Critical limitations of the main sources of electricity generation

Need for Change

The atmospheric accumulation of some of the emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels is enhancing the planet's greenhouse effect. Replacement of fossil fuels is an easy concept to grasp, but it is a major challenge for humanity in its implementation. The reality is that there is no readily available carbon-free, immaculate, sustainable replacement technology.

Possible Replacements and Ideology

For general application, there are two types of generators seen as possible. They are the 'renewables', mainly solar and wind (really weather-dependent intermittents) and the other is nuclear fission. The situation has become heavily politicized, with rationality and reason being abandoned. Enthusiastic zealots of both types cherry pick their facts and ignore what does not agree with their ideology.

Energised electrons (electricity) take no sides in politics and ethics. Each and every electron is a devout follower of the principles and laws of nature; economic consequences follow from that base.

Therefore the proper and most robust base for developing energy policy is to be guided by available technology and its economic and environmental consequences, not shallow vote-catching nor pandering to vested interests nor ideologies.

Solar and Wind – the 'Renewables'

Despite large scale experimentation and obsession by the Western world over more than the last decade, spending literally trillions of dollars on 'renewables', there is no sign of reduction of global fossil fuel emissions and it has been accompanied by an increase in greenhouse gases. More fossil fuels were consumed in 2023 than any other year in history (Energy Institute). The clean, green, cheap energy revolution is simply not happening. That more solar and wind facilities have been installed is not the measure of success, that is an illusion. The metric that counts is the change in atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. It is increasing. In July 2023 it was 421.8 ppm (parts per million) and in July 2024 it was 425.6 ppm (Mauna Loa, Hawaii). The measurements do not lie and are simple to interpret.

Merely ignoring significant limitations of any type of generator because it conflicts with an ideology is self-defeating in the end.

Evaluation of all the available alternatives should encompass all of the costs and benefits involved. Anything else is delusionary.

We have not done that. Australia has taken a particularly reckless approach, aiming to achieve net zero via an all-renewable grid (no one has done this). This is highly unlikely to succeed and will certainly be ruinously costly, lowering our living standards (References 1 and 2). It is ideology gone mad. Australia cannot save the planet but we can make ourselves poorer for nothing.

We are told that 'renewables' are 'the cheapest form of energy'. Nothing could be further from the truth. An inconvenient truth to the proponents of 'renewables' (more accurately weather-dependent intermittents) is that solar and wind are only part-time generators, they only work when the sun shines and the wind blows. For the rest of the time they sit idle, but they still have to be paid for, ultimately by the consumer. Intermittency equals cost and more cost. This is because of: the cost of the large redundancy required, the cost of synchronisation required to match the variable electricity output of these generators to domestic requirement of 240V 50Hz and the cost of transmission requirement for decentralized dispersed generators. All these highly significant costs are forgotten, ignored or trivialized by proponents.