Reality and renewables

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.