. This wasted green energy is not going into the grid, being stored or fuelling industry and not helping us meet our emissions targets. Australia should focus on optimising the existing transmission and distribution networks to empower clean energy use near the point of generation."

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements by the whips.

David Van (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia needs to transition our coal energy production to clean, green, firmed alternatives. I believe this can happen sooner than scheduled, or, at least, it could if managed properly. Unfortunately, our current approach to and energy planning is driving the transition at a painfully slow pace and with only limited decarbonisation gains. This is time we don't have.

That's why this week in the Senate I initiated a select inquiry into energy planning and regulation in Australia in order to bring some transparency and accountability to energy planners, operators and regulators. We are making progress, with renewable energy increasingly making up more and more of our electricity supply. South Australia, for example, is meeting 70 per cent of its electricity needs and occasionally, for a brief time, meets 100 per cent via renewables. But therein lies the difficulty the transition faces—time.

Emissions from electricity generation make up nearly one-third of Australia's overall emissions. So, you see, replacing coal-fired electricity would make a massive reduction in our carbon emissions. And as the South Australian example shows, it is possible to move to 100 per cent renewable generation, but only for a short period of time. That is the problem that we need to solve: time. Time is probably one of the most important aspects for the transition. Getting more and more renewables into the system alone will not solve our time problem. We see this almost every day, especially on sunny days like today, when more supply than demand causes negative electricity prices in the National Electricity Market, causing economic curtailment—that is, clean energy not going into the grid.

There are two key contributors to this, coal and household solar: rooftop solar because the system doesn't currently control behind-the-meter generation, and coal because it can't be turned off and on for short periods of time. Again, time is working against us. The result is that existing large-scale solar is curtailed because it's uneconomic to sell, and this curtailment will only increase as we build more wind and solar, particularly in areas where weak system strength leads to further network curtailment.

One potential solution is to remove coal. This would resolve the emissions issue but leave us with insufficient energy supply during times of peak demand later in the day. The key solution to the problem is to shift electricity across time, from peak generation times to peak demand times. This is usually only a matter of a few hours. The technologies we have to 'time travel' our energy mix exist now, with two key solutions being batteries and pumped hydro. Just imagine if our energy system planners had had the foresight to insist that, before large solar farms were permitted to connect to the grid in distant areas with poor system strength, they had to provide sufficient co-located storage so that they could change the time they exported the electricity to the grid. Not only would this make more business sense for the generators; we would be able to retire coal sooner. It is only when we get a handle on this time problem that we may see jurisdictions going from getting 100 per cent of the electricity from renewables some of the time to getting that from renewables all of the time.

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I should begin by thanking Senator Van for raising this matter of public importance and for his constructive engagement on matters of energy policy. I think about time all the time, Senator Van, when it comes to our energy policies and renewable energy. I think about the time that we lost after 10 years of a government incapable of landing an energy policy, because of internal division. I think about the time that we have in front of us and how quickly we need to make sure that we are transitioning our energy market so we don't miss out on the opportunities of renewable energy and becoming a renewable energy superpower but also so that we are in a position to reduce emissions and protect things like the Great Barrier Reef, which we know is constantly deteriorating after many years of the previous government ignoring its plight. There is obviously work to do when it comes to making sure that we have the cheapest form of energy and the most reliable form of energy, but we know renewables is the pathway for that, and that's why our government is committed to it.

We are also always looking at ways to improve efficiency of the network, and addressing curtailment of renewable energy is one of the most important things that we can do. We know there are other things that we are looking at in terms of network constraints. One of the ways that we are dealing with that is making sure that there are really good indications to investors about where they should be putting new energy projects, and the creation of formal renewable energy zones aims to provide these types of locations.

Our government is committed to making sure that we reach those renewable energy targets, and making sure that they can connect to the grid is part of that. It's one of the things that we have talked about a lot in North Queensland and in Townsville. This does give me an opportunity to talk about some of the good work that is happening between the state government, the federal government and businesses to really make North Queensland a renewable or green energy superhub. We've announced projects—for example, the Prime Minister and Minister Bowen announced the Townsville Region Hydrogen Hub, a $70 million investment which will create regional jobs in Queensland but also make sure that investment is attracted from around the world. We've already seen the German government invest in this project; that's how attractive it is.

We've had other groundbreaking projects tapping into that energy potential. We are looking at retrofitting batteries—that was one of the things that we had a look at—onto electric freight trains to create the market for this type of energy. A bit further down the road, in Gladstone, we've seen a significant project take shape that will deliver Australia's first high-purity alumina-processing facility in Queensland, all powered by renewable energy, ensuring that we can meet our net zero target.

These investments are supported by local businesses. I give a shout-out to the state government, which has invested in CopperString, which is all about connecting those renewable energy zones. We know that these are creating good, local, secure jobs in regional Queensland. That's why I think it is so crazy that we've had from the Opposition, who were unable to land an energy policy for 10 years and wasted all that time, a policy now that is anti renewable but pro nuclear, that will take longer to reach net zero, that won't meet the targets that we are seeking to achieve and that will shut down the jobs that have been created.

When those opposite talk about switching to a plan of introducing nuclear power plants and shutting down the renewable energy industry, they're talking about taking jobs away from North Queenslanders and investment that is going into North Queensland. They would rather turn away these jobs and these big investments—things like copper string, pumped hydro, our hydrogen projects, renewable energy and the Solar Sunshot program, which is actually creating manufacturing of solar projects in Cairns right now. They want to shut down all of those jobs, and I think it is really important that we are clear that there is only one pathway to cheap reliable energy, and that is renewable energy. Nuclear is the most costly and slowest form of energy, and that is why we are (Time expired)

Perin Davey (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I rise, I just want to correct Senator Green on her false claim that the Liberals and Nationals are antirenewable. We are far from antirenewable. We are absolutely aware that renewables need to be part of the mix. We're also aware that there are renewable projects that are so far down the track that it would be remiss not to complete them. But we do propose bringing nuclear into the mix, because nuclear will deliver and will counter exactly some of the concerns that Senator Van has raised—that is, it will put the source of power close to the use of power. Our proposal to put nuclear energy plants by existing transmission lines, replacing and transitioning coal-fired power plants, is not only a smart use of the infrastructure that exists; it's also a smart use of the workforce that exists. So I, too, would like to thank Senator Van for raising this very prudent issue.

Let's look at time. The government—I was going to call them the opposition; I certainly hope they are so after the next election—claim that they will get to an 80-plus per cent renewable target by 2030, that it's cheap and that it has no negative impacts. I would say that that is a lie in itself. All renewable energy zone projects are currently running behind time. If you look at just the Central-West Orana Renewable Energy Zone in New South Wales as an example, the costs have skyrocketed. Under the former New South Wales government, the estimate was that it was going to cost $650 million for that zone to add three gigawatts of power to the energy market. When you actually add in the cost of the transmission lines that are required to connect that zone to where the power is going to be used, the cost is now $3.2 billion to connect 4.5 gigawatts into the system.

Why are there cost blowouts there? It is because the Labor government has not been honest with the people about the cost of transmission lines and about the time it takes to get the development applications, easements and routes negotiated for transmission lines. They're also not honest about the number of trees that need to get bulldozed, the environmental degradation of building those transmission lines and the fact that they are riding roughshod over traditional owners, farmers, fishers and regional communities to try and put these massive transmission lines right across regional Australia. If that's the cost blowout we're seeing in just one renewable energy zone, then imagine the others. In New South Wales alone, we've also got New England, Illawarra, Hunter and the South-West. If they're all going to go up by around 300 per cent, what is the true cost to the Australian people of this 'all eggs in one basket' renewable energy intermittent power supply unicorn that the Labor government is chasing?

Labor wants us to be all renewables, which is an expensive ambition. They keep talking about the time it will take to build nuclear. Well, let us get on with it. We'll show you that we can have nuclear built in a reasonable amount of time, have it built to budget and have it be part of an honest energy mix that will provide secure baseload power, which is what our industries need.

It's fair enough for Australians to put solar on their rooftops and have a household battery. But when we are talking about keeping our aluminium smelters and our large industries going, they need secure baseload power. They cannot rely on intermittent power. Senator Van was absolutely right when he mentioned South Australia and the fact that, while they claim to be 100 per cent renewable, their battery only lasts about half an hour. I thank Senator Van for raising this very important topic.

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I begin by making the observation that Boyne Smelters, located in Gladstone, is going 100 per cent renewable—so you can make aluminium on renewable energy.

We know that the climate crisis that is affecting every single Australian is caused by mining and burning coal, oil and gas. This has been well known for decades, yet Labor and the coalition continue to turn a blind eye in favour of significant political donations from billionaires who are reaping the profits of the damage they are causing to our environment. We consistently see the devastating impacts and damage from the increasing floods, bushfires, cyclones and storms nationwide.

Scientists say global heating now makes a sea level rise from the melting of the Greenland ice cap inevitable, even if fossil fuel burning was to end immediately. With continued carbon emissions and the melting of other ice caps, a multimetre sea level rise now appears likely. This would mean islands in the Torres Strait and many of our neighbours in the South Pacific would simply cease to exist. Yet this government continue to approve and subsidise new coal and gas projects; they're completely addicted to it. You can hardly blink without this government approving another coalmine, handing out a subsidy to a gas company or accepting a donation from Woodside or Santos. It's reflective of their approach to the environment too. Instead of working with the Greens to create a strong environmental protection authority and establish a climate trigger, the Labor Party turns around and offers Mr Dutton a veto on its environment policy. Why do you bother getting elected to government if you're going to check in with the Liberals before you do anything?

Again, Labor is failing to address the root cause of the climate crisis. Coal and gas are fuelling the climate breakdown, and Australia and the world cannot afford to open any more coal or gas mines. To continue to open up new coal and gas mines flies in the face of all scientific and environmental reason and will keep us on the path towards a planet that is no longer capable of supporting human life. Not only can we not open up new coal and gas mines; we must also phase out existing coal and gas extraction and energy production, and rapidly transition to a net zero emissions economy. With planning, compassion and foresight, we can tackle the greatest threat humanity has ever faced while embracing new energy opportunities, looking after workers and breathing new life into regional Australia without coal and gas.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of this matter of public importance and thank Senator Van for highlighting the need for greater investment in energy storage capacity.

Rooftop solar is the success story of our energy transition. Australia is a world leader, and now one in three households are benefiting from cheaper electricity because of the panels on their roofs. On current projections, rooftop solar will soon become the largest source of electricity generation in the country. This demonstrates Australians are early and enthusiastic adopters of renewable energy technologies if government can get those settings right.

In 2024 we have an opportunity to make home batteries the next rooftop solar revolution. The most effective way to do this is by including home batteries in the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme; in fact, the member for Indi, Dr Helen Haines, has a private member's bill in the House that will do just that. The opportunity here is huge. While 30 per cent of Australian households have solar panels, only 1.4 per cent have home batteries to store the energy captured from their roofs.

As noted in Senator Van's motion, without batteries much of the power generated during day is wasted or sold back to the grid at a fraction of its value. Extending the SRES to include home batteries will help drive down costs, making it easier for Australians to store the renewable energy they generate. Inclusion in the scheme would mean a $14,500 home battery could be reduced by as much as $3,000—immediate and substantial financial relief for households looking to invest in their energy future. More than that, it would lock in thousands of dollars in energy bill savings for 10 to 15 years. In addition to cheaper bills, more batteries mean reduced emissions. The installation of 500,000 home batteries across Australia would be the equivalent of taking 500,000 cars off the road every single year.

Extending the SRES to include home batteries is a no-brainer. The government should pick up Dr Haines's Cheaper Home Batteries Bill, pass it into legislation and unlock savings for Australians. Here is an Independent who has brought a good idea to the parliament, and I would urge the government to actually take it seriously. She's a good-faith actor in this space, and this bill would make a meaningful difference. It makes sense, it's backed by people in the energy sector and by experts in this space, and I'd urge the government to engage with her and pass it through the lower house.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Van for this matter of public importance. Without criticising the science, cost and impracticability of net zero, which I did last night and will do again tomorrow, it's certainly possible to talk about wasted capacity in the electricity sector. The ad hoc stance towards solar power in Australia has meant that a lot of people have fitted solar panels without battery storage. This is a distortion in the market as a result of government interference—subsidising solar panels early on while only subsidising wall batteries much later. In fact, the distortion in the energy market as a result of government interference is exactly why energy prices in Australia are out of control. In the most energy rich country in the world we should have the cheapest retail electricity in the world; it should not be amongst the dearest.

Remember, though, that One Nation is the party of free enterprise. If an Australian homeowner, body corporate or business wants to spend their own money to install solar power, connect it to a battery and then use that investment to start trading in electricity, all power to you. In fact, homeowners organising themselves to direct the output of their solar panels into community batteries is a way of getting into the energy business.

The government promised community batteries, and I know it has so far funded 370. Only one of the 370 grants went to a community organisation. The other 369 were to either government departments or energy companies. Why are we giving grants to energy companies to build big batteries when the proceeds of those big batteries will be sold back to the grid? Can't they finance themselves? The Albanese government are handing out taxpayers' money to their big business mates at a time that everyday Australians need the money for themselves.

Electric vehicles are another area where energy trading could be an option. Modern EVs use a battery which can hold 100 kilowatt hours of electricity. If charged from the owner's own solar panels during the day, selling that electricity into the grid during peak hour will help stave off blackouts. Instead, all of these measures fracture energy generation and make the task of maintaining the reliability of the grid harder and more expensive.

There is a better solution. Modern clean-coal technology allows for the retrofitting of a device which captures all of the gas coming out of a coal fired plant and converts the gas into useful products like fertiliser, AdBlue and ethanol. In the language of the woke, that means zero emissions. This process costs less than $100 million per power station and works best using sea water. Instead of spending more than $1 trillion and up to $2 trillion to simply replace our electricity generation and convert to electrification, clean coal will achieve the same objective for a few hundred million dollars. Clean coal is the real wasted resource in the Australian energy market. Clean coal will reduce the cost of living under Labor.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for the discussion has expired.