How NOT to save the planet and get poor

Despite it never having been done anywhere before, we were promised clean, green and cheap energy, but reliability was not promised. Perhaps that was not important to the proponents? Who wants reliable electricity? We were promised $275 reduction in the average electricity bill. Subsidies are only a temporary measure and either the taxpayer or electricity consumer (usually one and the same) have eventually to pay. We got the subsidies….but have to pay for them ultimately.

To say that Australia now has a green energy mess would be a gross understatement and it is not clean. Solar panels and wind turbines require extensive mining for the raw materials (just like coal), usually coal energy for transformation, and then how to dispose, how dirty! Queensland has already banned used solar panels in landfill. Think of the conditions under which solar panels are produced in China, but, of course, that is 'not in my backyard'.

Our green, clean, energy 'transition' is uncosted but certainly hideously costly, risky and unproven, a Russian roulette gamble. Our stumbling, uncoordinated 'transition' is such that we have an electricity grid emerging that will be unreliable, hideously expensive and a blight on the environment. The lights will be kept on 24/7 only with natural gas (after coal) or nuclear, not political gas, nor 'renewables'. In addition, even if net zero by 'renewables' were successful in Australia it would have an imperceptible effect on moderating the anthropogenically induced greenhouse effect. Net zero in Australia has net zero impact on global emissions (or more correctly infinitesimal). Why make yourself poorer for nothing, given the new coal-fired power stations in the world produce far more emissions that the ones we are shutting down? What do we achieve of any use to humanity or the planet except virtue signaling…which is of no use except for the ego of the elites?

Our all-'renewable' net zero mantra is a complete and costly failure, or perhaps disaster is a better description, and is likely to lead to lack of reliability of electricity provision, according to the AEMO over the next decade. Now the Energy Manager (AEMO) warns of possible supply disruptions (blackouts and load-shedding). Forget about cost-of-living, a euphemism for lower living standards and persistent inflation. Your solar panels will not save you, nor the planet. Our attempts to save the planet from our electricity with an all-renewable grid is a total failure and making us poorer.

We all want to save the planet but reason and rationality have left the room. The situation is poisonously polarized and politicized. A significant proportion of those who have strong feelings on the issues do not understand how electricity utilities work nor the significance of the performance characteristics of different generator types and their implications. World experience has been largely unsuccessful, in transitioning to 'renewables', more correctly termed 'weather-dependent intermittents'. To engage usefully in the energy area it is necessary to have some understanding of these matters. This paper attached explores some of the vital, fundamental issues. Because you use electricity does not mean you understand how it is produced and the consequences of different arrangements.

Electricity provision can be seen as a process engineering matter. Process engineering is the understanding and application of the fundamental principles and laws of Nature that allow humans to transform raw materials and energy into products that are useful to society on an industrial scale. The laws of Nature transcend the laws of any parliament. Attempts to bend the laws of Nature to suit a preferred ideology are bound to fail. Engagement in the energy area should start with an understanding of the basics, to get anywhere. Also, global experience should not be ignored just because it does not fit a particular ideology.

Global experience over the last decade is clear on some issues:

1. An electricity utility must include some dispatchable generation. Gas does emit, but not as much as coal for the same output of electricity.

2. Renewables are not a 'cheap' form of energy and neither is nuclear fission. Cheap energy is an oxymoron. Note that Germany and Denmark have the highest consumer electricity costs in the EU and have the highest proportion of renewables in the generation mix. France is over 60% nuclear and has lower costs, suggesting that nuclear is perhaps cheaper than renewables, but more importantly, it is reliable. Nuclear waste has a permanent disposable problem, presently unsolved.

3. Nuclear is the only dispatchable generation type in common use that is carbon free and is suitable as an interim measure.

4. Large-scale electricity storage is presently only a fantasy due to costs. Upscaling can only be done on an area basis due to the need for lithium cations to migrate across a membrane for charge and discharge. It is difficult to see how economies of scale can be achieved with the membrane limitation. Battery storage, at least for now, is only useful for stabilizing the grid, given the widely varying inputs (voltage and frequency) of 'renewables' as well as their intermittency.

Whether to allow nuclear in Australia is essentially a political decision. Either way, there are real consequences which are not political. As there are no available immaculate solutions for transitioning from fossil fuel, is it not reasonable to investigate all the available options in their entirety?