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