Posts

Electrification Overhaul: The Costly Future of Australia’s Energy Strategy

, ,

Electrification is an essential component of the Albanese government’s net zero strategy. It involves turning every device that consumes energy to electric: replacing petrol cars with electric vehicles, swapping gas cook tops for electric ones, removing gas hot-water systems in favour of electric, and even making barbecues electric. Everyday Australians will bear the costs of this insanity. To me, it’s unwise to place all our eggs in the electricity basket when we are reimagining our grid to depend entirely on weather-dependent generation. Yet, to the government, such heresy is “disinformation.”

Achieving electrification will require a massive upgrade to our electricity transmission network to meet the higher demand, especially from electric vehicles. However, even this alone will not achieve electrification, as there just isn’t enough generation capacity from wind and solar to ever meet the heightened demand. Consequently, the government is pursuing companion strategies.

First, people will be incentivised to purchase wall batteries to go with their rooftop solar systems, which will connect to the grid. To manage evening and morning peak demand, the government plans to draw power from these batteries, restricting users from operating power-intensive appliances like air conditioners and pool pumps.

If you have an EV, this strategy means the power stored in your wall battery—intended for overnight charging—will also be taken. There’s even a plan to plug EVs directly into the grid to draw any charge you may have managed to store in your battery if required to keep the grid working.

This won’t be enough on its own, so the government has introduced a new building code mandatory for new homes, which will add about $50,000 to construction costs. These changes include completely sealing homes to keep heat out, which may lead to moisture build up and mould.

Ceiling fans will replace air-conditioners, while rooms and homes will become smaller, ceilings lower and spaces more compact, with no garages and narrower streets, as people will not have cars.

Welcome to your future under electrification. Watch the video for more on this madness.

Transcript

Electrification is an essential part of the Albanese government’s net zero strategy. Electrification consists of taking every device that consumes energy and making it electric: petrol cars replaced with electric cars; gas cooktops replaced with electric ones; gas hot-water systems ripped out and replaced with electric; barbecues only electric—which is no fun at all. Everyday Australians pay the cost. 

To me, it’s unwise to put all our eggs in the electricity basket when we are reimagining our electricity grid to rely entirely on weather-dependent generation. To the government, of course, such heresy is mere ‘disinformation’. I’m sure Minister Bowen is champing at the bit to declare any online critics of net zero as threatening the environment, leading to a ban on ‘disinformation’. 

The truth is that electrification is something we must debate. There are real risks to the public, and the price tag is astronomical. So let’s start with safety. The internet is reporting that China has banned electric vehicles from underground car parks, following a Daily Telegraph story on the weekend. The inference is that the ban was from the government, when in fact the Telegraph made clear the ban was from car-park owners and from apartments above the car parks. It’s businesses acting to protect themselves and their customers. Local news reports that property owners were spurred into action after 11 intense battery fires in Hangzhou. The reports have revived fears in China that the new low-carbon-dioxide technology is more trouble than it’s worth. Definitely—yes, it is. One viral social media post involved a Hangzhou car showroom catching fire after a display car spontaneously combusted. It was a brand-new vehicle. There was no issue of faulty maintenance or handling. As has been correctly reported, the science is clear: ‘when EV batteries do overheat, they’re susceptible to something called thermal runaway,’ says Edith Cowan University academic Muhammad Zhar. This article goes on to say: 

That’s when physical damage— 

or a manufacturing fault— 

triggers a chemical chain reaction within the battery. 

It can be a short circuit. It can be a puncture. Or an external heat. 

Such damage can lead to a high-temperature fire or toxic gas explosion. 

“About 95 per cent of battery fires are classed as ignition fires, which produce jet-like directional flames. The other 5 per cent involve a vapour cloud explosion.” 

That was written by Edith Cowan University academic Muhammad Azhar. 

Recently, five cars were destroyed when a damaged battery fell from an EV parked at Sydney airport. A Tesla went up in flames on the road after contacting debris that fell from a truck near Goulburn. No ways have been developed of smothering a lithium-ion fire. The safest place for an EV is in the open air, where any fire can be contained until it burns out without destroying the property of others in the process. 

Secondly, when it comes to electrification, the elephant in the room is cost. The process consists of rebuilding the national electricity grid, generation and transmission. Energex and Powerlink have identified emerging limitations in the electricity networks supplying the Brisbane CBD. The power grids in Brisbane and across Australia were not built for our modern population density and certainly weren’t built to take the full load of energy that’s now required to electrify houses, cars and businesses. They note corrective action is required to avoid network overload and to avoid load shedding—known as ‘brownout’—which is when the power is selectively switched off to houses and businesses to prevent a wider blackout. Smart meters will make brownouts easier, providing the ability for power companies to remotely turn off air-conditioners and power to living areas, leaving the kitchen circuit functioning to keep the fridge on. New houses are being built with that circuit arrangement. It’s control. 

The cost to rewire the grid to convey solar, wind and pumped hydro from the point of generation to the cities and then rewire the city and suburban grid for the higher electricity demand has not been costed. I have asked the minister repeatedly in the last few weeks for those costings, and it is clear that none exist. Let me help the government. Visual Capitalist consultancy has done independent costings showing that the cost of rewiring the grid and adding firming—back-up batteries and pumped hydro—is about 30 per cent of the overall electrification cost, or $300 billion, on the consensus figure of Australia’s $1 trillion cost—which I think is about half of it. 

In the electrification agenda, cost concerns relate to the national building code. The idea is to avoid having to rewire at least parts of the grid through lowering household electricity usage to make room for charging EVs in the existing power grid. The targeted production is 50 per cent less power—half of what you’re using. Remember that Australians are already using 10 per cent less power than five years ago. The Australian Building Codes Board has a rating system called NatHERS which rates housing standards from one star to 10 stars. The current code requires seven stars. The code includes a measure of whole-of-house energy efficiency, which rates your home compliance with a net zero ideology, including heating and cooling, hot water systems, lighting, pool and spa pumps, cooking and even plug-in appliances. Our Big Brother is poking their nose into every aspect of your home in the name of saving the environment. 

The actual building code component of the building code calls for the sealing of homes to prevent outside air coming in. This creates issues with condensation, meaning mould, which other aspects of the code may alleviate—may. Clearly nobody involved in this new code has lived in a Queenslander-style home that relies on airflow to keep the house cool. The new ideology-driven code will add $50,000 to the cost of construction of a new home, partially offset through lower electricity costs. The reduction in electricity costs will not be a lot because your energy bill is composed mainly of a fee for poles and wires, margin fees and admin fees, not electricity usage. As I have explained, the poles and wires charge is going higher than Elon Musk’s spaceship. 

The cost of the new code to everyday Australians will be massive. We have 11 million homes in Australia and, so far, only recently built inner-city apartments meet the code. A quick calculation: $50,000 per home times 10 million homes is a $500 billion theoretical cost. Not all homes will be done. Many will just be bulldozed and replaced with tiny apartments to house Labor’s new arrivals. Economies of scale may result. Yet the actual cost of building upgrades is expected to be 15 per cent of the transition cost. With a transition cost of $1 trillion, that’s building upgrades costing $150 billion. On the more likely $2 trillion transition cost, building upgrades will cost $300 billion. That’s money everyday Australians will have to pay or will lose when they sell a non-compliant property for a reduced price. In all the time I have heard net zero debated, the shocking cost of converting buildings has never been mentioned 

And wait; there’s more! Converting transport—trucks, shipping and aviation—is not mentioned. It’s another seven per cent—$70 billion. Eight per cent of the cost is made up of hydrogen development, carbon dioxide scrubbing and industry conversion costs. Add another $80 billion. The cost of new generation to replace affordable and reliable coal power with weather-dependent solar and wind fairytale power is the remaining 40 per cent, or $400 billion. Remember, we already have this coal generation. Electrification requires us to shut down the generation we already have and build it over again in solar and wind. The problem climate change carpetbaggers are now running into is simply this: the best places for these things have been taken. New installations are going further out, requiring higher transmission costs and higher maintenance costs. Residents are starting to see the environmental damage caused to our native forest and animals, and to farmland. The resistance has started. 

Let’s not forget wind and solar last for, at best, 15 years and then have to be replaced again and again and again. This means that every single industrial wind and solar installation will need to be replaced at least once before 2060, and more likely twice. The replacement process will be never-ending. Every 15 years the whole lot gets replaced again and again and again. The transmission network will require constant maintenance. Having added an additional 10,000 kilometres of poles and wires, the extra maintenance costs will remain in electricity bills forever. The truth is the public will never finish paying for net zero electrification. 

The good people over at Visual Capitalist have given calculating the cost of net zero a fair crack based on data on US National Public Utilities Council. Their total cost to electrify Western countries before 2060 is US$110 trillion. Insane! Australia’s share of that is currently estimated at $1 trillion; however, looking through the US data, which is more advanced than ours, a cost as high as $2 trillion is much more likely. 

The costings I’ve presented tonight are not firm. I hope they encourage the government to come clean with the costings they have to allow for an open, mature debate—one which asks: is it time to walk away and try something else? Like emission-free coal, for example. For a fraction of this money, we can simply retrofit coal plants with new technology that captures and converts carbon dioxide to useful products like fertiliser. Or stop collecting this because carbon dioxide is beneficial. For some reason, the government doesn’t want to talk about new coal plants. Hmmm; I wonder where that list of ALP donations is again? I suggest journalists go looking. 

This energy fairytale is going to cost so much money it’s never going to happen. Australia can’t afford it. How can Australians who are struggling with the cost of living under Labor afford trillions for electrification? The further we get into this, the more stupid and the more dishonest the idea looks. Ideology-driven bureaucrats, politicians, academics and journalists have put us on a path to ruin. Climate change carpetbaggers will be this country’s death. The rorting, the boondoggles and the waste of taxpayer money is just getting started. One Nation will end the net zero electrification scam and make Australia affordable again. Net zero is a scam, and One Nation is the only party that will stop it. 

/1 Comment/by

Government HIDES Secret Ute Tax Report

,

Labor wants to punish diesel and petrol car makers so that you’ll be forced to buy an electric vehicle despite the diesel powered Ford Ranger, a dual cab Ute, still being Australia’s most bought car last year. They continue to claim their new tax won’t impact the car you drive, but that’s nonsense. The DCCEEW has a report sitting in a filing cabinet – a cost-benefit analysis that would likely expose their lies and do not want made public.

So much for transparency and accountability from the Albanese Labor Government. Ditch the ridiculous United Nations/World Economic Forum net-zero targets and let Australians buy and drive whatever car they want.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll tie up some things. Going back to the new car regime, could you please produce the document Fuel quality standards implementation: cost benefit analysis by GHD and ACIL Allen on notice? 

Ms Rowley: You might recall from discussion in this committee at the last round of estimates that, in the committee relating to transport and infrastructure, a public interest immunity claim was made with respect to that modelling. Both with respect to the fact that it speaks to cabinet-in-confidence deliberations and because it includes modelling of market impacts and market outcomes—commercial-in-confidence arrangements—that public interest immunity claim stands, so we are not in a position to table that document.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re required to produce to this committee any information or documents that are requested. There is no privacy, security, freedom of information or other legislation that overrides this committee’s constitutional powers to give evidence, and you are protected from any potential prosecution as a result of your evidence or producing documents to this committee. If anyone seeks to pressure you against producing documents, that is also a contempt. If you wish to raise an immunity claim, there are proper processes.  

Mr Fredericks: A public interest immunity claim has already been raised—  

Senator ROBERTS: Has it been accepted by the Senate?  

Mr Fredericks: by the transport minister. As I understand it, it hasn’t been resolved, and we as public servants are bound by that minister’s current claim of public interest immunity.  

Senator ROBERTS: So it hasn’t been resolved yet?  

Ms Rowley: Senator, apologies. It might be that I misunderstood which document you were requesting because you opened this with reference to the new vehicle efficiency standard. Is it the modelling related to that, or is it about liquid fuels?  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s the document entitled Fuel quality standards implementation: cost benefit analysis by GHD and ACIL Allen.  

Ms Rowley: Apologies. I was referring to a different document. I misunderstood because of your reference to fuel efficiency standards.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s fine. We all make mistakes.  

Mrs Svarcas: Senator, Fuel quality standards implementation: cost benefit analysis is publicly available and presents the modelling without the commercial information.  

Senator ROBERTS: Where is it?  

Mrs Svarcas: It is available online. We can give you the link for that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, if you can.  

Senator McKENZIE: Have you put the ACIL modelling up?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, that’s what we’re talking about.  

Mrs Svarcas: The cost-benefit analysis is up, without the commercial information.  

Senator ROBERTS: This may have been the document you were talking about, Mr Fredericks. I’d also like you to produce the document Modelling and analysis of a regulated fuel efficiency standard: stage 1 report by ACIL Allen.  

Mr Fredericks: Yes, that’s the one I was referring to.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s still in the hands of the minister, who’s claiming immunity.  

Mr Fredericks: My understanding is that the minister for transport has made a public interest immunity claim against the publication of that report. I think it is still unattended to by the Senate, so we’re bound by that for the time being.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Senate hasn’t attended to it yet?  

Mr Fredericks: That’s my understanding. It’s in another department.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on. If you make the claim that your car carbon dioxide tax won’t make cars more expensive, Minister, or take away choice, why won’t you produce the reports you have about the costs and benefits? Why the secrecy and the lack of debate? Why the secrecy about the data you have in your possession right now about the effect on Australian cars, four-wheel drives and utes? These are vehicles fundamental to our economy and to many people’s livelihoods.  

Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, what question are you actually asking?  

Senator ROBERTS: Why won’t you produce the documents? Senator McAllister: I think, as the secretary has already explained, Minister King has indicated that she claims public interest immunity over the documents. It’s not my claim— 

Senator McKENZIE: You don’t get to say, ‘PII—we win.’  

Senator McAllister: Senator—  

Senator McKENZIE: You’ve got to actually have a reason.  

CHAIR: Senator McKenzie— 

Senator ROBERTS: Why are you afraid of people knowing?  

CHAIR: We’re talking about a PII claim in a different committee, doing something different. That’s their business. We can prosecute it after the event if it has some relevance to this committee; otherwise, I think we’re just going to go round in circles here.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, let’s move on.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts has the call for another five.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Coomera Connector 2 in Brisbane—can you please provide an update on any progress of a referral or any conversations in relation to Coomera Connector 2 in Queensland, the extension of a freeway?  

Mr Fredericks: I’m looking at a lot of blank faces behind me. We might need to take that one on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: If you could, please. Let’s come to water. I’ve been told in two different sessions in the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee that this is the spot for my water questions, so here we go. Is your department working with the Queensland government on the $20 billion Pioneer-Burdekin Pumped Hydro Project, and, if not, have they asked for federal assistance in planning or financing?  

Mr Fredericks: I can tell you that that question belongs in water day, which is—  

CHAIR: Friday week.  

Mr Fredericks: Friday week. I lose track.  

CHAIR: On 2 June. Come on down! Mr Fredericks: I suspect there will be a number of questions along those same lines. That’s on water day, Friday week.  

Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, is the Coomera Connector a road transport project from Loganholme to Coomera?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Mr Fredericks: I think that’s why we got a lot of blank faces.  

Senator McAllister: What was your question in relation to that?  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you please provide an update on any progress, because there are serious environmental factors involved there. That’s what I want to know—if you’re involved or not.  

Senator McAllister: I see. So your question is: is the department involved in any regulatory process associated with this project?  

Senator ROBERTS: My question is: can you please provide an update on any progress of a referral or any conversations in relation to Coomera Connector 2?  

Mr Fredericks: Okay. We’re onto it. Do you mean under the EPBC Act?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I just want to know any environmental aspect at all. Mr Fredericks: All good—that is on tomorrow, in outcome 2, and my officials from that part of the department will be ready to respond to your question. Then the water question belongs in the cross-portfolio water day, which will be held on Friday week.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s come back to an earlier answer that one of your staff gave me.  

CHAIR: Two minutes—Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: As to freedom of information request LEX 76280, in relation to the Powering Australia tracker, you redacted a single measure on page 6 of that document. I want to know what the measure is. I was told—I think, by this lady—that that’s cabinet in confidence.  

Ms Geiger: That’s right, and I understand we have replied to your request with an explanation about why that information can’t be revealed.  

Senator ROBERTS: How can one of six topics—just a title—be cabinet in confidence? Was it supplied because it needs to be in confidence, or was it supplied as part of the package to the cabinet? 

Ms Geiger: The individual measure was considered by cabinet, and therefore it’s covered by the cabinet requirements.  

Senator ROBERTS: So anything that goes to cabinet is cabinet in confidence?  

Senator McKENZIE: [inaudible] supporting any decision that they may or may not discuss.  

Senator ROBERTS: You are required to produce to this committee any information or documents that are requested. There is no privacy, security, freedom of information or other legislation that overrides this committee’s constitutional powers to gather evidence, and you are protected from any potential prosecution as a result of your evidence or producing documents to this committee. If anyone seeks to pressure you against producing documents, that is also a contempt. If you wish to raise a public interest immunity claim or a cabinetin-confidence claim, there are proper processes around that, and it is up to the Senate whether to accept that, not you or the minister.  

Mr Fredericks: That’s fair. So we will take that on notice because at the moment that issue of disclosure is being considered in the FOI context. That can be different to—  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m requesting it as part a Senate committee now.  

Mr Fredericks: I’m helping you here. That can be a different answer when it’s asked in a Senate estimates context, so we will need to take on notice our capacity to provide you that material, under your request from the Senate committee.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That wasn’t any different from what I asked before. But thank you.  

CHAIR: We’re going to rotate now—  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. 

/4 Comments/by

Government Crack Down on Petrol and Diesel Cars

, ,

If you enjoy your petrol or diesel car, the government is trying to make sure you won’t be enjoying it for long.

Looking through this word salad I got from the Department, the reality is the government is placing fines on manufacturers who sell too many petrol and diesel cars. Australians prefer cars that are useful for a weekend of camping, spacious enough to fit the whole family, and capable of doing long road trips without frequent refuelling or needing to stop to recharge.

The government thinks you’re enjoying your cars too much and is going to forces manufacturers to progressively phase them out, leaving only useless electric vehicles available.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Can I turn to cars and utes, as mentioned by Senator O’Sullivan. Car makers must comply with regulations that you are about to introduce. They must also comply with customers’ needs. My understanding is that the demand for sedans—for example, a Toyota Corolla or a Honda Civic—is decreasing, and the demand for the corresponding SUV—which in the case of Toyota would be a RAV4 or a Honda Civic—is increasing dramatically. The SUVs are heavier, they’re more utilitarian, but they’re preferred. But they chew more fuel and they produce more carbon dioxide—which to me is not a problem, but anyway. How does that affect the manufacturer? On the one hand they have a government that says, ‘Decrease the size of the car, the weight and the fuel efficiency.’ But customers say, ‘No, do the opposite.’ The customers don’t think in terms of carbon dioxide because they know it’s crap.  

Ms Purvis-Smith: As I mentioned in a previous answer, manufacturers are able to make commercial decisions as to what their fleet looks like. The standard looks at their whole fleet. There are a range of ways that manufacturers can meet the standard. I think Mr Kathage went through this before. I’m not sure if you were here. He could go through that again. If they get credits in one year they can hold them over to meet debits they may get in a following year. They can also trade credits. They can look at the fleet, change the fleet and make commercial decisions about what they import into the country and offer consumers.  

Senator ROBERTS: Before Mr Kathage does that, perhaps you could tell me: if customers want SUVs over sedans, will that company be penalised? 

Mr Kathage: I can point you to appendix A of our impact analysis, where we set out the sales volumes of various types of vehicles. Your question is actually quite difficult because, as Ms Purvis-Smith mentioned, there’s actually quite a lot of things that vehicle suppliers can do to improve the efficiency of the vehicles they sell and their fleet overall. The first thing I’ll mention is that there are changes to the vehicles themselves that they can make—improving the aerodynamics, changing the drive train— 

Senator ROBERTS: I accept that. But an SUV compared to a sedan—they can make improvements on both but the SUV will chew more fuel and is heavier—full stop, end of story.  

Mr Kathage: That’s right. So one of the features of the policy is to include a few flexibility mechanisms. The first one is to include two targets. One target is for passenger vehicles and a higher target for light commercial vehicles. The second flexibility mechanism in the scheme is to adjust the limit by weight. So you might have a Toyota Kluger, for example, which will have a particular mass in running order. Therefore, the target for that vehicle or the fleet of vehicles—that weight—will be adjusted. The third thing is that in any given year a vehicle supplier might bring in too many vehicles that are too polluting. They’ve got two years after that point to bring what’s called their ‘initial emissions value’ down to zero. So they do have some time. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Looking at electric vehicles, for example, this policy, these regulations, are to make petrol and diesel vehicles less attractive and to make electric vehicles more attractive. That’s clearly what’s going on. But the efficiency of resources in electric vehicles is quite low, because the vehicles are inherently heavier, as Senator O’Sullivan said—needing heavier brakes, more resources; heavier suspension, more resources; heavier components all through, more resources. So we’re actually driving an economy to use less efficient vehicles and less efficient use of resources. That doesn’t make sense to me.  

Mr Kathage: I’m sorry; what was the question? 

Senator ROBERTS: The question is: are you aware that that’s happening? 

Mr Kathage: I’d probably say the purpose of the new vehicle efficiency standard is to improve the efficiency of new vehicles. It’s not to drive a particular type of vehicle or particular type of outcome, except for reduced emissions. That’s the purpose of the policy.  

Senator ROBERTS: You talked about reducing emissions. Have you done any work on the life cycle production of carbon dioxide from a diesel and a petrol vehicle, compared to the electric vehicle— 

Mr Kathage: We have— 

Senator ROBERTS: Particularly right through the mining sector as well, because there are extra resources that need to be mined for an EV. 

Mr Kathage: Yes, we have. We included some evidence in our impact analysis, which is now published on the Office of Impact Analysis website. Section 4.2.1 sets out a range of different estimates that have been made. The first one is from our own Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics, which finds that while manufacturing an EV may produce more GHG emissions than an internal combustion engine, that is more than offset after about one year if the vehicle is charged from renewably sourced electricity—that is, home solar—and two years if charged from the grid using a mix of electricity generation sources. In that section—I won’t read it all out—we do have, I think, four other sources that support the same contention.  

Senator ROBERTS: There’s an assumption there that they’ll be using renewables—solar and wind. That’s a big assumption. Thank you, Chair. 

/5 Comments/by

Tracking the Data of Lithium Battery Fires

,

Lithium battery fires have featured far too often in news headlines. These fires often ignite without warning, they’re difficult to extinguish and are not confined to #EVs. Everything from eScooters to electric toothbrushes carries the risk for #thermal runaway and considered hazardous materials.

I asked about the ACCC’s report on Lithium-Ion Batteries and Consumer Product Safety during the recent senate estimates. The report advocates for a national product safety incident database to capture lithium ion battery fires.

Senator Gallagher responded positively and I look forward to quick action on this problem from the Government.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I want to refer to the ACCC’s Lithium-ion batteries and consumer product safety report that you issued this month. On page 6 it says: 

… there is currently no national product safety incident database to capture data and support national identification and analysis of consumer product safety hazards. Instead, product safety incident data is fragmented across a range of government and non-government organisations. With appropriate funding, the ACCC considers it is best placed to administer a national product safety incident database— 

which would include capturing lithium ion battery fires— 

and recommends the ACCC is funded to develop and administer this. 

Minister, electric products catching on fire seems to be a frequent and very serious problem. Tracking the data accurately would help inform the debate, assist customers to make good decisions and probably save lives. When will you implement this recommendation? 

Senator Gallagher: Sorry, I don’t have the recommendation you’re referring to. 

Senator ROBERTS: The ACCC recommends that it be the one to monitor and capture the data on lithium ion battery fires. 

Senator Gallagher: I imagine this is something that will need the attention of governments. I’ve been watching it myself, with more and more reporting of these matters. I think it’s probably something that the federation is going to have to deal with, as it crosses over a number of responsibilities that would be state and Commonwealth. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/3 Comments/by

Luxury EVs for ASEAN-Australia Summit a PR Stunt

,

In yet more wasteful virtue signalling, Labor is laying on an extra fleet of luxury EVs for the ASEAN-Australia Special Summit from 4th-6th March 2024 to shuttle the hundreds of delegates around Melbourne at the taxpayers expense.

As much as this government is advancing the World Economic Forum agenda promoting bug protein, limits on food consumption, and energy policies, I am sure the meeting, like Davos, will get through copious amounts of meat and dairy. Any photos of the food can be sent to my website or shared to my social media.

The insanity of the Net Zero dog and pony show gets worse. Because there are not enough electric cars in the Victorian fleet, high end luxury European EVs from COMCAR services are being sent to Melbourne from Canberra and Adelaide. COMCAR staff are having to organising their route to Melbourne to include stopping at charging stations so they actually do make it to Melbourne.

Why is the PM again wasting tax dollars on tokenism? One Nation is keen to uncover just how much this stunt is costing Australian taxpayers.

Transcript

Next week the 11 leaders of countries in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations will arrive in Melbourne for the biannual ASEAN Summit. Hundreds of delegates will be shuttled around Melbourne at taxpayers’ expense. One Nation welcomes meetings like ASEAN that encourage countries to be good neighbours, and One Nation supports spending only what’s necessary to achieve a good outcome.  

As much as this government is advancing the World Economic Forum agenda promoting bug protein, limits on food consumption, and energy policies, I am sure the meeting will get through copious amounts of luxury food. Any photos of the food can be sent to my website or shared to my social media. What really got my attention is today’s Australian newspaper, with an article stating that the Prime Minister has required all vehicles provided to delegates to be electric. Because there are not enough electric cars in the Victorian fleet, electric Comcars are being sent to Melbourne from Canberra and Adelaide. Comcar staff are having to organising their route to Melbourne to include stopping at charging stations so they actually do make it to Melbourne. Why put on this tokenistic superficial show of fealty to the globalist electrification agenda at all?  

In the last few weeks, we’ve seen leading car makers do a U-turn on plans to sell only electric cars due to low demand, low profit and escalating scarcity of materials. In fact, despite heavy subsidies, last year in Europe EVs accounted for only 14 per cent of sales. Australia is half that. Insurance premiums are skyrocketing as damaged EVs prove very expensive to repair—one reason EVs lose value at twice the rate of cars with internal combustion engines. They’re lemons. The amount of minerals and energy needed to make, maintain and recycle electric vehicles is so high that EV stands for ‘environmental vandalism’.  

One Nation would like to know how much this exercise in virtue signalling is costing our Australian taxpayers. 

/3 Comments/by

Inconvenient EVs in Canberra Subsidised by Taxpayers!

,

In Senate Estimates I asked who funded and supplied the electric vehicle charging stations (58 in total) at Parliament House in the Capital. Taxpayers are funding the Canberra bubble’s fling with EVs to the tune of $2.5m in installation costs, with the vague promise that this will be recouped in the future. The reason given for the charging stations is to make it convenient for EVs to visit Parliament House. Despite most Australians owning a petrol or diesel car, there are no immediate plans to install petrol or diesel pumps at Parliament House for their convenience.

As the city with the highest average income in the country (over $100,000/year), the Canberra bureaucrats are truly out of touch with the rest of Australia.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you for appearing today. The Department of Parliamentary Services has installed 10 electric vehicle charging stations in the public car park. Are they user-pays, or does the ‘Department of the Australian Taxpayer’ fork out for the cost of that electricity?

Mr Stefanic: The user pays.

Senator ROBERTS: Which company owns the chargers, then?

Mr Stefanic: I’ll have to take that question on notice. I’ll correct myself if I have misspoken, but I believe DPS owns the asset that has been installed. We contracted ActewAGL to provide the services with the installation.

Senator ROBERTS: AGL?

Mr Stefanic: ActewAGL, which is a Canberra based joint venture with AGL.

Senator ROBERTS: But DPS owns the chargers?

Mr Stefanic: I believe so.

Senator ROBERTS: How much did you pay for the installation?

Mr Stefanic: The contract for installation is about $2.5 million. We are tracking under budget. When all 58 electric vehicle charging stations are installed we anticipate the cost will be in the order—

Senator ROBERTS: Fifty-eight?

Mr Stefanic: There will be 58 in total. There are 10 in the public car park, 10 in each of the private car parks and eight in the ministerial wing.

Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, what was that again?

Mr Stefanic: Ten in each of the private car parks and eight in the ministerial wing car park.

Senator ROBERTS: How many private car parks?

Mr Stefanic: Four.

Senator ROBERTS: So you’ve got 40 chargers?

Mr Stefanic: Forty in those. Then the 10 in the public and the eight in the ministerial wing make 58.

Senator ROBERTS: So we’re paying for this, but a provider of electricity is making money out of it?

Mr Stefanic: The charges that we are levying for it have two elements: one covers both our administration cost and a recovery of the capital investment, and the other portion of it is the payment for the cost of the energy that goes to the provider.

Senator ROBERTS: So the provider is making a profit out of our—the taxpayers—investment?

Mr Stefanic: The energy provider, as it would for any electric vehicle charging station.

Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t realise that it was within your remit to cover the operating costs of people driving electric vehicles around the Canberra bubble?

Mr Stefanic: It’s not, because it is user-pays, as I mentioned.

Senator ROBERTS: But you’re providing a lot of taxpayer money to enable it.

Mr Stefanic: With the take-up of electric vehicles—and Canberra has, I think, the highest per capita take-up in the country—the range of those vehicles, I guess, necessitates us to lean into the issue and make sure we have availability for charging locally. To the point that Senator Hume raised around people being able to leave the building, sometimes it’s difficult, and having the convenience of a charging facility available at Parliament House is useful. In the public car park in particular, we have around 800,000 visitors a year to Parliament House. With the increase in the take-up of electric vehicles, it enhances our destination from a tourism point of view if people can see that they have access to electric vehicle charging when they arrive here.

Senator ROBERTS: You’re acknowledging that electric vehicles have some inconvenience attached to them, so you’re making provision to supplement that?

Mr Stefanic: No. I’m simply saying it’s a reality. There are electric vehicle charging stations popping up everywhere. We’re simply another building that’s installing them.

Senator ROBERTS: Subsidised by the taxpayer.

Mr Stefanic: They are not subsidised by the taxpayer because we are recovering that capital cost.

Senator ROBERTS: The installation is subsidised but then you recover, which is a pretty good deal for the providers.

Mr Stefanic: We use our capital funds to install the infrastructure, but then we recover the cost from the user.

Senator ROBERTS: How are your plans to install a diesel or petrol bowser progressing?

Mr Stefanic: There are no plans for fuel bowsers.

Senator ROBERTS: Why not?

Mr Stefanic: You need a storage mechanism for those things. So it would be difficult to begin with, given the building, to dig massive holes in the ground to put in storage facilities.

CHAIR: No hydrogen plant then either?

Mr Stefanic: No.

Senator Shoebridge: Next we’ll all get nuclear reactors.

Senator ROBERTS: Is it because diesel and petrol are easier to refuel? You’re saying it’s an inconvenience to use an electric car, so we need to provide services for electric cars so we can make sure we have plenty of visitors to Parliament House?

The President: If I could just correct the record—the department secretary didn’t say it was inconvenient to use an electric vehicle.

Senator ROBERTS: He didn’t use those words; he used other words. Are you aware that electric vehicle sales in the United States and the European Union are plummeting?

Mr Stefanic: No. I’m simply looking at statistics in Australia and in the ACT in particular, which indicate that the take up continues to grow.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s interesting because electric vehicles are inherently much more expensive than diesel and petrol and less efficient overall in use of resources. Canberra has the highest income per capita, as I understand it, of any city in Australia.

Mr Stefanic: I’m unsure of that.

/7 Comments/by

Electric Vehicles Not Good for Road Trips

If you want to get there cheaper and faster, it’s looking like petrol or diesel is just as good or better for a road trip. I’ll be keeping my diesel 4WD.

/6 Comments/by

Wind and Solar Investors Cut and Run

Major investors are deserting wind and solar installations, walking away and writing off billions of dollars, as their share prices plummet. The ‘Green Dream’ is morphing into a nightmare of failure and financial loss.

What’s more, electric vehicles are losing value at twice the rate of petrol and diesel, while insurance policies rise at twice the rate. Hertz is hurting over the money it’s losing on its EV fleet and Australia’s Drive magazine writes that more EV sales will actually increase demand for coal, because solar and wind generation is not up to the job of charging these batteries.

Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) corporate blackmail is hitting resistance. Even Vanguard pulled out of the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative, citing risk and poor returns.

ESG initiatives rely on government handouts and because of that, our economy is being destroyed for a virtue-signalling initiative that is falling apart before our eyes.

We cannot ignore the signs – it’s time we followed in the investors’ footsteps, cut our losses and start putting Australians first.

Transcript

Madam Acting Deputy President, as a servant to the many different people in our one Queensland community, my second topic tonight is solar and wind energy’s financial failure. The tide is now against out-of-touch elitists whose income insulates them from the hardship their virtue-signalling, feelings based beliefs cause Australians. The recent referendum showed that the good sense of everyday Australians will shine through. Recent polling shows working Australians deserting the Albanese government over the cost of living, housing and immigration—crises due to virtue-signalling, feelings based urban elitist policies. 

Look at disasters in recent months engulfing the green dream. Orsted, the huge offshore wind charlatan, booked a US$5.5 billion writedown on the value of its offshore wind installations, and the stock price this year is down 50 per cent. Last week, Norway’s Equinor booked a $300 million writedown on its offshore wind portfolio. Its share price, though, was saved due to its investment in oil and gas. Siemens Energy is down 60 per cent after losses in offshore wind caused a return on investment of minus 17 per cent—negative. Vestas is down a third after announcing losses in its wind division and is now offering a return to investors of minus 11 per cent. This is from the Australian Financial Review: 

The Andrew Forrest-led Fortescue terminated approval applications for the Uaroo Renewable Energy Hub last month. 

The Daily Express reports that electric vehicles lose value for owners at twice the rate of internal combustion engines. Insurance policies are rising at twice the rate because of EVs’ rising maintenance costs. In America, Hertz announced it is losing money on its EV fleet, and it’s now scaling down purchases. The American Automobile Association tested EVs and found that, with a family of four and their gear on board, the highway cycle range of a family EV was reduced by 25 per cent, whereas petrol cars actually get greater range. American EV dealers now have a hundred days of stock sitting in showrooms. Business Insider reports that EVs have hit a market share plateau. There are only so many rich public servants ready to waste money on virtue-signalling vehicles suited to short city trips. The share price of the United Kingdom’s EV company Arrivals has fallen 96 per cent. Drive magazine says more Australian EV sales will actually increase demand for coal, since solar and wind generation is insufficient to charge these things. 

Recent large demonstrations against offshore wind should have caused Minister Bowen to take stock, yet he’s now full steam ahead and damn the torpedoes. Ignorance never ends well. Sydney’s inner-city elites will not have to look at these monstrosities, because the Labor Party are installing huge wind turbines off the workers’ suburbs in Newcastle and Wollongong. 

And the ESG corporate blackmail is hitting resistance. In the last week, United Kingdom investors withdrew $1 billion from ESG funds, making it five months in a row of negative inflows. Last year a paper showed that ESG funds do not offer superior returns to those of regular investment funds, which is why Vanguard pulled out of the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative last December due to poor returns and risk. Last July, the Australian newspaper said: 

“Green” investing has hit a crisis. Mounting questions over standards and effectiveness have been building for years. This year, investors voted with their feet and rushed for the exits. 

…	…	…	 

Whatever way you cut it ESG is a thematic – in creating exclusions it means investors will have more volatile returns than a fund that simply invests for the best return. 

Large corporates, superannuation firms and investment funds have a fiduciary duty to investors to operate for the best and safest returns. ESG is not safe and not profitable. ESG initiatives rely on government handouts. 

Our economy is being destroyed. The urban elites’ wealth and income can only last so long before feeling the pain they’re now inflicting on everyday Australians. The green dream ends when the government stops propping it up with taypayers’ money, the green dream nightmare ends when the government stops propping it up with taxpayers’ money. 

Make the decision today to start putting everyday Australians first. We have one flag; we are one community; we are one nation. 

/by

Out and About: Springwood (QLD)

On Tuesday, 19 September I visited Oz DIY Electric Vehicles: Electric Conversions at their invitation to have a look under the hood at the nuts and bolts of electric vehicles. EV’s work for some niche applications.

I support anyone having the choice to buy an EV if they want, but they are still far more expensive than petrol or diesel equivalents and no government should be forcing anyone into one or the other.

I appreciate David and Graeme taking the time to show me around their workshop. The key to their success is their technical experience and competence.

/by

Does the ADF really think electric vehicles can defend our nation?

,

I asked questions of two Army generals as to the viability of military EVs in the field. They spoke of the challenges of recharging in the field, considering factors such as solar charging and the use of hybrid vehicles.

I was told that the technology was not there yet but the hope was that technology would have matured by 2030-35 when the fleet of vehicles may be transformed to EV status and technological problems be overcome.

Transcript

Chair: Senator Roberts?

Senator Roberts: My questions are to do with the Army’s electric vehicles. Since the publicly released information of electric vehicle conversion of the Australian designed and built Bushmaster, has the Australian Army progressed to test the operational feasibility of other Australian electric military vehicles in the field? I understand from Minister Conroy, who gave us a crossbencher briefing, that this is at concept stage at the moment, nothing more.

Lt Gen. Stuart: I’ll begin, and then I’ll hand to my colleague Major General Vagg for any further comments.  The concept demonstrator that you referred to was part of our power and energy work, which involves some studies to understand how we can use alternative sources of fuel (1) to ensure an operational capability and (2) to reduce the logistic footprint that is created by bulk fuel. There are a couple of important points to note. Firstly, we were able to produce an electric Bushmaster, but that was to really test the parameters of power generation and how that work would translate into the design of the vehicle and to really test the
art of the possible.

Of course, the operating environment would probably require us to have a hybrid approach, similar to a hybrid passenger vehicle, with both solar panels and also the fuel that would be required. So it is on a path of development to determine how we can continue to operate vehicles and reduce the logistics footprint and, obviously, the output of those vehicles.

Senator Roberts: What progress has been made? What stage are you at right now?

Major Gen. Vagg: As the chief has alluded to, we produced the capability demonstrator with Thales. One of the limitations is power generation and storage and the distribution — which I think you’d appreciate —

Senator Roberts: Easy to understand that.

Major Gen. Vagg: for operational use. We’ve got a number of studies underway to look at power generation and electrification of various sizes of wheeled and tracked vehicles. Those studies are indicating that the technology won’t be in a mature state until about 2030. We have plans from 2035 onwards to look at how we’ll transition the broader Army fleet as we move across.

Senator Roberts: So the time frame is you’re hoping to put something into operation by 2030.

Major Gen. Vagg: That’s the time when the studies are indicating the technology will be mature enough so we can field it as an operational capability.

Senator Roberts: So at the moment there’s no real understanding based on anything concrete—it’s just studies at the moment. You haven’t got a plan or deadline or date.

Major Gen. Vagg: As I said, from about 2035 we’ve got plans to look at starting to convert Army’s fleets across to electric vehicles.

Senator Roberts: What are your findings on energy density? One of the advantages of hydrocarbon fuels like petrol and diesel and gas is that they have very high energy density—not as high as nuclear, but very high energy density. Sunlight is incredibly low.

Major Gen. Vagg: That’s a good observation. To inform some of that work, we’ve got trials with electric vehicles that are occurring this year. We have 40 electric vehicles—civilian—that are operating in the ACT. From 2024 we’ll look at a series of small, light commercial vehicles that will use hydrogen cells. We’ll use those capability demonstrators to inform further work and how we’ll look to operationalise that.

Senator Roberts: To what stage has the thinking gotten in terms of replacing the current diesel powered vehicles?

Major Gen. Vagg: Again, I go back to my first point. Looking at the levels of maturity for those technologies, we don’t expect that to mature to where we can deploy it as a legitimate operational capability until about 2030.

Senator Roberts: Is there any way in which our concrete operational plans assume electric vehicles, say, by 2035? Are we going to be reliant upon these things being developed?

Major Gen. Vagg: I don’t think we’d be reliant on them being developed, but that’s a goal where we’ll look to do that transition.

Senator Roberts: So it’s a goal, not a plan yet.

Lt Gen. Stuart: If I can describe the approach, there are a whole range of emerging technologies that we need to understand, and then we need to test their application to the set of tasks that we need to provide for the integrated force. In some cases, I expect, those will be successful; in other cases they may not be. What we want is to be informed and take advantage of the developments in technology as they’re developing. We work with both academia and industry to explore the art of the possible. We’re not making any presuppositions about exactly when, because we just don’t have the evidence or the data to support exactly where that technology may be. What we’re working on at the moment in the case of electrification is that we think, based on the advice we’ve received, that technology—noting your point about energy density and the requirement to operate vehicles in operational situations—is probably toward the end of this decade. That is our estimation based on the work we’ve done so far and the advice from experts that we’ve been working with.

Senator Roberts: Have you deployed the vehicle in the wet or in the north or in the desert or put it through any arduous tests, or is it still very much a concept?

Major Gen. Vagg: It’s still very much a concept.

Senator Roberts: What about battery charging? You mentioned that as one of your challenges. I think, from memory, on Friday afternoon the Minister for Defence Industry, Mr Conroy, said that you had some concepts for fast charging. Is that correct?

Lt Gen. Stuart: We’ll have to take that one on notice. As I say, as part of the power and energy work we’re doing, we’re looking at a whole range of things, which include both power generation and power storage—which includes battery technology.

Senator Roberts: What would power generation involve—what sort of concept?

Lt Gen. Stuart: Solar, hybrid engines—

Senator Roberts: Solar panels?

Lt Gen. Stuart: and those sorts of things.

Senator Roberts: Hybrid using hydrocarbon fuelled engines?

Lt Gen. Stuart: Yes.

Senator Roberts: You’re not far enough advanced, then, to discuss the recharging question for field operation?

Major Gen. Vagg: No. As I alluded to before, we’re still looking at how that technology matures. That’s one of the principal challenges that we need to overcome.

Senator Roberts: What’s your early gut feeling? Much of the science on this and the application of the science on these technologies is still hypothetical—wish.

Lt Gen. Stuart: I don’t think my gut feeling is particularly relevant. We’ll follow the science and what can be demonstrated and how that can be applied to the work that we are required to do. But we think it makes a
lot of sense to be understanding and to be working with experts on how we can apply new and emerging technologies to the business of Army in this instance.

Senator Roberts: I’m reassured now. Initially, I wondered if we were going to be dependent on something happening in the next few years, and I had visions of extension cords all across North Queensland and the Territory. That has put that to rest. Thank you very much.

/21 Comments/by