Large-scale electricity generation

Reliable, available 24/7 and affordable electricity underpins our economy and is critical to our future prosperity (if we have one as a sovereign nation). Electricity price increases are inflationary as energy is involved in nearly everything we make or do. The inflationary effect was illustrated by the oil price shocks of the 1970s and now by our present panic rush into 'renewables' and the corresponding increases in electricity prices.

Society wants reliable, available 24/7, affordable, carbon-free electricity with minimal environmental degradation. Some adverse environmental effects are inevitable for large-scale electricity generation.

Types of Generators

Not all generator types are born equal in terms of their performance characteristics. They essentially fall into two groups: dispatchable and weather-dependent intermittents. The dispatchable generators (nuclear and fossil) can produce electricity 24/7 regardless of the weather; the production from the intermittents (solar and wind) are subject to the vagaries of the weather so are unreliable. The 'renewables' enthusiasts dream of battery backup to compensate for the intermittency. This is economically non viable for grid-scale (see section on indicative storage costs), and is no substitute for dispatchable generation. Large-scale battery storage is not economically viable at the present level of technology. With current technology an electricity grid must have a significant component of dispatchable generation to satisfy society's needs for reliability and availability 24/7. Due to thermal stress considerations (cycles of heating and cooling), dispatchable generators are not suited to be turned on and off frequently, they are designed to produce electricity 24/7. This is a base-load feature. If you want a grid run mainly on solar and wind, you need dispatchable backup and the cost of this duplication has to be included to get the real cost of electricity by weather-dependent intermittents. So far as I am aware these costs are not included in the models spruiking that 'renewables are the cheapest form of energy'.

Illusion of Equality

Consider a dispatchable 10 MW generator and a weather-dependent intermittent generator with 10MW capacity. These generators are not equal. The dispatchable generator can deliver 24/7 whereas the other one cannot. You need four 10MW solar panel generators or three 10MW wind turbines generator, on average, to equal the same electricity output over a 24 hour period and the weather-dependent intermittents cannot produce the electricity, necessarily when you want it. This redundancy, or capacity utilization factor, increases the cost of weather-dependent intemittents in a grid by integral factors. So far as I am aware, this (along with transmission costs) is never factored into the models supposedly showing the weather-dependent intermittents 'are the cheapest form of energy'.

Affordability

Despite the persistent mantra that 'renewables' are the cheapest form of energy', there is no concrete evidence whatsoever when you consider all the costs. All we have are models that can be manipulated to give you whatever result you want by changing the underlying assumptions, ie, just a guess at best. The models produced by Government agencies, that need to take note of government policy, do not give much confidence, eg, the Snowy 2.0 project was originally budgeted at $2 billion, it is now $12 billion+

Consideration both of the material and space requirements and particularly the real-world experience, for example Germany, indicate that 'renewables' are very expensive and more expensive that nuclear. Real-world experience, ie reality, must be accepted over wishful guesswork. But, of course, that is an inconvenient truth to the clean energy revolution adherents.

Indicative Storage Costs

Storage cost for lithium-ion battery relative to coal: = 200/0.006 = 3x10⁴ or 33,000 times

This alone rules out any possibility that an all-renewable grid 'is the cheapest form of energy'. It also suggests not just more costly, but ruinously costly.

No amount of incremental improvements in battery technology could bridge this difference in order of magnitude. Complementary battery storage for weather-dependent intermittents in an electricity grid is mythical at this time.

Material Requirements

Low-density-intermittent and decentralized energy with a low capacity utilization factor, can't possibly be a match for high-density, continuous and centralized energy if affordable and reliable power are the only criteria, given the material requirements, which equate to costs. Although sunlight and wind are there for the taking, the electricity derived from them is not. Facilities are required to collect the diffuse energy, convert it to a form acceptable in our appliances (AC, 240 V, 50 Hz) and transport it to the points of consumption.

Claims about the supposed low cost and reliability of 100% renewables and storage are based solely on modelling. No nation, state, province or prefecture anywhere is even close to being about to power its grid using only renewables.

Diversification of energy is a good thing. "Renewables" are good when part of a mix, but the problem with wind and solar lies in physics and energy economics that is not up for debate: low energy density, unpredictable nature of their intermittency, low capacity utilization factor and short operational lifetime equate to high costs. These attributes of wind and solar contribute to them having the highest system cost of any "primary energy source". Note that our electricity prices keep going up as we install more solar panels and wind turbines.