Australia’s ‘Renewable’ Obsession Decimates Industry

Guest essay By Vijay Jayaraj

Australia’s “green energy” experiment has turned one of the most energy-rich countries into a high‑cost outlier that guts businesses that once anchored its prosperity. The claim that “renewables are cheaper” is a slogan for the propaganda of politicians and the marketing of green grifters who betray families and employers burdened by the bills.


Fall from Economic Stardom

Australia once held a competitive advantage that was the envy of the world, with power prices consistently below the average of OECD countries, which comprise 38 mostly successful economies. That advantage fueled its mines, factories and the standard of living. But is now gone.

But since the mid-2000s, while other nations managed their grids with varying degrees of competence, Australia’s electricity prices rose to being around 30% above the OECD average. This is a massive swing in competitiveness that no government spin can hide.

Driving Australia’s current trajectory is the mythical claim that so-called renewables – mainly wind and solar energy – are inherently cheap and that any short‑term pain will give way to lasting price declines.

However, long‑term data, both domestic and international, contradict that fable. The direct cost of wind and solar hardware has fallen, but the full system cost – including backup power, transmission and financial guarantees – has increased as their share in the mix grows. Politicians rarely highlight this distinction when they promise that “the sun and wind are free.” Although photons and breezes may cost nothing, converting them to electricity is difficult, land-intensive and expensive.

By 2020, Australia had recorded the largest residential price increase among the countries studied: 32% between 2010 and 2020 versus an 8% rise for the OECD. Over the same period, the generation mix shifted away from coal and towards weather‑dependent wind and solar.

Devastating Effect of High Power Prices
The effect on the economy has been a gradual die-off of Australian manufacturing. Energy inputs – both electricity and natural gas – are often the largest variable costs for heavy industry. Australia’s manufacturing share of the economy plunged to a record low of 5% of gross domestic product in 2025.

Smelters have announced closures as rising electricity costs render heavy industry unviable. BlueScope Steel warns that energy costs in Australia are now three to four times higher than in the U.S., undermining the country’s vision of a “Future Made in Australia.”

Large industrial players are weighing exit strategies. Orica, the world’s biggest manufacturer of mining explosives and agricultural fertilizers, and BlueScope Steel have both signaled that the current environment is untenable. They have threatened to relocate Australian facilities to the United States.

Local cafes, metal fabricators and family-owned grocers are besieged by unmanageable costs. In the Northern Territory, 43% of surveyed businesses listed energy prices as a major challenge. The pain spans the nation, with energy being listed as a critical hurdle by a third of businesses in New South Wales, Australian Capital Territory and Victoria and by more than a quarter in Queensland.

This pattern of destruction is not unique to Australia. In Germany – poster child for the “green” transition – 55% of electricity is generated from wind and solar, producing the highest power prices in the world and, according to some, “the worst industrial crisis since World War II.”

Denmark, with around 70% wind and solar in the power mix, made it to the top five on 2023 price charts. Defenders of the green agenda point to countries like Norway or Paraguay as proof that 100% renewables is possible. However, these claims rely heavily on generous hydro endowments that few locales enjoy.

The fact is no modern economy has achieved wind and solar shares of more than 40% without substantial price hikes. Yet the Australian government has a target of 82% by 2030. This is economically suicidal, a guarantee for blackouts and a death blow to what remains of manufacturing.

Australia has lost its way, captured by a false narrative that treats carbon dioxide as planetary threat and dismisses affordability as an afterthought. Without a change, the country will continue to pay unnecessarily high electricity prices, as economic wreckage accumulates – one factory, one small business and one household at a time.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India. He served as a research associate with the Changing Oceans Research Unit at University of British Columbia, Canada.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 19 votes
Article Rating
33 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ronald Stein
April 16, 2026 10:07 am

American and European “green” leaders remain oblivious to reality that wind turbines and solar panels ONLY generate electricity.
 
They remain ignorant of the fact that wind and solar are incapable of making any of the more than 6,000 products made from the oil derivatives from crude oil, nor can wind or solar make any of the transportation fuels made from raw crude oil demanded by:
·       The world’s more than 400,000 military, private, and general aviation planes, with about 100,000 total flights occurring on an average day.
·       The world’s more than 100,000 merchant vessels.
·       More than 1.5 billion vehicles (including trucks/SUVs), representing roughly one vehicle for every five to six people, 

Denis
Reply to  Ronald Stein
April 16, 2026 12:39 pm

They only generate DC electricity erratically which must be converted to AC at the correct constant frequency and constant voltage to be useful to the grid. The “correct” and “constant” parts are both hard and expensive.

Reply to  Ronald Stein
April 16, 2026 1:15 pm

They also remain willfully ignorant about how a grid CANNOT be run on intermittent sources, and the worse-than-useless wind and solar equipment CANNOT be endlessly manufactured (required due to its pathetically short lifespan) without coal, oil and gas.

April 16, 2026 10:43 am

Norway also has woody biomass for energy – making up 5% of its total energy according to Google AI. Norway considers woody biomass to be a renewable energy and carbon neutral. Probably because it is. I don’t think it’s getting subsidies, but I’m not sure of that. Wood debris is sufficiently abundant that I suspect it’ll continue in use regardless of that nation’s carbon policies.

Yes, Norway has woody biomass power plants, though they represent a small portion (about 5%) of the country’s total energy production, which is dominated by hydropower. Woody biomass, including bark, wood chips, and forestry residues, is used primarily for district heating and combined heat & power (CHP) plants. 

Key aspects of woody biomass in Norway:

Use in Energy: Wood-based bioenergy supplies approximately 20% of heating in buildings and industry, with a significant amount of woody biomass used in combined heat and power plants.

Infrastructure: Major energy players like Statkraft utilize biomass for heating and power. Other examples include smaller, localized plants and companies like Norsk Biobrensel that convert biomass to energy.

Resources: The country has a high potential for increased bioenergy production from forest resources, with substantial unused logging residues like branches and twigs.

Export and Production: While some wood waste is exported to Sweden, Norway has pellet production capacity, and companies like Arbaflame are developing technology to replace coal with woody biomass pellets. 

John Hultquist
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 16, 2026 11:03 am

In the 1960s, in western Pennsylvania, I remember encountering piles of sawdust and other wood waste in places where sawmills had been for a number of years — and then moved to a new site. Then the industry consolidated and technology changed. The sawdust, bark, and limbs became “resouurces”. What a time to be alive.

Reply to  John Hultquist
April 16, 2026 12:58 pm

A saying of the Society of American Foresters is “wood is good”.

Petey Bird
Reply to  John Hultquist
April 17, 2026 7:35 am

In Canada the sawmill waste is chipped and trucked to pulp and paper mills.
A wood liquor is a byproduct. That is burned to generate electicity.
There is a subsidised rate for that co generation into the grid.

ResourceGuy
April 16, 2026 11:52 am

Maybe they saw Obama throwing money at all the loser renewable startups and well connected donors and the massive Paris Agreement promotion and thought that was really industrial/energy policy. When in fact it was just political party overreach on a massive waste of money scale. Next time ask the rational people before you leap.

April 16, 2026 1:06 pm

All part of the plan to undermine, discredit, and eventually replace capitalism.

mleskovarsocalrrcom
Reply to  Shoki
April 16, 2026 1:16 pm

Correct, climate has nothing to do with it.

Nick Stokes
April 16, 2026 1:19 pm

“But since the mid-2000s, while other nations managed their grids with varying degrees of competence, Australia’s electricity prices rose to being around 30% above the OECD average.”

Well, maybe. But you can’t blame renewables. From the cited report, the OECD makes less use of fossil fuels than Australia:

comment image

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 16, 2026 1:57 pm

The NEM system is such that the price is set by the most expensive bid.

Batteries set the highest price, then gas peakers.

If Australia had built new coal rather than erratic wind and solar, then batteries and peakers would not be needed, nor would all the very expensive and complex grid infrastructure needed to cope with the vagaries of unreliable wind and solar.

When Australia had just good reliable coal and gas, with plenty of headroom, prices were stable and a lot cheaper.

It is the absolute idiocy of wind and solar that has pushed out reliable coal, and has sent Australia to the state where there is barely enough dispatchable electricity when it is most needed.

The cost to the grid and electricity supplies, is obvious.

Reply to  bnice2000
April 20, 2026 1:32 am

The NEM system is such that the price is set by the most expensive bid.

This is just wrong for Australia. I believe use of the highest bid is how its done in the UK and consequently why the UK energy prices are ridiculously high. Perhaps bnice is confused with the UK’s process.

Here’s how the Australian prices are set in the NEM from here

Generator bids

Each day, every generator wanting to sell electricity in the NEM must submit a bid, detailing how much energy they would like to offer, with the capacity/volume offered in ten different price bands. These bids are submitted to the AEMO.

Prices can range from the market floor (currently -$1000/MWh) to the market cap (currently $15,000/MWh).

For example, a 1,000MW generator may choose to bid 500MW at $100/MWh, and 300MW at $1,000/MWh, and 200MW at $12,000/MWh.

And then

Which generators get dispatched? Introducing the bid stack

The AEMO receives all bids at 12:30 PM the previous day. All bids are compiled into a bid stack, which compares bids from all generators and stacks them from cheapest to most expensive.

Dispatch intervals are five minutes long and generators are dispatched for each dispatch interval based on the bid-stack. AEMO calculates how much generation is needed to meet demand and generators are dispatched from cheapest to most expensive.

For example, if Generator A had a bid of 1000MW at $100/MWh, Generator B bid 500 MW at $200/MWh, Generator C bid 3000MW at $300/MWh, and Generator D bid 500MW at $5,000MWh, a demand of 3,000MW would dispatch all of A’s bid, all of B’s bid, and 1500MW of C’s bid.

In practice, the dispatching of generators must also take into account a range of other variables including ramp up/down capacity, generator location and other constraints.

YallaYPoora Kid
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 16, 2026 2:58 pm

Renewables have their place just not in grid generation. The blame goes to lying scientists and ignorant politicians.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 16, 2026 3:40 pm

OECD share of electricity generation by source 2020:
Nuclear 17%, Fossil Fuels 52%, Solar 4%, Wind 9%, Hydro 15%, Combustible Renewables 3%.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 16, 2026 5:31 pm

“the OECD makes less use of fossil fuels than Australia:”

You mean the countries that supply a large percentage of fossil fuels, especially oil, to the world ??

Leon de Boer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 16, 2026 7:55 pm

Nick that is a ridiculous argument

2023–24, fossil fuel consumption 5,977 petajoules
OECD members, totaled 234,537 PJ in 2022, comprising 96,682 PJ of oil, 44,121 PJ of natural gas, and 34,867 PJ of coal

You could just as equally argue it’s because of of it’s small size (2.5%) of market.

There is one thing you can not argue against as fossil fuel decrease prices increase in OECD countries.

I also agree with Chris Hanley you are not talking about the baseload elephant of Nuclear which Australia has zero.

An sensible discussion needs to talk about all the difference not your layman I think choice. There is a Victorian election 28 November 2026 so we will start to see what the public think then because cost of living will be front and centre.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 16, 2026 8:45 pm

This does not show anything wrt the % of electricity produce by fossil fuels. This chart shows generation CAPACITY, not electricity generated. And trying to compare fossil fuels to renewables using capacity without also employing the capacity factor is meaningless. I suspect, given the climate of Australia compared to the rest of the OECD, Australia’s renewables have the much higher capacity factor. The OECD’s renewables were putting out very little electricity, despite their capacity, and the fossil fuel plants were doing all the work – and burning lots of fuel.

Mr.
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 16, 2026 8:50 pm

Nick, you’re a prime example of my hypothesis that –

ideology and rationality cannot function in the same mind space at the same time.

leefor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 16, 2026 9:45 pm

In Australia, we have politicians with half-baked ideas and no oven. 😉

Leon de Boer
Reply to  leefor
April 17, 2026 1:41 am

They do however have the greens to give them numbers in the upper house to turn half-baked ideas into fully cooked ones 🙂

Once you have a fully cooked idea then you have to advertise it until we all laugh at it and turn into into a meme
https://www.facebook.com/estelle.arnold.96/videos/gotta-conserve-that-diesel-seedingdieselfarmingfuelcrisis/1612262870008301/

Petey Bird
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 17, 2026 7:39 am

Capacity has little or no relation to use or usefulness.

DipChip
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 17, 2026 8:58 am

Remember He is talking Capacity not actual Generation.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 17, 2026 10:36 am

I bet you could take a 15 degree snippet of the sky and use it to prove there is adequate sunshine all over the planet.

Bob
April 16, 2026 2:06 pm

Australia’s government did all of this. Government should not be involved in energy production or transmission, Australia is proof.

Tony Tea
April 16, 2026 3:26 pm

Our manufacturing was on thin ice regardless of energy costs, but at 1% of global CO2 emissions we started out virtue signalling then finished ourselves off with virtue suicide.

Harry Durham
April 16, 2026 3:27 pm

Vijay’s optimism shows. When he noted that “…the Australian government has a target of 82% by 2030” he left out the ultimate “…goal is to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.”

In other words, the best worst is yet to come!

TBeholder
Reply to  Harry Durham
April 16, 2026 8:16 pm

A reasonable assumption is that long before the extra-crazy part is actually on the table either the course will change, or the issue will make itself moot, as too many things will crash and burn, including that government.

sherro01
April 16, 2026 5:28 pm

Hi Vijay,
Thanks for your sympathetic comments. Please accept some corrections from a hands-on Aussie scientist who started into the topic around 1970.
The word ‘decimates’ in the banner might not have been your choice. It has a formal historic meaning to reduce by one tenth. It is now wrongly used to convey widespread destruction.
Historic Australian electricity prices favourably below the OECD averages did not greatly affect our major industries like mining and agriculture. New mines typically were studied for best energy sources that almost 100% led to diesel trucked in to remote dedicated generators. Diesel powered much of agriculture. The Geoffrey Bainey expression “the tyranny of distance” was and is a major factor for Australia.
The disasters of the past 20 years arise because people without direct knowledge of major topics fall prey to ignorant propaganda. Green dream ideas seduced the uneducated minds of certain politicians who eventually gained control of choice of grid electricity generation. Deliberate, known lies were told by green activists, especially that grid “renewables energy” was cheaper than hydrocarbon combustion. The political demonization of “fossil fuels” caused large reductions in the very industries that had underpinned earlier Australian prosperity.
Australian energy policy continues to be just plain stupid. Paid government bodies like our CSIRO research group and our AEMO (Australian Energy Market Operator) who recommend, cost and manage major electricity, are part of the knowing deceit. They and their green activist buddies have to cease seeking the adulation of senior federal Ministers and to start planning how they will handle the big legal cases that will be heading their way to halt the wrecking of our national economy and to pay compensation for telling porkies.
The Internet has made it easy for people on a mission to convert their dreams into credible sounding words to spread around the world. It is past time for credible economic analysis of current trends to model how low it can go if there is no correction. The pits are easily seen as horrible for any country, but Australia currently is a world leader of the lemming mentality. Few politicians basking in the decline have ever held a productive job. That is a part of the problem.
Sadly, I see no credible solution before I die.
Geoff S

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  sherro01
April 17, 2026 10:42 am

Correct. Decimate has been incorrectly substituted for devastate.

observa
April 16, 2026 8:31 pm

Airbus Albo flies in from hunkering down dreaded fossil fuel supplies from Malaysia to find matters very distressing-
Anthony Albanese to visit oil refinery as scrutiny grows over what sparked the ‘very unusual’ fire
What the Minister for alleviating the dooming thinks is anyone’s guess but stay tuned folks.

Petey Bird
April 17, 2026 7:44 am

The ultimate goal of present policy has to be de-industrialisation and shutdown of grid electricity.
South Africa is showing the way.

April 20, 2026 12:46 am

The effect on the economy has been a gradual die-off of Australian manufacturing. 

This is correlation, not cause. The article mentioned blue scope steel threatening to leave but not actually doing so. Much bigger influences were the removal of protectionist tariffs in the 90s and labour benefits of offshoring manufacturing to China. Our car industry failed because of falling sales.