CSIRO Accused of Cherry-Picking Data to Justify Green Transition

The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) has come under fire for allegedly cherry-picking data to support the green energy transition, casting doubt on the Labor government's assertion that wind and solar are themost affordablesources of electricity. Energy Minister Chris Bowen has repeatedly touted the CSIRO's economic modeling as"unimpeachable" and "very, very clear"in backing his claim. However, a recent Essential poll revealed that 40% of Australians believe renewable energy is the costliest form of power, while 52% are in favor of nuclear energy.

Why this matters: The integrity of the CSIRO's data and modeling has significant implications for Australia's energy policy and the country's transition to a greener future. If the CSIRO's data is flawed, it could lead to misguided policy decisions and investments in energy infrastructure that may not be economically viable.

TheCentre for Independent Studies(CIS) has published a scathing critique of the CSIRO's modeling, exposing significant errors and biases. The CIS report highlights that the CSIRO ignores substantial costs associated with renewable energy, such as storage and transmission lines, and treats expenses incurred before 2030 as sunk costs, despite investors expecting a return on their investment. The organization also excludes the cost of decommissioning turbines, solar panels, and batteries at the end of their life, and fails to consider the energy system as a whole, leading to the approval of financially unviable projects.

Furthermore, the CSIRO stands accused of cherry-picking data to make other forms of electricity generation appear more expensive. The organization uses unrealistic assumptions about the construction costs of new coal plants and selectively chooses specific future years in its cost-benefit analysis to justify transmission projects. These errors have led to a loss of credibility and have undermined the government's argument for a green transition.

The CSIRO's expertise lies in scientific research and innovation, not microeconomics, and its work on energy pricing is economically naive and departs from the established scientific method. "Facts are facts," said Chris Bowen, citing economic modeling by the CSIRO. However, the CIS report reveals that the CSIRO's modeling is unworthy of the paper it's printed on, and its conclusions are based on cherry-picked data and rookie calculation errors.

The Essential poll found that 40% of Australians think renewable energy is the most expensive form of energy, while 52% support nuclear energy. In contrast, only 36% believe nuclear is the costliest option, and 24% think fossil fuels are the most expensive. The CSIRO's flawed modeling and the resulting public perception could have significant implications for Australia's energy policy and the transition to a greener future.

Key Takeaways

• CSIRO accused of cherry-picking data to support green energy transition.
• Centre for Independent Studies exposes errors and biases in CSIRO's modeling.
• CSIRO ignores costs of renewable energy, such as storage and transmission lines.
• 40% of Australians think renewable energy is the most expensive form of energy.
• 52% of Australians support nuclear energy, contradicting CSIRO's claims.