27 March 2025

Is Australia’s renewable energy target making power more expensive?

| Shri Gayathirie Rajen
Join the conversation
73
Aiden Morrison

Aiden Morrison, a data scientist and physicist who works for the think tank the Centre for Independent Studies, recently spoke at a forum in Wagga Wagga about how solar farms will affect the region. Photo: Shri Gayathirie Rajen.

While Australians grapple with rising electricity costs, critics argue that renewable energy is making them more expensive.

Rural communities in the Riverina are now at the heart of the debate over large-scale renewable infrastructure, economic feasibility, and uncertainties surrounding the impact on viable farmland.

Think tank the Centre for Independent Studies’ director and physicist Aiden Morrison claims Australians have been misled into believing that renewable energy is the cheapest option when the cost of implementing it has not been accounted for.

“The current push for renewables is driven by government subsidies rather than market forces,” Mr Morrison said.

“No major renewable project has reached full financial close without government underwriting.

“Essentially, taxpayer money is being used to force these developments into the system, even when they are not commercially viable. This ultimately puts upward pressure on energy prices.”

Mr Morrison said Australia had 40 per cent renewable energy — eight per cent from hydro and just over 30 per cent from wind and solar.

“To meet the 82 per cent target, we would need more than double the wind and solar deployment rate.

“However, we are already seeing significant community resistance, and many of the best sites have already been taken.

“This means future projects will require more transmission lines, be built on less suitable land, or encroach on valuable agricultural and conservation areas.”

READ ALSO Ditch QR code in ‘ugly’ app, public transport lobby tells MyWay+ inquiry

Mr Morrison said a freedom of information (FOI) request revealed the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) directed the Australian Energy Market Operator to assume that the 82 per cent renewable target would be met, limiting alternative modelling scenarios.

A DCCEEW spokesperson told Region that CSIRO’s GenCost report consistently found that firm renewables were the cheapest form of new generation.

“The path to 82 per cent renewables is accelerating in Australia, with the Clean Energy Regulator reporting a record installation of 7.5 GW in renewables in 2024,” the spokesperson said.

“A grid with more renewables is central to the government’s target of reducing emissions by 43 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030. With at least 107 countries committed to net zero, either by law or through policy, the energy target is critical to Australia’s emissions reduction efforts, replacement of unreliable coal generators, and ensuring future prosperity.”

Mr Morrison also claims that GenCost does not include the full system costs of renewable energy, such as transmission, backup power, and grid integration. He suggests governments are using CSIRO’s modelling to justify renewable energy policies despite underestimating the costs of large-scale renewable rollouts.

A CSIRO spokesperson said the cost of firming renewables was included in the GenCost report.

“We call it the integration costs, and these are the additional costs of ensuring supply is reliable when using intermittent energy sources. Integration costs include investments in storage, peaking generation, transmission, and system security devices such as synchronous condensers. Modelling determines the most cost-effective combination of these investments.”

CSIRO said that while renewable energy could influence the cost of electricity, it did not directly control prices.

“Electricity prices are controlled by the balance of supply and demand,” the spokesperson said.

“If supply is tight relative to demand, then prices go up. If supply is significantly more than demand, then prices go down. In 2022, global natural gas supply constraints, triggered by sanctions on Russia due to the Ukraine war, together with unplanned coal plant outages, caused a price spike. This is still reverberating through the electricity system.”

READ ALSO ACCC wants forced changes over supermarket pricing practices

Mr Morrison is also calling for a royal commission into the government’s handling of the renewable energy model, saying it has misled Australians about the associated costs and there has been a lack of transparency.

Region contacted the Australian Energy Regulator (AER) for clarification on the impact of renewables on electricity prices, the causes of recent price hikes, and measures to ensure affordability and stability.

“We understand it remains a challenging time for energy consumers. This year, we’ve seen cost pressures across nearly every component of the draft Default Market Offer [DMO] — not only wholesale costs but also network and retailer costs to serve customers. As part of the DMO consultation process, the AER will continue to examine costs before making our final determination.

“We’ve observed that when renewables are available, they are increasingly setting wholesale electricity prices and leading to negative price periods. During the evening peak outside of solar hours, dispatchable forms of generation such as coal, gas, hydro, and batteries are still setting the wholesale price over 90 per cent of the time.

“The other key factor is wholesale market volatility. In 2024, we saw a large number of high-price events, which have led to increasing average prices. These high-price events are often driven by a combination of high demand, coal generator and network outages, and low solar and wind output.”

Region also asked the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission what measures it took to protect consumers from unnecessary price hikes in the energy sector.

“We monitor compliance with the electricity retail code, which supports customers in comparing electricity plans,” an ACCC spokesperson said.

“We examine electricity price outcomes in the sector through our inquiry reports. Our December inquiry report examined electricity price outcomes using data collection from plans and customers in SA, VIC, NSW, and South East Queensland.

“This report highlighted that customers on older electricity plans paid higher prices than those on newer plans and the value to customers in switching their electricity plan.”

ACCC’s monitoring of compliance with the electricity retail code led to the Federal Court ordering EnergyAustralia to pay $14 million in penalties for making false, misleading or deceptive statements to hundreds of thousands of consumers about electricity prices and failing to provide mandatory information required by the code.

Original Article published by Shri Gayathirie Rajen on Region Riverina.

Join the conversation

73
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest
Capital Retro5:52 pm 28 Mar 25

Most of you would agree that I am simple minded.
So, is it too simple for me to say that the mission to become “the world’s only renewable super power” will come at a super price.
The media is pathetic in saying simplistically “nuclear costs too much and takes too long” while at the same time ignores the unknown cost of renewables and the fact that its implementation is going nowhere.

Skipping your bait, you are wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Any other advice needed, feel free to call.

“Most of you would agree that I am simple minded.”

I didn’t read any further.

Quite right CR, ideology has been preferred to science for a long time now by some. Meanwhile Tuvalu continues to expand its land area, growing not sinking.

Btw isn’t it rather easy to identify the young posters, the depth of argument is as shallow as a puddle. The puddles we were told wouldn’t occur again because of climate change.

Another article for you not to read Penfold.

Whilst Tuvalu may be growing, the issue is far more complex than than culture warriors and purveyors of meme science who pretend climate change is not real would have us believe.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-19/fact-check-is-the-island-nation-tuvalu-growing/10627318

Interesting to see your lack of understanding of sea level rise, Penfold. Yes, sea levels have risen around Tuvalu and still more around the Solomons, for example.

Islands do not commonly sink. They erode as has happened in the Solomons. Tuvalu does not have the same steepness so in contrast is accreting sand and gravel even while the sea level rises despite the fact the chain averages only a couple of metres above MSL. Both island groups are vulnerable to an increase in storm and wave intensity. You can see similar mechanisms in action in the destruction and recovery of sand beaches in Australia.

Are your comments exemplary of your general standard of knowledge of science?

Actually Seano it’s really simple. For years we’ve heard these islands are sinking. When evidence shows the opposite is true, it debunks the claims of the climate evangelists. Even the ABC worked it out at one point.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-19/fact-check-is-the-island-nation-tuvalu-growing/10627318

Axon it’s so impressive how you’re an expert in so many fields, despite all the other expertise floating around. Sinking, erosion, sand and gravel, it so impressive. I’m almost in awe except for one factor …. science disagrees !

Fair dinkum Penfold, for once try not to beclown yourself and go back actually read the article, it’s not saying what you claim it’s saying.

Penfold, I quoted science.

You will find it referenced in the article you mentioned without understanding.

The_Cassowary12:11 pm 28 Mar 25

“…Companies which have been publicly disclosed and confirmed by the Centre for Independent Studies (CIS) as its funders include:
– BHP Billiton
– Shell…

Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.

It’s not rocket science. If you look at the CPI energy numbers the power price explosion began during the Gillard years when the renewable dream started, along with the RET of then 20%. More renewables simply means higher power prices.

None one of that is true.

Apologies it was actually the Rudd years. During Rudd-Gillard-Rudd power prices more than doubled according to the ABS.

Gee Seano, who to believe ….. you or the ABS CPI statistics …. tough choice 🤣

Sadly it’s very true Axon Our once great energy competitive advantage has disappeared up in smoke because of the crazy renewable dream .

“It’s not rocket science”

Yes, who needs experts to look at the complex causes of electricity price increases, policy, regulation, planning, construction, operation, network optimisation etc?

We can just correlate one metric with our favourite ideological position to find a causative relationship. Easy peasy.

Glad none of the tens of billions of network upgrades on ageing and undersized infrastructure occurred at that time, it was dem damn renewables. LOL.

Still waiting for the list of the issues raised around Gencost/ISP and your detailed analysis of their impacts to the modelling and forecast generation costs.

It’s not that hard chewy. Power prices before the renewables brain snap were very consistent. In fact price rises between 1986 and 2007 were lower than inflation according to the ABS. And then along came the silly RET and as renewables have grown as a share of the energy mix, prices have soared. It is easy to blame renewables because coal prices have also been consistent outside the carbon tax era. Rudd and Labor have killed our national competitiveness.

As for gencost feel free to review the thread. All your answers are there but clearly they’re going straight through to the keeper.

Link the statistics and explain how they prove your claim….I bet you won’t….although that’s a safe bet because you never do.

” Power prices before the renewables brain snap were very consistent. In fact price rises between 1986 and 2007 “

This is idiotic. It’s literally suggesting we’d have lower power prices if we had not RET when the opposite is true.

“But consider the counterpoint. Let’s say the Coalition gets in, rips up plans for offshore wind zones and puts the renewable transition on ice. What happens then?

Our coal plants would continue to age, leading to more frequent breakdowns and unreliable power, especially during summer peak demand. Gas is so expensive as to be a last resort. Nuclear would be far in the future. What would be left? Quite likely, expensive retrofits of existing coal plants”.

https://theconversation.com/renewables-are-cheap-so-why-isnt-your-power-bill-falling-252391

ABS download 640107 table 9 data 6 columns AD and CU. Knock yourself out !

Sadly Penfold, your Latin is trying to be as bad as your logic, although it has a way to go.

The fact that renewable energy is cheaper long term than non-renewables is independent from a carbon tax.

The period you cherrypick is recognised (see Productivity Commission reports) as a period of chronic under-investment in energy infrastructure, followed of course by catch-up which fed into prices. Why did prices not fall as promised when Abbott repealed the carbon price in 2014, before there was significant renewable investment? Why did they fall after Rudd was elected? They did, but unlike your partisan political lens I view that as external factors like the rises, not government action. With renewables, wholesale prices are falling, as “Susan Creasey” repeats interminably.

I notice people have asked for your critique of Gencost. I checked the extensive thread to which I think you referred and found nothing from you but claims contrary to available evidence, with zero attempt to argue or support your position, so I will be interested to see whether here you can avoid being a hollow vessel.

Axon – perhaps my reading of Latin is on par with your reading of English, it couldn’t have been made too much easier for you with a page number and section. The gencost report assumed nuclear would have 30 year lifespan and 50% capacity. The reality is more like 60+ years and 90% capacity. In doing so they immediately overstated the costs of nuclear by at least a whopping factor of 360%.

Sadly for the once-reputable CSIRO, it appears they’ve been forced by the hapless energy minister to produce a political rather than scientific one. It’s not worth the paper it’s written on.

Feel free to read the AFRs analysis.

https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/the-flaws-in-csiro-s-anti-nuclear-pro-renewables-report-20240611-p5jktp

Penfold,
Your simplistic attempt at correlation of those two metrics is quite amusing.

What was the wholesale electricity price trend through that period?

By your argument, they should have been rising sharply.

Except they didn’t, they were flat or dropping through that period.

In fact, wholesale electricity prices didn’t rise significantly well into the last Coalition government’s tenure.

Almost like there are multiple factors impacting retail electricity prices.

As for your last sentence womp womp. Unable to explain your position, nor respond to straightforward questions.

Also Penfold,
What is the impact on the NPVs for investment of using 60 or 80 year economic lifespans instead of 30?

And how is a capacity factor of 90% for nuclear going to be achieved considering demand and generation patterns in the NEM.

For example, who is going to be purchasing the Nuclear power in the middle of the day when NEM prices are zero or even negative?

Not sure how the wholesale price is relevant chewy, perhaps you’d care to explain. Consumers don’t pay it and the article is about the consumer impact.

Btw sounds like you’re still struggling to understand how flawed the gencost shamozzle was. Not even the very simple analysis and explanation from the AFR reporter helped you ? Like i said, it’s not rocket science.

Penfold trusts a handily conservative journalist relying on a lobby group compared with multiple business people and scientists drawing on industry experience and financial data. What a crock.

The very page to which Penfold refers considers and rebuts his claims from evidence. It considers longer time frames. But Penfold has his eyes shut, fingers in his ears, yelling la-la-la-la.

Here is a list of industry members of AEMO: https://aemo.com.au/-/media/files/about_aemo/board_and_governance/aemo–industry-member-list.pdf?la=en

Gencost is the AEMO and CSIRO report. Feel free to read it, Penfold, with your eyes open this time. I hold less hope for your brain.

It is also worth noting from ABS reference Penfold provided that since 1989, the first year in which the two items were distinguished, “other household fuels” (i.e. mostly gas) has risen at a rate of 5.07% annually while electricity has risen 4.38% annually over the same period. It does not sound like much until you notice that is a difference of ~16% per year between them, compounding. Those who want to increase gas in place of renewables want you to pay more and to keep paying it.

Once again it seems Penfold has shot himself in the foot with his own reference. Bit of a habit.

“Not sure how the wholesale price is relevant chewy”

Penfold is not sure how the market cost of electricity generation is relevant to the price of electricity to consumers?

Bahahahahaha.

Penfold obviously thinks the price of crude oil is not relevant to consumer petrol prices as well……….

And see above around my straight forward questions raised for you on Gencost.

How about you answer them this time.

Particularly when the very claims made in the AFR article have already been answered and refuted in the Gencost research itself. If Penfold would actually read and understand it.

It’s not rocket science.

Chewy – if you have to ask the question “What is the impact on the NPVs for investment of using 60 or 80 year economic lifespans instead of 30” then we’re not going to get very far are we. Are you seriously asking what difference it makes whether an energy production facility – with high up front costs but low running costs – whether it last 30 years or 80 ? If that’s the case then i’d suggest back to basics.

Axon – when you choose to attack the journalist and not the substance of the issue then the white flag has come out. Similarly when you lower yourself to sledging other posters. You’re now sounding like Seano with a new name.

Penfold, please describe in what respect identifying a left-right political leaning constitutes “attack”? It is always correct to recognise bias, yet wrong to let it blind you to competent research and facts, as you do.

And have you read AEMO/CSIRO Gencost with your eyes open? Of course not, which is why you continue to avoid the point that you have none, and now seem also to have lost the plot on the topic.

It appears also that your understanding of NPV calculation, what must go in to it, may be less than you imagine.

Your claim that nuclear will last 60-80 years rather than the planned 30-40 is based on nothing but a massive assumption which also conveniently ignores the fact that even even if the life of these plants can be extended it’s not without massive further investment.

More of idiotic, nonsensical, meme based magical thinking that assumes nuclear is magically and will just happen and work forever and cost nothing and have no problems and waste? What waste.

I note you still haven’t addressed the huge cost and time blowouts for Hinkley C, Penfold. Something that’s not uncommon in the nuclear energy industry.

I note you still haven’t addressed the fact that the Energy Retailers and Generators have rejected Dutton’s plan because the figures don’t stack up. Nuclear in Australia is not going to happen even if Dutton wins.

Why haven’t you addressed these issues Penfold? No memes on Telegrams with “clever” takes for you to regurgitate here?

“Similarly when you lower yourself to sledging other posters. You’re now sounding like Seano with a new name.”

This is some rich drivel coming from the clown who rejects information no matter the source while providing exactly none to back his ludicrous assumptions and claims. Including rejecting the Gencost report and when asked to explain his criticisms and to back them with evidence becomes increasingly vague to the point his claims can’t be challenged because they are too nebulous for rational people to understand…which is the point.

Penfold prefers to be slippery than accurate because he knows he can’t win on the facts.

Axon – NPV calcs have little to do with this issue, it’s about the cost to consumers of power. Sounds like you’re trying to throw in a curve ball there. “Look over there !” As for gencost, if they get such basic assumptions wrong then the whole report is discredited, as many experts have pointed out. Sounds like a case of confirmation bias.

Here’s some MIT research which may help you. It’s called “Why the lifetime of nuclear plants is getting longer”.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/04/04/1090630/old-nuclear-plants/

They quote, amongst other things that:

“A handful of reactors have already been approved to operate for a total of 80 years, including two units at Turkey Point in Florida …. The reality is that a nuclear power plant has very few truly life-limiting components.”

Perhaps you could learn something by reading it. As could the CSIRO.

As for the AFR, the old Fairfax. If you think they’re right leaning then you must be from the hard left, a green or a trot. Or from the ABC 😂

Did you actually read the article?

It’s not saying that all nuclear plants can double their life spans or that expanding plants comes cost free as you are clearly implying.

You really are beyond clueless.

Penfold, in your post to chewy14 at 10.06 am you tried to rebut with your notion of NPV. Now, you say it “has little to do with the issue”. Wow. There goes the other foot, off where the “it’s about the price and not about the price” went.

Do you have qualifications and experience in finance and investment or business cases? You show otherwise again by saying “a handful” of reactors have been approved to operate for 80 years as if this were to buttress your arbitrary disagreement with experts. You are aware that the majority of Australian coal plants are beyond their design lives, mostly with expensive refits, and some have shut early because they are uncompetitive? Do you understand the significance of these facts?

You have not managed to find any rebuttal to the plain facts that renewables are cheaper, nuclear the most expensive. Your sole effort is to declare Gencost’s assumptions wrong without being able to produce a shred of argument or evidence to back it up.

Why are you discussing the AFR? I did not. Your struggles to avoid are remarkable.

Axon it sounds like you’re forgetting what you post. You referred to the AFR article and declared “Penfold trusts a handily conservative journalist ….”. I’m pleased you mentioned aging coal plants because a) they produce baseload power unlike renewables and b) they underpinned our decades long competitive advantage in energy before the expensive and unreliable wind and solar came along and forced up prices.

But alas it appears you now want to argue that night is day despite not laying a finger on the criticism of the gencost report. Oh well, ignorance is bliss as they say.

Penfold,
“Are you seriously asking what difference it makes whether an energy production facility – with high up front costs but low running costs – whether it last 30 years or 80 ?”

Yes, its a relatively straightforward question that anyone who understands the basics would get.

I’ll give you a hint, the change in percentage terms is similar to your IQ.

And still waiting on your response around capacity factors. Who’s going to be buying this Nuclear energy in the middle of the day?

Also, LOL.

“Axon – when you choose to attack the journalist and not the substance of the issue then the white flag has come out”

Penfold 24th March:
“chewy, one wouldn’t expect anything less from the ABC”

Penfold 25th March:
“As for the Clean Energy Council, thanks for the laugh.”.

Penfold has now overtaken the other resident ignorati and taken it to a new level.

Very amusing.

Wow chewy, presumably maths wasn’t a strong point at school.

Thanks chewy, you’ve finally given me a compliment suggesting an IQ of 267. 👨‍🎓

“Wow chewy, presumably maths wasn’t a strong point at school.”

Yes, we are all now aware how poor your mathematical, technical and economic knowledge is.

Because otherwise you’d know that the NPVs don’t change significantly, whether you are using 60 or 80 years for economic life.

Similarly you’d know that the claimed Nuclear capacity factors can’t actually be achieved in Australia, with abundant, low cost renewables setting the market price.

All responded to in the Gencost report you havent read. It’s now very clear to everyone you dont have the faintest idea of what you’re talking about.

Penfold wants more expensive power, completely subsidised by taxpayer funds. Why do you support bigger government and increased wasteful expenditure?

Hi Shri, It might be useful to provide some background about the CIS? Readers might benefit from understanding its bias on this subject.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.