Food, energy and the power transition

Australia's roadmap for decarbonisation is unique when compared to other countries: it aims to replace coal-based energy with almost 100 per cent intermittent renewables (wind and solar) and storage solutions by 2050.

Other viable technologies are overlooked, and the importance of baseload power is marginalised.

For wind and solar to do all the heavy lifting, the scale of the required transition is monumental. As outlined by the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), to manage the retirement of 90 per cent of Australia's remaining 21 gigawatts of coal generation by 2034-35, approximately 6GW of grid-scale renewable capacity will need to be added annually over the next decade.

It means solar and wind farms must triple by 2030, reaching 57GW, and expand sevenfold by 2050, reaching 126GW. In other words, we must install 22,000 solar panels every day and erect 40 large wind turbines per month for the next six years.

It would require an average of 200,000 to 300,000 sqaure kilometers of solar farms to supply a highly electrified Australia. This is equivalent to the size of Victoria and excludes the area required for wind farms and battery facilities.

According to AEMO, the grid requires another 10,000 kilometres of transmission lines by 2050 to interconnect new wind and solar projects, all in substitution of a dozen coal-fired stations totalling 22GW.

Given the substantial environmental footprint, the colossal financial implications and the imperative of ensuring affordable and reliable energy, it is no wonder that stakeholders, especially farmers and regional communities more directly affected by these projects, expect to be consulted, fully informed and have all inquiries addressed.

Unfortunately, once again, the issue of climate change and the ongoing energy transition are sparking divisions in our country.

On one side, several rallies have been taking place in the ACT bringing together farmers who feel they haven't been properly consulted.

On the other side, proponents of renewable energy and their advocates urge us to unquestioningly embrace Energy Minister Chris Bowen's plan, without critically examining its flaws.

They assert that we must trust the government and its agencies like AEMO, the cornerstone of Australia's energy roadmap, tasked with designing the nation's future energy system.

David Jochinke, president of the National Farmers' Federation, points out a big worry: Australia's push for more renewable energy infrastructure could eat into our best farming land.

We've already lost over 15 per cent of farmland, which puts a huge question mark on the future of our farming.

These sentiments in Australia are not isolated. In the United States, there is significant concern about the balance between agricultural land and renewable projects, resulting in a disconnect across America's power grid between what is needed and what is permitted. Some local governments are banning green energy initiatives faster than they are being constructed.

USA TODAY's investigation found that at least 15 per cent of U.S. counties have effectively stopped new utility-scale wind, solar, or both projects. These limitations include bans, moratoriums, and construction hurdles.

States like Connecticut, Tennessee, and Vermont have implemented widespread restrictions. This trend poses significant challenges, as noted by Jeff Danielson from the Clean Grid Alliance. "It's 15 per cent of the most productive areas for wind and solar," he stressed. "Our goals will be hard to achieve if counties keep saying 'No'."

Back in Australia, beyond the valid concerns raised by farmers, recent scrutiny from various stakeholders and experts has highlighted flaws in some transmission line projects. These flaws include issues with engineering standards, economic analyses, and the distribution of financial burdens.

One notable example is the project for the 500 kV Victoria to NSW Interconnector (VNI) West transmission line, developed in partnership with network company Transgrid. Critics like Simon Bartlett AM and Professor Bruce Mountain, director of the Victoria Energy Policy Centre (VEPC), emphasised in a detailed submission to AEMO's final draft for VNI West that the project is a misstep.

They argue that it could increase blackout risks and double transmission charges, potentially raising expenses by up to 15 per cent for households and 35 per cent for businesses. Mountain suggests in his Plan B that upgrading existing transmission lines would be a much better solution to avoid the negative impacts on agricultural land and regional communities.

The VNI West highlights a recurring problem where government policies are often side-lining environmental concerns while claiming to protect the environment, like removing water from floodplain deltas without prior environmental impact studies.

It's ironic that the very rivers and creeks the government wants to safeguard with environmental programs now face disruption due to the project's development.

The current government must recognize the delicate balance between environmental conservation, agricultural land preservation, and renewable energy development.

While the need to reduce carbon emissions is evident, it is equally vital to acknowledge that an overly aggressive approach to renewable energy deployment can jeopardize the ecosystems we seek to preserve, as well as the agricultural advantages we possess, delaying the transition to clean energy.

An important question demands attention: What is the right balance between renewables and our land and environment, and how can we navigate this expansion more wisely?