Australia’s $200B Energy Transformation: Would Any CEO Approve This?
Shayne Whitehouse
Helping Businesses Transform | Sales Leadership | Digital Twins & AI Innovation
In 20 years of business transformation, I have seen one common reason why projects fail – they do not align everyone with the vision or the ‘why’.
If people do not know why we are doing something, and we have not defined what success looks like or how we will get there, then failure is almost guaranteed.
Yet, Australia is committing $200 billion to an energy transformation with: ? No defined economic vision for 2050 ? No alignment with industry, manufacturing, or fuel security ? No debate on whether the energy mix will support long-term productivity
This is not just bad planning, it is economic malpractice.
What’s Missing? Let’s Apply the Hand Framework
? WHY – What’s the Purpose?
? Current answer: Decarbonisation.
?? Missing: What kind of economy are we powering? A low-value service economy or a powerhouse manufacturing and energy-independent nation?
?? WHAT – What’s the Vision?
? Current answer: Net zero by 2050.
?? Missing: Will we still be exporting raw lithium while buying back batteries at 10 times the price?
?? HOW – Does the Energy System Match the Vision?
? Current answer: Expand wind, solar, and transmission.
?? Missing: Will this energy system support heavy industry? Keep manufacturing globally competitive? Ensure fuel security?
? WHEN – Are We Planning for the Long Term?
? Current answer: Targeting 2050.
?? Missing: Pumped hydro lasts 100 years, nuclear lasts 60 years. Why are we only planning for 2050?
?? WHO – Have We Engaged the Right Stakeholders?
? Current answer: Energy regulators, policymakers, climate advocates.
?? Missing: Manufacturers, defence, and regional economies – the people who actually need this energy.
The Real Question: What Kind of Australia Do We Want in 2050?
Two very different futures:
?? Path A: The Participation Medal Economy (AEMO’s Current Path)
? Still ranked 100+ in Economic Complexity Index
? Still a quarry economy, exporting raw materials while others add value
? Still importing fuel despite being a resource-rich nation
?? Path B: The Industrial Powerhouse Economy
? Top 10 in Economic Complexity Index
? Cheap, reliable energy powers AI, manufacturing, and steel production
? Fuel independence – coal-to-fuel, nuclear, and green hydrogen
? Circular economy – CO? from coal-to-fuel is used in fertiliser
The Most Expensive Question We’re Not Asking
Here is what is terrifying – the energy decisions being made today will shape Australia’s economy for the next century.
This is like designing a city’s transport system before deciding whether it will be car-based or metro-based.
Would any CEO, project leader, or government official sign off on a $200 billion transformation without a clear outcome?
Of course not – yet that is exactly what we are doing.
Before We Commit to $200 Billion, Australians Deserve a Fair Go
? This is not about left or right, renewables or fossil fuels.
? It is about ensuring the economy we build works for all Australians.
Before we lock in $200 billion in spending, we need a national debate:
?? What kind of economy do we want in 2050?
?? Does this energy system actually support that vision?
Because if we get this wrong, we will not just have the wrong energy system. We will have the wrong future.
#Australia2050 #FairGo #Energy #Manufacturing #EconomicVision #Transformation #HandFramework
Helping Businesses Transform | Sales Leadership | Digital Twins & AI Innovation
1 周If you don't have a vision of the outcome you want ie what kind of economy do we want , a powerhouse top 10 or one bereft of manufacturing.? Then what's needed to power that? Then can we do it? Yes you could run a house off grid with PV and a battery but what about one with a garage that has an arc welder used all the time and a kitchen that uses double items for home catering business?
Foundation member of The Energy Realists of Australia
1 周We don't just need a vision of the outcome we want, we need to check whether it can be done in a cost-effective manner with the technology at hand. The attempt to transition to wind and solar power has cost several trillions over the last couple of decades and we now have more expensive and less reliable grids with massive collateral damage to the environment. It seems that nobody bothered to check the the reliability of the wind supply. Imagine a farmer purchasing a property without checking the rainfall records for the district, not just the average rainfall but equally important the likelihood of severe droughts. We now know that there are severe wind droughts known as Dunkelflautes in Europe but the politicians who embarked on the net zero excursion didn't bother to check. We really have to talk about wind droughts:) https://open.substack.com/pub/rafechampion/p/lessons-from-the-world-wind-leaders ??? https://open.substack.com/pub/rafechampion/p/we-have-to-talk-about-wind-droughts
Helping Businesses Transform | Sales Leadership | Digital Twins & AI Innovation
1 周I would envisage a poll I ran asking what reliability we need would expand from a few votes to something like this nationally.
Research & Engagement Manager | Building Strategic Partnerships to Drive Revenue & Client Success
1 周Spending $200 billion without a clear vision is like designing a car before deciding if it’s for off-road or city driving. Energy isn’t just about decarbonization - it’s about shaping the economy we want. If we don’t ask the right questions now, we’ll be paying for the wrong answers later.