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.

The reason for this dramatic and costly addition to our transmission infrastructure is directly due to the intermittency and low-density nature of solar and wind based electricity generators which the governments insists is the 'cheapest form of power' . The transmission lines will cost us but the contractors and their financiers will be the beneficiaries.

Solar arrays are vulnerable to expensive hail damage as has been experienced a number of times in the US. Also strong wind events can wreak havoc with wind turbines. This is a difficult to estimate, but very real cost and risk. Weather damage potential is far less for centralized facilities like coal and nuclear that are not subject to extensive, vulnerable, open areas, while solar arrays and wind turbines are. Energy infrastructure is critical and solar arrays and wind turbines are vulnerable to both weather events and military aggression.

Environmental costs

Solar and wind generators are no so clean and green. There is the environmental degradation by a large increase in transmission lines to start with. All types of electricity generators require significant mining for the raw materials from which the facilities are manufactured. It is said that nuclear has a much smaller mining footprint that solar and wind, perhaps ten times less. Certainly solar and wind is much more land-intensive than nuclear because of its low-density at collection point. Productive land or marine environment is lost or degraded. Unlike nuclear, solar and wind do not have economies of scale, as their output can only be increased by surface area increase and not by volume.

Then there is the issue of disposal at end of life. The disposal of large-scale end-of-life solar and wind turbine infrastructure is ignored. Queensland has already banned spent solar panels in landfill. No provision for remediation of the spent infrastructure is included in approvals for solar and wind farms, while normal mining operations are required to do so. This is another major hidden cost overlooked and is equivalent to a subsidy to encourage construction. In the end the taxpayer will pay. You could say it is a scandal.

The disposal problems of solar and wind, to be faced in the future are likely to be more problematic that the disposal of a much smaller amount of nuclear waste, even if radioactive. All these matters should be evaluated dispassionately and not through the rosy inflexible lens of ideology, nor ignored.

Observations elsewhere

The EU has a deficit of economic energy resources. So it was an early player in large-scale solar and wind experiments. After more than a decade, Denmark and Germany have the highest proportion of solar and wind in their energy mix and note that they have the highest electricity costs in the EU. Germany is trying to trade solar and wind technology with Nigeria to get gas in return. Gas is a dispatchable generator but with emissions, but less than that with coal for the same amount of electricity. In the first half of this year it is reported that Germany imported 16.5 TWh of electricity from nuclear France; incidentally,being equivalent to some 9% of electricity consumed in Australia in 2023, a significant amount.

At the COP28 conference, it was agreed that nuclear is an acceptable generating source to help combat rising emissions.

There are some 400 nuclear plants in operation today in over 30 countries, with 61 plants under construction. France is over 60% nuclear, the US almost 20% and has the highest use for a country.

Selective nuclear phobia

Nuclear-rich Australia is the only G20 country that still has a blanket prohibition on nuclear power even though it is buying nuclear submarines (perhaps considered a sunk cost?). The government is frightened that its 'renewables' can't compete with nuclear without subsidies. Relying on subsidies is a fool's paradise. Someone, eventually, has to pay……namely the Australian taxpayer with lower living standards.

Conclusions

By hastily and rigidly pushing the all-renewable net zero mantra, Australia is damaging both its living standards and its natural environment, a sort of lemming-like self-harm. Sadly, an even greater tragedy is that there seems to be no realization by the enthusiasts that net zero cannot be achieved at the present level of technology, by weather-dependent solar and wind intermittents alone, (no one claims to have done it) and that all the pain for Australians will have been for nothing because our contribution to CO2 emissions is (practically) net zero, a totally misdirected, costly and futile effort to the overall detriment of Australian society. An inconvenient fact for nuclearphobes and renewable zealots is that nuclear fission is, at least for the moment, the only generally applicable electricity generator which is dispatchable, reliable, most affordable and carbon-free. World experience together with technological issues and their economic implications suggest that nuclear is more affordable than the unreliable, not so green and clean expensive solar and wind. France is over 60% nuclear and it does not have the highest electricity prices in the EU and exports to a high 'renewable' high cost grid like Germany when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow always when Germany wants it to.

Given the enormous challenge of transitioning from fossil fuels, (which is {perhaps } necessary for the survival of humanity) all likely types of generation should be considered. For all types of electricity generation, issues of cost, practicality, safety and waste need to be subjected to rigorous and transparent testing and community input. This is not the case in Australia where 'renewables' are the holy grail and nuclear fission is verboten.

Because of the short-timescale thinking, whatever we do now will still lead to unreliable supply, especially if we shut down all the coal-fired plants before replacements are ready to go, as well as higher costs. Government policy will be to blame. (Inaction by the previous Government and ideological disaster from the present one). Any type of generating facility and associated infrastructure to incorporate the generators takes some years to implement. All we can do is to try to minimize the economic and personal effects on ourselves by developing a sensible, agreed on, energy policy. The all-renewables net zero policy has to be modified or abandoned, as it is a total failure without any real benefit to either Australia or the world.

Trusting in available technology and its economic consequences is a far better guide than ideological zeal. The laws of nature do not bend to any ideology nor any parliamentary authority. The lights go out when there is no electricity on demand available and manufacturing industry moves overseas when the cost is uncompetitive. This is the practical reality.