Solar and wind : unreliable and ruinously expensive at scale

Australia is approaching an energy crisis: there are not enough dispatchable energy generators, ready to go, to replace the coal-fired power stations that it wants to shut down. The short term fix is to keep the coal-fired power stations operating until such time that we have replacements. Shutting the coal-fired power stations prematurely is a recipe for ongoing blackouts and very much higher costs to consumers, and in the longer term a reduction in living standards and loss of manufacturing industries.

Solar and wind have their applications. However, the rich world has embraced them as the immaculate solution to transition from fossil fuels, providing clean, green electricity, leading to zero emissions, at least in Australia. It is an illusion. Despite over a decade of enormous subsidies and political propaganda this global green transition is not occurring. Despite record installation of solar and wind in 2023 (globally but not here), the world's consumption of fossil fuels, at the same time, was a record, the highest ever recorded (Energy Institute). World energy and fossil fuel demand is increasing at pace, with no chance in sight of net zero. First, we would need to stabilize atmospheric CO2 concentration, which is not happening. It is increasing by some 3 ppm per annum.

The grand clean, green energy revolution transition is not occurring. It is fantasy to say that it is. Despite promises and legislation to reduce and eliminate emissions, coal consumption, global emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentrations are still decidedly increasing. Global emissions and atmospheric CO2 levels are at an all time high. The Loa Mauna Facility in Hawaii predicts a record high of 424 ppm atmospheric concentration of CO2 this year.

Society depends on reliable and affordable electricity, 24/7, and although Australia should do its part in reducing and eliminating emissions, it is not in our interests to hasten to cripple our economy and reduce our living standards. Australia cannot change the climate but it can damage its own economy and living standards. Other countries are burning more coal than we ever did, and taking economic advantage of it against our manufacturing sector, countries such as China and India. China and India use coal because it is the cheapest form of energy and that is why China can manufacture solar panels very competitively. Besides, how hypocritical we are. There is nothing clean and green about our coal exports, but where would we be without the foreign exchange they give us? We are still dependent on coal but it is not burnt in "our own back yard". Out of sight, out of mind, and good revenue, and virtue signaling as well. Why is coal export a good thing and burning it somewhere else is OK, if we are sincere about reducing emissions, which has to be global to have effect?

Electricity Utilities Configurations

Dispatchable generation refers to sources of electricity that can be programmed on demand at the request of power grid operators, according to market needs. Electricity utilities with a high proportion of dispatchable generators are typically configured as high-density, continuous, centralized facilities, requiring transmission lines only to supply on demand and taking up minimal area for their output.

On the other hand electricity utilities with a significant proportion of intermittent generators are characterized by low-density intermittent and decentralized facilities, requiring expensive ancillary facilities, including land and transmission between many nodes. This adds very significantly to the cost of electricity. This comparison alone is enough to suggest that 'renewables are NOT a cheap form of energy'. Fossil is, and nuclear next, as high-density continuous, centralized facilities. If 'renewables' were so good, massive subsidies would not be needed to encourage their construction and use.

Hidden costs of solar and wind

The public is not properly informed about the true costs and limitations of solar and wind power. They are marketed as renewables, while in fact a more correct terminology would be : weather-dependent intermittents. They only operate at the pleasure of the weather. At the present level of technology there is no large-scale battery option available (only mythical megabatteries, batteries can only supply electricity utilities for, at most, a few hours). Except for hydro storage, which is limited in amount available, there is no large-scale storage option. If you cannot store it, and you want it to be available 24/7, you have to produce it on demand, that is, dispatchable generation.

Solar and wind are only part-time generators. To generate the same power over time output as a dispatchable generator you need on average, four times the number of solar generators and three times for wind. This quadrupling and tripling means that the capital cost of this inherent redundancy must be taken into account. For most of the time these assets are sitting idle and useless. This is a highly significant cost that is conveniently ignored when you say: "renewables are the cheapest form of energy".

Solar and wind only work with sunbeams and breezes and particularly with wind, the electricity output will vary with wind strength. These variable outputs are not suitable for consumption as produced, their voltage and frequency must be adjusted to suit our domestic appliances and machinery (240V, 50Hz). The equipment and management of changing the variable electricity to suit user configurations from weather-dependent intermittents, which is significant, must be taken into account for real cost, but hardly ever mentioned, if at all.

Then there is the matter of transmission. Decentralised facilities, made necessary because of the hectares of solar panels and wind turbines, due to the diffused nature of the energy captured, necessitate a lot of transmission, especially when located far from the points of consumption. This incurs more costs also with energy loss in long distance transmission increasing costs again.

According to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, another 10,000 km of transmission lines will be required by 2030 and 28,000 km by 2050. This rewiring of the nation has been estimated to cost some $100 billion. This is now looking like a massive underestimate, given information to date. The Hume Link is now 250% over original budget. The Snowy 2.0 project requires additional transmission and is unprepared to foot any of the bill for connection. In itself, the Snowy 2.0 is a cost-estimate disaster, originally estimated at $2 billion, it has now soared to $12 billion, that is, a sixfold increase.

The only projections of anything that could be considered as trustworthy are from those with the competence to make them, and without any bias or vested, particularly pecuniary, interest in the result.