Reality and renewables

In the years since I was first tempted to engage in trying to understand the real issues behind power generation - especially electrical power generation - there is, above all, one salient feature that emerges across the board. Sanity and rationalism have been cast aside, and the whole arena is now a political and ideological battleground whose main protagonists understand little or nothing about the industry they seek to bend to suit their ideological (and possibly commercial) needs.

In short the world is full of people who have an opinion about power generation, who understand nothing about how it actually works or even what actually works.

Leo Smith – Limitations of Renewable Energy (2012) (still as relevant today):

Introduction

The combustion of fossil fuels is causing carbon dioxide to accumulate in the atmosphere. It has doubled since the Industrial Revolution and the rate of increase has been higher in recent times. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas so it follows that there is an anthropogenic enhanced greenhouse effect caused by the combustion of fossil fuels. There is a need to reduce and preferably eliminate these emissions. Replacing fossil fuels is a simple concept but its implementation is a formidable undertaking, and to be effective, requires world-wide cooperation and the identification and construction of suitable replacement electricity generators. Going-it-alone, even if significant emission reduction is achieved, will not save the planet, in fact net zero in Australia will have an imperceptible effect on arresting carbon dioxide accumulation in the atmosphere.

Weather Dependent Intermittency

There are many who see so-called renewables as the complete answer to this major problem facing humanity. This includes Australian Governments. It is a very appealing concept as there is more direct sun-derived energy falling on the planet that we can use. The major flaw in this point of view is due to the intermittency of these generators. Intermittency is a limitation that is grossly underestimated. It is a technological limitation that has highly significant economic consequences that are often either ignored or its significance not properly understood. The UK, US and EU have a decade of experience in large-scale electricity utilities incorporating renewables, and, at this time, no one is claiming that they have an all-renewable electricity utility that is fit for purpose. It should also be noted that Denmark and Germany have the highest proportion of renewables in their generating mix and also the highest costs in the EU. Also Germany has done a deal with Nigeria to provide renewable technology in return for gas! Gas gives more electricity per unit of CO2 emission than coal. This would indicate that German experience is that dispatchable electricity is essential in functioning electricity utilities. One should take more notice of this experience with renewables, rather that the figures that are bandied around about by green extremists, academics dependent on government backing for salary and promotion and feckless politicians who say (without knowing or understanding anything about these issues) how "cheap" renewables are.

Cheap energy is an oxymoron. How many, with strong opinions on these matters, understand that simple statement?

The Purpose of an Electricity Utility

The purpose of an electricity utility is something more specific than just generating electricity. The purpose is to supply electricity on demand, 24/7, reliably, affordably, and now carbon-free. An electricity utility needs to be able to adjust to ever-varying demand, continuously. Utility output must always balance demand or the system fails. Fossil and nuclear are adjustable. Intermittent renewables cannot adjust so are not fit for electricity on demand but can be part of the generation mix. However, incorporating intermittent renewables into the generation mix incurs significant extra financial and environmental costs that you are not told about.

Accountancy

The cost of producing electricity from a renewable generator cannot be directly compared to that from a fossil or nuclear generator, because renewables cannot produce on demand whereas fossil and nuclear can. Being able to produce on demand is far more valuable to the consumer and it does add to costs. Do you want electricity when you want it or are you prepared to wait until the sun shines or the wind blows?

The cost metrics and the utility of renewable energy are simply not comparable with conventional plant. But by pretending that they are, hidden costs are brushed aside, and conclusions reached that are plainly invalid, bordering on public fraud.

The figures bandied around by the disciples of renewable energy and the nuclear and fossil industries cannot be taken seriously unless the methodology and the underlying assumptions in the calculations are made transparent. All of these groups have their own agendas. A fundamental of accounting is that all costs and subsidies need to be taken into account. Creative accounting is tempting, if not compelling, when you have a vested interest. For comparisons among different generating types, the specific situation must be clear. For example, comparing renewables with fossil generators using the LCOE methodology is invalid; fossil and nuclear in an electricity utility can produce electricity on demand whereas renewables cannot.

The marketing of renewable energy compares intermittent un-dispatchable power with reliable dispatchable power, on an averaged basis, to arrive at costs that simply bear no relation to the overall cost of supplying reliable dispatched 'renewable' power to the grid. Adjusting electricity utility output to meet ever-varying demand is a significant task in itself, and having renewables in the generating mix makes it harder and more costly.

Renewables are strictly limited by the vagaries of the weather. Comparing the cost of renewables against fossil and nuclear is a somewhat complex and situational matter. Such comparisons must be made in the context of incorporation into an electricity utility to have any useful meaning. The most important end-cost is the overall cost to the consumer, which must include all costs and subsidies.

Critical Significance of Dispatchable Generators

Dispatchable generators work when you switch the lights on. Renewable generators only work when the weather permits. This difference is not just a technical point, it has enormous economic consequences. With renewables in an electricity utility to provide electricity on demand, an enormous array of redundant generators is needed and has been found elsewhere to be very expensive or even unaffordable.

As the proportion of renewables in an electricity utility-scale system starts to approach 100%, costs sky rocket if the reliability of the system is to be maintained for security of supply against the vagaries of the weather. The smaller the weather non-dependent generating component, the greater is the replication needed, at great cost, of the renewable generators so as to try to offset the risk of having no sun nor wind when electricity is demanded. The greater the proportion of renewables, the more critical are the dispatchable generators of the electricity utility and the harder it is to balance utility output to meet demand. In addition, having renewables in the generating mix loads extra costs onto the utility (excess voltage management, inflexibility and unreliability of supply). This increases costs yet again. Storage, at the present level of technology is not an option. All-renewable electricity supply systems are unaffordable and not fit for purpose. This has been experienced abroad.

Just as intermittent generators are costly, being operational only part time, so also is having dispatchable generators (coal, gas or nuclear) part time to eliminate the risk of unfriendly weather. Another cost of intermittent renewables. One clear way of reducing redundancy costs is to use dispatchable generators only.

Dispatchable electricity is essential to any functioning electricity utility.

Free Energy

People understand that wind and solar are free. They are there for the taking. However, costly facilities are required to capture the solar (electro-magnetic radiation) and wind energy (kinetic energy), convert it to electricity and send it to the points of consumption. Necessary replication in an electric utility magnifies the cost. You have to build high voltage transmission lines, as well as constructing the solar panels and the turbines. All these significant costs, and also any subsidies, must be taken into account to arrive at the true cost of electricity, including the costs to deliver on demand, 24/7, some of which are usually forgotten by the enthusiasts for renewable energy.

Redundancy, Capacity Utilization Factor and its Costs

Consider a dispatchable generator and a solar array to have the same maximum output. The solar array will have, on average, 6 hours of sunshine a day. Consequently it will have a capacity utilization factor of 0.25. In order to produce the same amount of electricity over a 24 hour period, an array four times larger than the initial one will be required, increasing the capital cost by four times, very expensive. With a slightly better capacity utilization factor the same cost issue applies to wind turbines.

One way to partly overcome the issue of intermittency is to have a number of intermittent renewable generators of different types and in widely different locations (for example, solar and wind turbines) to function in parallel. This reduces the risk of failure to supply on demand 24/7, but does not completely eliminate it and at the same time increases system cost by integer factors. It also makes the task of adjusting utility output to demand more difficult. All of the generators in parallel must be included in calculating the cost of electricity, even when they only operate part time, that is, they have a low capacity utilization factor. It is easily overlooked, but this approach results in massive increases in the cost of electricity. It means that all the intermittent renewable generators are operating part time, depending on the weather. They are not fully utilized but still must be included in the cost of electricity. There is also the cost of long-distance high voltage transmission lines. This debunks the absurdity that "renewables are the cheapest form of energy". As generators in a (stand-alone) electricity utility, intermittent renewables, due to their multiplicity in parallel in order to keep the lights on, are obviously expensive, even unaffordable.

Storage

Electricity is essential to the modern world. Just saying we should electrify everything is superficial thinking because electricity has to be generated. Electricity is more of a service than a commodity. Hydro storage is proven and affordable but insufficient in dry Australia.

Those who do not think that economic large-scale battery storage of electricity is a huge challenge should look at the electrochemistry behind the well-established (for small applications) lithium-ion (Li-ion) battery which is currently favoured for upscale development. Li-ion batteries depend on the migration of Li cations backwards and forwards (charge and discharge) through a permeable membrane. The economics of this depend on the concentration and speed of the cations across the membrane as well as the area of the membrane. The battery economics problem is an inconvenient truth for those who see storage as the answer to all-intermittent renewables electricity utilities.

Policy and Risk

The technological constraints of intermittent renewables and their economic consequences should be a major input to energy policy. Australia has ignored this and is embracing a risky energy policy, putting all its eggs into the one intermittent renewables basket and failing to investigate other possibilities. This is seen to be even more risky when the experience elsewhere is that all-renewables electricity utilities are non-viable and unaffordable. Why do we believe we can do it when others have not been able to?

Net zero in Australia, if ever achieved, alone, will have an imperceptible effect on global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Consequently, the present policy of net zero at any cost is not in the interest of the Australian taxpayer, resulting in higher electricity costs and more unreliability of supply. The Australia Energy Management Organisation (AEMO) has warned of shortfall in supply as it is projected that there will be a shortfall of new supply as the ageing coal generators are retired. This indicates the possibility for blackouts and load shedding in the near future. The situation is so stark that the government has decided to underwrite the risk of developing new capacity with taxpayers' money. Potential developers obviously have doubts about the commercial viability of developing more renewable capacity and are deterred by politics.

At the same time we are exporting coal as fast as we can. This is inconsistent with global net zero which is all that matters for ceasing emissions. We are looking here at a double standard. Even if we did achieve net zero at home, which is most unlikely, we are still contributing to the problem of emissions with our coal exports. Coal exports are a significant part of our export earnings contributing to our standard of living. Carbon dioxide is a miscible gas, distributing itself across the atmosphere independently of where it was emitted. Don't burn it in our own backyard, but it is OK to burn it in yours if you pay us enough. What shallow virtue signaling! This is a double standard, manifestly hypocritical and inconsistent with net zero globally.

The contradictory juxtaposition between the obsession with net zero and big coal exports can safely be considered as moronic self-harm, like slashing your wrists, with its only outcome being a reduction in the living standards of Australians. Energy costs affect the prices of nearly everything.

Our energy policy is driven by ideology blind to the technological realities of electricity provision and carbon emissions. The losers will not be the virtue signaling politicians, who will be gone, but the tax paying public with lower living standards the end result. The Australian tax payers are being treated like sheep.

Environmental

No electricity generator, even the nearly-sanctified intermittent renewables is really clean and green. Intermittent renewables do not cause emissions in operation and are like nuclear in that sense. All generating types require mining to acquire the necessary specialized, critical and scarce minerals and materials for the manufacture of their facilities. This results in environmental degradation, sometimes permanent.

The energy capture requirements of renewables requires a large footprint on land and sea, due to the diffuse nature of the energy being captured. Given that most solar panels are made in China where coal-fired power stations, with emissions, are still being built, their energy being required to manufacture panels and wind turbine parts, so the solar panels and wind turbines are not so clean and green as first appears. For capturing sun or wind, large-scale renewable facilities are in competition directly with other uses of the land, the sea and the spaces above it, including farming, fishing, wildlife welfare and photosynthesis (to store carbon and produce oxygen).There is also the landscape deterioration with solar and wind turbines and long-distance transmission lines. Queensland has banned used solar panels going to landfill, now that the earlier ones are reaching the end of their lives. What will we do with used solar panels that cannot be recycled? Nuclear waste can be a problem, but renewables have their disposal problems too. To discard assessing nuclear out of hand because of its waste disposal problems is just as inconsistent as ignoring the disposal problems with solar panels and wind turbines.

Environmental degradation is the price we have to pay for electricity independently of the type of generator or facilities. Simply dismissing a potential generating source on the basis of environmental damage alone is biased cherry picking, devoid of reason.

Conclusions

Clean, green electricity from sun and wind as a replacement for dirty, polluting, greenhouse-gas-producing brown and black coal is a feel-good thing and is seductive. Sadly, it is divorced from technological and economic reality. Renewables, although they have their niche applications, can lead us along a dangerous path away from reality. The cost to produce electricity just when the sun shines and the wind blows is a cost far, far distant from that in incorporating renewables into an electricity utility. This is a well-hidden cost and perhaps not well understood by many. Attempts to construct an all-renewable electricity utility have failed because of the ruinous capital costs associated with the replication and redundancy of renewable generators required in an attempt to provide electricity on demand. This is entirely due to the weather dependent intermittency of these generators. The renewables enthusiasts do not factor in some or all of the costs arising from intermittency and consequent redundancy when considered in the context of an electricity utility. These costs are easily overlooked but they are very real and change the energy landscape.

The main economic beneficiaries from renewables are the miners, manufacturers and local constructors, not electricity consumers. China manufacturers the most solar panels and perhaps some parts for wind turbines, and use dirty coal as an energy source. No net zero here, in one of the world's most populous countries which produces a significant proportion of global fossil fuel emissions.

Weather dependent intermittent generators cannot produce electricity on demand. Having a number of different intermittent generators and in widely spaced locations partly compensates but increases the costs enormously. Some dispatchable generation is indispensable in a functioning electricity utility. Also, intermittent renewables are not as clean and green as at first appears. Virtue signaling does not improve our living standards nor help reduce global emissions (when we are exporting coal).

Ignoring the limitations of the intermittency of renewables will be costly to the Australian taxpayer. We were promised a $275 reduction in annual electricity costs. Instead we have ongoing increases and inflation. There is no hope of change of policy as there is too much political capital involved. No one ever wants to admit they were wrong, especially as it can affect re-election chances.

What society requires is affordable, dispatchable electricity generators that can be on tap when required, and turned off when not needed, generating carbon-free. At the present state of technology nuclear is the only electricity generating type that meets these conditions. Australia should, without delay, encourage investigation and investment in nuclear options with careful monitoring and regulation, to the betterment of our electricity supply and economic well-being. This is a far better strategy than blindly installing renewables without regard to their financial and environmental costs or effectiveness, especially given the lack of success (all-renewables grid) abroad. It can be seen as an irresponsible waste of taxpayers' money. It would be better invested in hospitals and education than in a renewable energy superpower flop.

The Australian public is being led down a dangerous path with a net zero obsession with renewables. Renewables are not "cheap" nor are they so green. Australia will no longer be the Lucky Country. The proponents of "cheap" renewables will be gone while the taxpayer will continue paying the enormous bill for this folly.