During my working life as an engineering project manager, the process was always logical and consistent: break the project down to its component activities and analyse each of these in terms of how long it would take, what resources it would need and how much it would cost.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Our much-touted transition to renewable energy is surely a "project" that should be treated in this way. But I see no evidence in the media that our leaders are doing that, in which case it will never be successful, and they will be guilty of a gigantic dereliction of their duty to the country.
The government has set down many target dates and promises (43 per cent CO2 reduction by 2030 and net zero CO2 by 2050; 50 per cent of all new cars to be electric by 2050 - presumably along with their required charging infrastructure).
We've had generalised claims about battery storage, pumped hydro, green hydrogen to run a gas plant. There have been many statements about the end objective being cheaper and more reliable energy, but no evidence to back that up, and no details about how it will be achieved.
We have seen various figures about some of the things that will be needed as part of the transition e.g. $40 billion in transmission lines to deliver the renewable energy from its place of generation to the users. There have been announcements from operators that major power stations will be closed up to a decade ahead of schedule. Every one of these has apparently been identified and announced in isolation. But where is the project management plan to tie all this together?
Can all this be accomplished in the time apparently already determined and announced by the government? Where will we source the lithium, lead, cobalt, titanium etc. needed for all the electric cars, wind turbines and solar farms?
Can we get approval to open mines here and get them producing in time? We already have a skills deficit and a labour shortage in Australia. Where will we find the people with the skills we need for this massive infrastructure project? We can't find enough staff to keep cafes open.
What about the specialised materials and equipment needed in this high-tech endeavour? We can't even keep supermarket shelves stocked with toilet paper.
A proper project management plan for the transition would have every element, every activity, mapped out across the years, starting now.
Flowing on from that, for each individual year between now and say 2050, we would see exactly what needs to be accomplished in that year to enable the targets to be reached. We would know the resourcing requirements (including raw materials, plant/equipment and labour/trades/professional expertise) and the costs, for each and every year. Then, and only then, would we have a plan.
Grandiose claims at election time don't cut it now. We need serious and fearless examination of the project. Who knows, we might even find out that the plan can't be achieved with the resources available, or within Australia's economic capacity, or in the timeframes promised? Now is the time to find that out, not in 2030 when we've no more reliable power.
One might expect that in a well governed country, this work would be well underway and the community would be regularly updated on progress against the program, in its myriad component activities.
I see no evidence of this.
If it's being done, why is it being kept secret? If it's not being done, that would be an enormous indictment of government ineptitude on a grand scale, over the biggest infrastructure undertaking since the Snowy Mountains Scheme.
The government is getting plenty of advice from climatologists (self-appointed?), geographers, and environmentalists. It says listen to the science. But where is the advice from engineers - the objective realists of the technological professions? These are the people who they will need to rely on if the grand scheme is to be delivered. These are the people who can quantify the resources, costs and times required to meet all the government's thus far unlinked ideas, targets and promises.
Or is the government not talking to engineers because it won't get the answers it wants?
The Paul Broad's exit from Snowy Hydro (although he isn't an engineer) demonstrated the principle. Has the whole issue of energy supply and our transition to renewable energy been hijacked by a government so obsessed with its own ideology that it has totally lost objectivity and is blind to evidence and deaf to proper engineering analysis?
It's time to give the mish-mash of political ideas and ideological dreams a genuine project management makeover before it is too late. Who knows, if it's done properly, it might turn out to be possible. One thing is certain - if it's not done, it is impossible.
Phil McLeod, of Hamilton South, is a retired civil engineer with a background in public administration and construction management
IN THE NEWS:
- Arrest and raid at Warners Bay in national gun crackdown
- Man pleads guilty over death of baby
- NSW election last chance to save koalas
- Couple calls for robotic surgery at John Hunter Hospital
- 'Bye mum, I won't be late'... 25 years on, a family still waiting for answers
- Wallsend Frights festival and our ghoulish Halloween photo gallery
WHAT DO YOU THINK? We've made it a whole lot easier for you to have your say. Our new comment platform requires only one log-in to access articles and to join the discussion on the Newcastle Herald website. Find out how to register so you can enjoy civil, friendly and engaging discussions. Sign up for a subscription here.
