The clean, green energy illusion, electricity reality, and baseless political ideology

In the years since I was first tempted to engage in trying to understand the real issues behind power generation - especially electrical power generation - there is, above all, one salient feature that emerges across the board. Sanity and rationalism have been cast aside, and the whole arena is now a political and ideological battleground whose main protagonists understand little or nothing about the industry they seek to bend to suit their ideological (and possibly commercial) needs.

In short the world is full of people who have an opinion about power generation, who understand nothing about how it actually works or even what actually works.Leo Smith – Limitations of Renewable Energy (2012) (still as relevant today)

Introduction

Energised electrons (electricity) are devout followers of the Laws of Nature; they do not bend to any ideology, fashion nor to any act of a parliament. Ideologies have to bend to the Laws of Nature not the reverse.

It should be noted that it is only the rich Western World that is spending $trillions on 'clean, green energy', more appropriately named: weather-dependent intermittent energy. The rest of the world, although trying to make an effort to do something similar in the name of 'saving the planet', is busier than ever in using fossil fuels, while Australia, which cannot 'save the planet', continues on its suicidal course of all-renewables net zero by 2050. There is so much misinformation, distortion and perhaps even conmanship about this in the political area, that paying attention to the physical reality, the laws of nature, should be helpful in presenting the real facts to the Australian public, devoid from the political noise, here.

Present global energy use

Despite the proliferation of solar and wind turbine farms degrading the landscape and the popularity of rooftop solar, the clean, green energy revolution is an illusion. Despite the $trillions spent by the rich countries over the last decade, it is not happening. There was more fossil fuel combusted in 2023 than any other year in history (Energy Institute) and atmospheric CO2 increased by another 3.8 ppm between June 2023 and June 2024 (Mauna Loa, Hawaii). This is not a political statement but rather irrefutable facts as they exist. No political, feel-good propaganda can change this. Obviously, the 'clean, green energy revolution' can only be said to be happening if there is a cessation of increase in fossil fuel consumption and a corresponding cessation in increase in atmospheric CO2, which is not happening. The non-expert politicians, who want to be voted in again, and the winners from the gravy train of the renewables roll out, dismiss these inconvenient (to them) but irrefutable facts. The taxpayer should take note: continuation of our present course is ruinously expensive and leaves us with an unreliable electricity grid, and a higher taxing future when the present politicians and the beneficiaries of the renewables gravy train are gone.

To stop further increase in atmospheric C02, the global view is the only one that counts, atmospheric CO2 is common property. Net zero in Australia will not 'save the planet'. Unless increase in global atmospheric CO2 is arrested, the clean, green energy revolution is null and void.

Physical and economic reality of renewables

It is worthwhile repeating that renewables are more appropriately named weather-dependent intermittents because that is what they are.

Free Electricity

The first Law of Thermodynamics states: Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but it can be transformed into some other variants. The non-expert politicians who want your vote say that: 'solar and wind are free, the cheapest form of electricity.' Solar and wind energy is certainly free for the taking, but their transformed derivative, electricity, is NOT. Diffuse solar and wind energy must be captured, transformed into electricity suitable for industrial and domestic consumption and transmitted to the points of consumption. The facilities required to do this are expensive and there is the problem of disposal of the panels and windmills at the end of their useful lives, which the renewable zealots completely ignore. The facilities required to convert sun and wind to electricity are material intensive. These facilities are NOT renewable, they wear out like any other machinery and construction. The term renewables therefore is something of a misnomer, intending to mislead. Consequently 'renewables' are expensive….not the cheapest form of energy. The cheapest form of electricity is coal. Ask any poor country. Australia is the second or third largest coal exporter, so our net zero is hypocritical virtue signalling. However, ceasing to export coal would be in vain, as the buyers will get it from somewhere else, like Russia.

Intermittency

Because of their weather-dependent intermittency, solar and wind are only part-time generators. To generate the same electricity output over time (but not necessarily when you want it) 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, but they still have to be paid for. 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 variable 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 (alternating current, 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, by renewables proponents.

Transmission

Then there is the matter of transmission. Decentralised facilities, made necessary because of the hectares of solar panels and wind turbines, due to the diffuse nature of the energy captured, necessitate a lot of transmission, especially when located far from the points of consumption. This incurs more costs together with energy loss in long distance transmission increasing costs again. The transmission lines will cost us but the contractors and their financiers will be the beneficiaries.

Vulnerability

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 gas, coal and nuclear that are not subject to extensive, vulnerable, open areas, while solar arrays and wind turbines are. Energy infrastructure is critical to society both in peace and war time. Solar arrays and wind turbines are vulnerable to both weather events and military aggression.

Material Intensity

Renewable energy sources like wind and solar are inherently low in energy density, meaning they require significantly more physical infrastructure, including their inherent redundancy, to produce the same amount of electricity as fossil fuels or nuclear power. For example, a one-gigawatt (GW) wind farm needs hundreds of turbines, spread over vast areas of land, and demands large quantities of materials such as steel, copper, and rare earth elements. A nuclear plant of the same capacity requires about 10 per cent of the steel and concrete needed for a comparable wind farm.

All energy-producing machinery must be fabricated from materials extracted from the earth. This requires the mining and processing of millions of tonnes of raw material. There have been estimates that compared to fossil fuels, solar and wind facilities require, on average a 10-fold increase in materials mined and processed to produce the same amount of energy. This is largely due to the facilities covering a large surface area (such as solar arrays and wind turbine active areas) needed to capture diffuse energy and the associated equipment to transform the electricity to a useable form and its transmission to the points of consumption.

The totality of all these observations suggest that the equipment required to produce electricity in a form required by industry and households from diffuse sources such as solar and wind must inevitably be very expensive due to the extensive hardware required. Also renewables proponents never mention the fossil fuel energy used to manufacture solar panels and wind turbines, no so clean and green.

These facilities come from output from mines, they do not magically appear to give clean energy, so they are not as clean and green as it first appears. This observation tarnishes the gloss of the clean, green energy revolution. The clean, green energy revolution is an illusion.

Storage

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. Lithium is the third element in the Periodic Table, and has the smallest available cation. Li-ion batteries depend on the migration of Li cations backwards and forwards (charge and discharge) through a permeable membrane, reacting to an electrical potential. 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. It is a formidable technological challenge that should not be trivialized or ignored.

It is arrogant and ridiculous to think that humankind can trump Nature. It is this sort of arrogance that leads to baseless, wisdom-free ideology. We are dependent on Nature, it will not change for us. Nuclear fusion would be the holy grail for electricity generation. Scientists have been working on this since WW2 and we are not there yet, if ever. The same applies to large-scale battery storage. It is a gross error to consider that the rapid progress in digital technologies will necessarily be repeated in the economic large-scale battery area because there are issues, not easily seen, that are fundamentally different. Developments in microchip technology have nothing to do with large-scale energy technology, except for control purposes. Microchip technology is not energy-intensive.

Storing energy has risks too. With increasing prevalence of Li-ion batteries, fire risk from them has been more prevalent, particularly with e-scooters. Keeping energy in a 'box' is not dissimilar to making a bomb without intentionally having a detonator. Energy stored in coal can spontaneously combust under certain conditions, as past sailors in wooden ships could tell us if they were with us now.

Environmental Impacts

All machinery and associated facilities including solar arrays and wind turbine towers have a finite life, they wear out. The issue of disposal of spent machinery and facilities is a growing problem in general. The disposal problem, if we cover our land with renewables, has not been addressed. This is inexcusable and irresponsible.

Also solar and wind farms are in competition for land use. Many farmers do not want ugly transmission lines on their properties nor solar arrays and wind farms littering the landscape.

It is scandalous that solar array and wind farm developers do not have to undergo the same rigorous assessments for end-of-life issues as those seeking permission to develop a mine.

Dispatchable electricity

Society wants reliable, available, 24/7, affordable carbon-free electricity with minimum environmental degradation. This necessitates a significant proportion of dispatchable generation in an electricity grid. An all-renewable grid is not fit for purpose. The only available, carbon-free dispatchable source is nuclear fission, which has its own problems. Gas is also a dispatchable source and although it is a carbon emitter, it is much less for the same amount of electricity than coal.

Storage of electricity from solar and wind sources is simply not available at present economically in required quantities. There are not enough hydro sources to meet overall demand. It is wishful thinking to assume with complete confidence that economic large-scale batteries will be developed in the near future. Constructing facilities on the assumption that economic large-scale batteries will be available is a form of reckless gambling with taxpayers' money.

Conclusions

An all-renewables electricity grid is not fit for purpose (no one has achieved it) and attempts to do so are extremely expensive and have adverse environmental consequences also. Not only technological considerations but real-world experience, such as in Germany, show this clearly. Germany has the highest proportion of renewables in its grid and the highest electricity costs in the EU; with unfavourable weather, Germany buys electricity from nuclear France. However, solar and wind have a place in an electricity grid as part of risk avoidance diversification. Rooftop solar has the advantages of not competing for land space and no significant transmission cost, as connection to the grid is already there.

Unlike Germany, Australia cannot buy electricity from nuclear France, we have no umbilical cord. Australia cannot 'save the planet' even in the highly unlikely event that it achieves net zero. 'Saving the planet' requires a global response. Why then, are we hell bent on lowering our standard of living when our net zero would have an imperceptible effect on global emissions and at the same time we are flogging as much coal as we can sell as the second or third largest exporter? The world, including Australia, is still dependent on fossil fuel.

Our present trajectory, given what we want from electricity (available 24/7 and affordable) conflicts with the Laws of Nature, leading us on a downward path economically and leaving us more vulnerable in a military sense. Ukraine would have no electricity if it had been relying on solar and wind, with Russia attacking its energy infrastructure.

Wake up Australia if you want to maintain your standard of living. Don't be conned by baseless ideology. It is all pain and no gain at present. Be guided by the Laws of Nature.

Nuclear fission is only an interim measure, for now. Permanent disposal needs to be found for radioactive waste. There is no presently available immaculate solution to our energy needs. Do not be lulled into a false sense of security about the 'clean, green energy revolution'. It is a feel-good illusion giving profit to many in the short term and satisfying the egos and thirst for power of fervent baseless-ideology adherents whose prime focus does not seem to be the welfare of the Australian public but rather virtue signalling at whatever the cost (to the taxpayer).

Modern society cannot prosper without reliable and affordable energy.