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.

In addition, as battery storage is not an economic option, at least at this time, all-renewable electricity generators are simply not fit for purpose, being bereft of any dispatchable generation. Dispatchability is vital for 24/7 supply on demand. Changing electricity demand must be met almost instantaneously by change in utility output, that is, dispatchable generation is essential.

Society wants reliable, 24/7, most affordable and carbon-free electricity with minimum adverse environment effect. An all-renewable grid cannot provide for these requirements as well as being ruinously costly. (References 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9). Australia's all-renewable net zero policy is a disaster and is a significant contributor to our inflation. Our standard of living will suffer and it could easily affect our sovereignty.

If solar and wind really were cheaper, economics ensures that they would replace fossil fuels without the need for a grand push, including massive subsidies (often hidden), from politicians and the gravy train of the 'renewables' industry. This claim is incessantly repeated because it is convenient to those who profit from it, politically or financially or from those who just do not understand where the costs really come from. Cheap solar and wind to supply electricity 24/7 has no substance in reality, it is just a feel-good fantasy.

A rapid global transition from fossil fuels is impossible. Emerging economies will continue to focus on becoming richer, mostly using fossil fuels, as they are cheaper and dispatchable. Australia cannot change this. Abatement of fossil fuel emissions requires a global response.

Nuclear Fission

Nuclear fission is a mature and proven technology and it is dispatchable. It can easily be placed on the present sites of coal-fired plants utilizing the same transmission system and provide jobs for those displaced as coal-fired power is turned off. It has considerable economic and social benefits. At first glance it looks like the immaculate solution, but it is not.

Solar and wind will produce a high-volume disposal problem at end-of-life. Queensland has already banned spent solar panels from landfill. Nuclear will produce lesser volume, but it is radioactive. A satisfactory solution to the permanent disposal of dangerous nuclear waste is the main hurdle to the wider spread adoption of this technology.

Radioactive waste is already here, and we have to deal with it.

Nuclear waste is typically classified as being low, intermediate or high level, depending on its radioactivity. While some countries vitrify low and intermediate-level waste, the method is mostly used to immobilize high-level liquid waste, which contains fission products and transuranic elements with very long half-lives that are generated in a reactor core. This type of waste requires active cooling and shielding because it is radioactive enough to significantly heat both itself and its surroundings.

Tens of thousands of metric tonnes of radioactive waste that accumulated from commercial power plants and years of national defence operations continue to age at sites around the globe. As the hazardous material and the containers it sits in await permanent disposal, the stockpile keeps growing. It is said that in some cases the aging containers have already begun leaking their toxic contents.

Vitrification involves the processing and transformation of the spent fuel into a glass. It has been used for high level waste immobilization for over 40 years in most countries that have a nuclear power program, including France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, UK, Japan, and the USA.

However, it does not apply to all types of nuclear waste and it cannot be assumed it is a permanent solution.

Comparative Costs and General Utility

Whatever political spin you hear or like, coal is the cheapest source of electricity. That is why we use it, as well as it being dispatchable. Emerging economies will prioritise their development over concerns of greenhouse gases, with major use of fossil fuels.

A lot of the numbers that are put forward concerning solar and wind (weather-dependent intermittents) and nuclear fission are dodgy. They reflect the bias and vested interests of the persons presenting them, whether it be for intermittents or nuclear.

A more reliable way to make general comparisons is to observe performances to date. Denmark and Germany have the highest electricity consumer costs in the EU and also have the highest proportion of 'renewables' in their grids. France has over 60% nuclear in its grid. It does not have the highest consumer cost in the EU. Also, France exports electricity to Germany when the weather is not favourable to German electricity production, indicating the crucial importance of dispatchability.

These simple observations have more validity than numbers out of the air. It is reasonable to assume, on this basis, that solar and wind are generally a more expensive source of electricity than nuclear. More to the point, they are not dispatchable, making an all-renewable grid not fit for purpose, even if it were 'the cheapest form of energy'. Just to say 'one day we will have battery storage' is just wishful thinking. There is no guarantee of that and no electricity utility should be built on this premise. That would be a Russian roulette style of gambling.

Conclusions

There are no immaculate solutions, currently that are generally applicable, to the world's demand for electricity and so the use of fossil fuels will persist, at least in the short to medium term.

Neither fossil, nor sun and wind, nor nuclear fission can immaculately provide sustainable electricity for Australia's and the rest of the world's needs, and the need keeps on increasing exponentially, nearly 9 times globally in the last 70 years, an exponential growth of some 3% per annum. The reasons for limitation vary among sources.

An inconvenient truth for many is that the clean, green, cheap energy revolution based on sun and wind is not happening. This revolution is an illusion, a trip into feel-good fantasy land for the comparatively rich who do not suffer privation. The poor, and there are many more of them than the rich on the planet, are more concerned with staying warm and having food on the table than 'saving the planet'. Fossil fuel consumption, globally, and greenhouse gas accumulation, are at record highs. Atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide does not lie. This is despite more than a decade of large-scale experiments and trillions of dollars spent on large-scale solar and wind projects. The reason is simply that the energy conversion based on diffuse energy from sunbeams and breezes are not dispatchable (unreliable) and ruinously costly (as well as creating 3-dimensional graffiti on prime, productive rural land and pristine coastal marine areas) and it is making the rich world poorer and the rest of the world cannot afford it. Coal is still King and we export it to pay for our solar panels made in China with coal as the energy source for their manufacture. This is classic hypocrisy for the purpose of virtue signalling, and is not in the interest of the Australian taxpayer, who is footing the bill. We are still dependent on coal whether we admit it or not. We find nuclear submarines acceptable but say no to nuclear for electricity.

Nuclear fission is a dispatchable generator and can be fitted to existing coal-powered sites, resulting in less disruption and environmental damage and also provides economies resulting from the existing transmission systems. However, nuclear is only an interim measure for dispatchable electricity, as is gas (gas emits but not as much as coal) at this time. Permanent storage of highly radioactive waste is a formidable challenge, not yet solved, and perhaps never will be. It is in the same unknown category as economic storage batteries at scale for electricity utilities based on solar wind powered grids. The only economic megabatteries, currently, are mythical ones.

Society wants reliable, 24/7, the most affordable and carbon-free electricity with minimal environmental damage and change. Fossil, sun and wind, and nuclear all have critical shortfalls in meeting these requirements. They all constitute formidable challenges. Ideological blind optimism is just a futile fantasy. The laws of nature will prevail over blind ideology and laws of parliaments.

At the present time there are no immaculate, sustainable solutions to the world's electricity demand. Nuclear fusion would be, if the reaction could be controlled. The way forward in electricity generation depends on R&D, not on ideology, political propaganda nor vested interests, nor the opinion of the privileged, pampered elites, who never have experienced privation and who have little understanding in what electricity generation entails technologically, economically and environmentally.

Only a significant boost in R&D can bring about the technological breakthroughs that are needed. Until then it is likely that coal will remain King and gas the Queen. Only well-directed and well-funded R&D together with humane control of population (Reference 10)will 'save the planet'.

Continuation of shut down of our coal fired power stations without a dispatchable source ready to go as a replacement, such as gas, will inevitably lead to blackouts, brownouts and load shedding. Remember, Australia cannot save the planet and virtue signalling might feel good, but it is useless and the taxpayer gets the bill. The government cannot subsidise the entire economy except by increasing our debt levels and that is not sustainable.

Our all-renewables, net zero 2050 energy policy is a very bad lemon. Any energy policy that can cause instability, or even lack of supply, costs too much, degrades good productive agricultural land and coastal marine, has a large disposal problem at end-of-life and contributes only an unmeasurably small contribution to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is not just moronic but completely without reason, sine causa.

Arguably, the worst policy decision in Australia's history. It will adversely affect us for a decade or more. Those who have, in any way, a vested interest in the 'renewables' gravy train as well as the ardent devotees of ideology will probably dismiss out of hand, without further consideration, the facts and observations contained herein calling it 'fake news'. Confronting brutal reality can be uncomfortable and unpalatable.