Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Simple economics is now driving the unstoppable rise of renewables, according to advocates – or would be, except for a mystery political obstacle.
The Myth About Coal Being Cheaper And More Reliable Than Renewables
Renewable energy is now the cheapest form of new power.
04/10/2017 11:51 PM AEDT
Anthony Sharwood
Nope, nope and nope again. There’s yet more proof this Friday that coal is neither cheaper nor more reliable than renewables as an energy source, and that coal is only going to get more expensive in the future.
We were given excellent evidence of this in April, when the CSIRO and Energy Networks Australia report told us that renewables could save households $414 a year by 2050.
Further proof arrived in June when the Independent Review into the Future Security of the National Electricity Market (aka the Finkel Report) told us that ramping up renewables would lead to lower power prices.
And now the Climate Council has weighed in, showing that we really can have our energy cake and eat it too — if by energy cake you mean cleaner, cheaper power, and by eating it, you mean reliability of supply.
The Council’s new report is entitled ‘Powering a 21st Century Economy: Secure, Clean, Affordable Electricity’ and you can find it here.
…
So if technology’s not holding us back, and cost is not the issue, what on earth is stopping us from transitioning as quickly as possible to cleaner, more affordable renewables?
One word: Politics.
“Politics is the only factor standing in the way of Australia’s transition to a modern electricity network, powered by renewable energy and storage technology,” Climate Council CEO Amanda McKenzie said.
…
What is the “politics” which seems to be such an impediment to a cheaper renewable future? One clue might be the conclusion of the report referenced by The Huffington Post. The report prepared by the Climate Council, the body led by our old friend Chief Councillor Tim Flannery;
… Importantly, while we may use some existing gas plants during this transition, we do not need new gas or coal plants built. Persisting with existing coal plants beyond their technical design lives will lead to unreliable power and higher electricity prices and continued high levels of pollution from Australia’s electricity sector.
This transition requires shifting away from obsolete “baseload” concepts and inflexible old coal power generators to a modern, flexible, 21st Century grid powered by a diverse mix of renewable energy and storage technologies. …
Read more: Climate Council Report Available Here
Is the political obstacle an outmoded adherence to the concept of baseload power? Maybe. But I’m not convinced we’ve fully explored this “politics” obstacle, so I decided to delve deeper;
Politics preventing Australia’s switch to 21st Century energy
BY CLIMATE COUNCIL
04.10.2017
Politics is the only factor standing in the way of Australia’s transition to a modern electricity network, powered by renewable energy and storage technology, according to a new report released by the Climate Council today.
…
Climate Councillor and energy sector expert Andrew Stock also pointed to states and territories across the nation pushing ahead with the transition to renewables and storage technology, in a bid to achieve secure and reliable power, while also tackling climate change.
“South Australia is a global leader and is investing in solar PV, solar thermal, pumped hydro storage, and the world’s largest lithium ion battery. Others like the ACT, followed by Victoria and Queensland, are now rolling out large-scale renewables such as wind and solar,” he said.
“There’s no disputing it – fossil fuel technology is obsolete, expensive and unreliable. In fact, Within 10 years, over two thirds of our coal plants will be over 50 years old. It’s time to look to the future with an energy system fit for the 21st Century.”
…
Read more: https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/politics-preventing-australia-s-switch-to-21st-century-energy
Do Greens think the political obstacle is a failure by governments to invest in renewables? But if renewables are cheaper, why is government investment required? Why aren’t private investors rushing to fund cheap renewables even without government help, to make a huge profit driving their obsolete fossil fuel rivals out of business?
If cheaper renewables are skyrocketing even without government help, why is politics still seen as such an obstacle?
I don’t want to jump to conclusions. Maybe I have misunderstood something. I’m genuinely interested in understanding what political obstacles greens think are preventing the realisation of a low cost energy future powered by renewables.
Because we all want cheaper power, right?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So tell me. When did RATIONING of ele tricity supply become acceptable?
Give me boring BASELOAD electricity EVERY day please.
As for the Climate Council. This organisation led by Professor Tim Flannery was de funded by the federal government about 4 years ago. Best move ANY Government has ever made.
My observation? If a coal generator is reaching the end of 50 years faithful service then we replace with a state of the art coal generator.
Just like Japan China Europe India are doing…..using good old quality Australian Coal.
Ask Adani to build a coal plant in the Galilee Basin and plug it into the Grid.
Call me old fashioned but I have come to like 24/7/365 reliable Baseload electricity……especially at night, on cloudy days and when there is no wind.
You and about half the East Coast population are going to be beating up politicians over summer. I suspect every political party will be running scared by Jan/Feb.
One of the consequences of these cheap renewables has been the closing down of the industries that use the most electricity due to rising costs and unreliability such as smelting , car industry, businesses requiring refrigeration etc. As these close down the supply and demand equation changes and competition forces prices down. So yes renewables help reduce power prices lower by destroying the economy. The good news is power is cheaper the bad news is unemployment is up and the economy is in the toilet.
Well with the repeal of the Progressive EPA CPP, energy from coal just got 33 billion dollars cheaper for Americans between now an 2030. Just imagine how cheap it would get if they got rid of the CO2 endangerment finding and other onerous regulations since 2000. Electricity from coal would be back to 6cents a kwhr.
Well with the repeal of the Progressive EPA CPP, energy from coal just got 33 billion dollars cheaper for Americans between now an 2030. Just imagine how cheap it would get if they got rid of the CO2 endangerment finding and other onerous regulations since 2000. Electricity from coal would be back to 6cents a kwhr.
Hey
Renewables ar cheaper –
A) fossil fuels get all those subsidies – like tax deductions for out pocket cash expenses and operating costs – as if they are the only industry that gets a tax deduction/ subsidy for operating costs
B) All those Social costs
C) Renewables dont actually get subsidies – those are dividends for providing clean energy
So as you can see – renewables are cheaper – at least that is what they say at skeptical science
(do I need the sarc tag?)
We’ll be looking for pumped tidal power sites soon! To go with pumped hydro.
Gotta build that dam.
Well this is sort of pumped tidal (still on the drawing board)
http://www.wired.co.uk/article/belgium-wind-donut-island
yes, another stupidity from people that still didn’t get that a energy storage device is just a production device that cannot produce without having consumed first (a little more than he will “produce”!). Meaning it cost twice the price of a regular production device in best case scenario (hydro storage: it cost the same than a regular hydro, but produce only half of the time, hence twice the cost).
“There’s yet more proof this Friday that coal is neither cheaper nor more reliable than renewables as an energy source”
Jesus these people think we are idiots. Even a 2 year old knows that there is no sunlight at night. I just can’t fathom the mind that can write such obvious bullshit and believe it.
Here is the acid test of the claim that Renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels: propose to zero out their subsidies, direct and indirect (e.g. net metering) tout suite.
If they say sure go ahead, they are telling the truth. If they screech, they are liars.
My over under is screechers out number the yes men 99::1.
Here is one for all those who love wind renewables. When I grew up on the land and we relied on windmills to water stock, there was a thing called a ‘pump jack.’ This was a motorised gadget which attached to wind mills to pump water in a period of NO WIND!
Tax and subsidy can obscure the true cost but not the energy relation. The energy consumed to design, manufacture, install, maintain and administer renewables exceeds the energy they produce in their lifetime.
A truly smart electricity meter will revolutionize our electricity use.
Sixty years ago I worked as a plate scrubber and errand boy in a Swedish bakery. In one corner of the bakery stood the oven, a giant cement and stone contraption weighing at least 50 tons. It was run on electricity, turning on every night at 10 P.M. and turning itself off at 5 A.M. First in the morning we baked the Danishes and other good stuff that required the highest heat, and as the day wore on and the oven cooled off, other breads were baked in the order of temperature need. It took some planning, but the price difference between night rates and day rates made it all worthwhile.
This brings me to a truly smart electricity meter.
It would charge the customer at the current cost of generation + transmission cost + utility profit, displaying the current cost at any given time of the day.
The customer would have the right to sell back electricity to the net at the current cost of generation – transmission cost – utility profit.
Knowing the current true price of energy the customer can then delay turning on the clothes dryer until the price goes below an acceptable level. He could take a look at the current price and decide to turn off the air conditioner rather than pay $1.20 per KW, or she could decide: It is worth it.
By making the user rather than the power company decide how and when electricity is used and produced this will bring immense benefits:
Many users will decide to buy a backup generator with battery, charge the battery when the price is low, and discharge the battery when the price is high. If there is excess battery capacity, he can even sell back the excess at the inflated price. And if the price is high enough it is cheaper to use the generator.
This will have immense benefits on the grid, lessening peak demand and increasing the off peak use.
And best of all, should the grid fail, there will be enough generating capacity to run the refrigerators and essential stuff until power is restored.
What prevents this from being realized?
Politicians and the power companies desire to maintain total control over how the net is used. Political regulators hate to give decision making power back to the people.
https://lenbilen.com/2017/10/11/a-truly-smart-electricity-meter-will-revolutionize-our-electricity-use/
When you say “politics”, do you mean people don’t want to have to game the system this way? Or do you mean people want to be able to game the electricity market, but industry influenced politicians aren’t letting them?
I’ve got to say I would find it inconvenient to have to keep an eye on the meter when I want to dry my clothes. I’m most of the way through installing a diesel generator, but that is because I’m worried about continuity of supply, not because I want to be able to switch to my own power at certain price points.
Remember, a lot of people don’t have their own roof, or a utility space they can install a smelly diesel generator.
By knowing the current rate of electricity you can make the bet decisions on how to use it. When this is implemented there will be programmable devices that , once programmed to your desires, make the optimum decisions. The major benefit is the distributed power storage and generation as a first defense when the grid is down. My Amish neighbor has a diesel generator to drive the compressed air to power the jet water pump and refrigerator.
We already have that to an extent, with options to run some systems (e.g. home storage heating, hot water) on off peak power. I’m not sure most people would be keen on a grid on which power supplies fluctuate so wildly you have to watch the meter to figure out when you can afford to dry your clothes or cook your food.
What happens if the price suddenly surges? Do you have to abruptly stop cooking or switch off the clothes dryer? Does the food in the fridge spoil because the fridge is running warm, to try to save money?
lenbilen
I honestly didn’t know that Amish were allowed by their precepts to use generators?
Or is he ‘lapsed’ ???
Why the hell do you want to convert consumers to producers? Unbelievably inefficient!
The grid is vulnerable. Gives some power in the case of a grid failure.
Absolute ignorance on your part, lenbilen. Grid failure will bring down everything connected. Successful generation requires balancing against a load.
Yes, that’s the point. There will be millions of generators going, keeping the most vital services up apart from the net,
And who would be balancing all those generators, lenbilen? [Is this a new pseudonym, benbiden?]
The power company will balance them like they do now with variable wind and clouds and sun.
No.
You’re “not even wrong,” lenbilen.
Go get a power system engineering degree and work for wholesale and retail electric power companies for about 30 years, as I have. Only then we MAY be able to have an intelligible conversation.
You are right! I never took 3 phase power. Other than that I have a degree in Technical Physics, and am interested in making us less dependent on the electric grid, as it is vulnerable. One question for you is: How do you handle the solar installations now, as they in some states have the right to sell back energy to the grid at the same rate as when they buy power? And what do you do when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow? This too causes instability in the system, especially when a front comes through. And what would happen when a solar flare hits the earth? Or an emp pulse from a nuclear bomb? A lot of small generators well distributed would go a long way to be able to rebuild. You already have them for critical installations (I hope), such as hospitals and other vital services.
Nonsense, again, lenbilen. End of fruitless discussion.
Thank you. I am glad the grid is in perfect shape and safe as it is.
Your inverter and battery storage have a higher failure rate than the grid in most developed nations. You are more likely to be without power of your equipment failure than a grid failure. Our consumer watchdog ran surveys in Australia
https://www.choice.com.au/home-improvement/energy-saving/solar/articles/solar-power-survey-results
The inverters are the biggest issue and the findings are probably unsurprising
QUOTE:
1.) German inverters are less likely to have issues than Chinese ones.
2.) 17% of owners of Chinese inverters have experienced problems, while only 11% of those with a German inverter have had issues.
3.) 16% of owners of a Chinese inverter have had to have it replaced, twice as many as those with a German inverter.
4.) German panels received a higher satisfaction rating than Chinese panels – 88% for the German compared to 83% for the Chinese.
5.) German inverters also rated significantly higher with their owners, with German inverters outdoing Chinese ones 90% to 76%.
At 11% failure rate of the inverter, it would be my luck it would happen when the grid went down 🙂
Unfortunately when the wind isn’t blowing for commercial producers it isn’t blowing for domestic generation either, the same is true for Solar.
I keep saying check the actual data from the producers. Germany a classic example, For virtually all of January and February 2017 wind generated power was minimal, being winter in Northern Europe Solar was non-existent. It doesn’t matter how smart your meter is if there is no power it can’t magic it into existence.
2017 weeks 3 and 4 were the worst case (from 15/01/17 to 29/01/17) but the rest was pretty bad.
https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm?source=conventional&week=3&year=2017
What the Germans call conventional is broken down here
https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm?source=all-sources&week=3&year=2017
On the other hand in summer solar regularly provides a third of Germany’s daytime power, for 8 months a year.
Yes, in the ‘worst’ years Germany could see around 10 days of low solar and wind. But that’s not an insurmountable problem – and remember their target is only 50% renewable electricity in 2030 and 805 in 2050. They still intend to have some fossil fuel around for the winter for decades yet.
Meanwhile the Germany to Norway HVDC link is under construction and a serious plan for ‘power to gas’ and biogas is under consideration for winter use, using the existing gas grid.
Griff, no problem is insurmountable when you are willing to, and can, pay twice the normal price.
Germany is rich, gets budget surplus, reduces its debts, and has direct access to Russian gas (bypassing Poland, Ukraine, etc.). So it surely can pay twice for it’s electric power.
Which is exactly German leaders choice about energy: “renewable” (except hydro, because of artificial lakes, and anything artificial if deemed to be bad) for the show, Russian gas for the real thing
“renewable” with “” because actually they don’t provide energy, they consume about the same energy in their whole cycle than they produce. But people are happy with greenwashing.
German wind power is extremely erratic and mostly pointless.
Last year it was below 15% of name plate for OVER HALF of the time.
It never got over 50% of nameplate for at least 95% of the time
TOTALLY PATHETIC It is a monumental waste of time and money.
Hmm…
Take a look at this and tell me if gas is a major player in German power generation?
https://blog.energybrainpool.com/en/power-generation-in-germany-2016-more-gas-renewables-stable/
Griff, why do you keep throwing BS at everybody face?
In Germany, by purely political decision, gas is backup energy. It is the goalkeeper of the team, and as such THE major player in German power generation. Close it, and the whole electrical system collapses. Close all “renewable”, and you won’t even know it (except that german electricity bill would be halved, but, eh, who cares? greenwashing come at a price)
Sixty years ago nuclear power was going to make electric power “too cheap to meter.” What happened? Interference by government and by people trying to assuage their guilt (for avarice, hatred, and downright laziness) by virtue signaling as lovers of Gaia, the earth Goddess. Hope they are enjoying their phantasmagorical affair (and they probably are, on our tax dollars). What a waste!
That was Reader’s digest optimism, not reality. After Three Mile Island the lawyers took over and prevented any progress for thirty years.
“Too cheap to meter” was, I think, predicated on the cost of fuel. Which, in fairness, is pretty cheap relative to the amount of power produced. What wasn’t fully understood at the time is the cost of maintenance and upkeep…and is the same issue that “renewables” will face. Unfortunately, and as I’ve stated before, the 2nd law of thermodynamics is still very much on the books, and things…fall apart. And that costs money. As it turns…a lot of money.
rip
Think about what you just said. Why have the net loss of charging a battery. Just run the generator. It’s less costly.
You charge the battery only when there is excess power (night rates) from the power company. If they don’t materialize you run the generator.
This is the treatise we were looking for. Now there is no excuse to subsidize any longer. Trump administration and Congress should use this as the rationale (as if any thinking person didn’t know these facts already).
End all wind and solar subsidies now!!!
Then why is it that our dictatorship here in Holland has chosen to increase taxes on energy?
Green lunatics.
This is climate optimism in action: white is the new black, lies the new truth, and renewables are cheaper because they want them to be. Green thinkers decided that, in order to be taken seriously, they needed a narrative of optimism, to counter their natural pessimism. Renewables as the saviour of humanity are a core part of climate optimism. Because climate change is invisible, slow, global. The public see it a someone else’s problem. .Believing in the climate narrative will tend to sway one to pessimism and despair. Climate optimism is a political response to their self-created non-problem of global warming. Given the last sentence, policy making sense is the least of their concerns.
For OU read ‘boy’. Fat fingers.
Trying to accuse government of not doing enough assumes that government has an obligation it does not have.
Government sticks its nose in and wrecks markets, Coach. Then they appoint themselves to “fix” the damage they originally wrought.
This is really good news, now we can eliminate all the Federal, State and tax credits, buy back mandates, and the other myriad advantages given to ‘Renewables’ by Federal, State and local governments. Surely this affordable and less costly power supply doesn’t need them any longer as they are now cheaper than fossil, and hydroelectric power.
…or nuclear.
It takes more energy to produce a lithium battery than the battery can store in its lifetime.
How much energy is in a massive 100 kWh lithium battery that is supposed to power 20000_homes? The same as 3 US gallons of gasoline.
[??? 3 US gal of gasoline will only run a 800 KWatt generator for 2-3 hours. .mod]
“I’m genuinely interested in understanding what political obstacles greens think are preventing the realisation of a low cost energy future powered by renewables.”
So am I which is why I’d like the answer to a simple question- What does it cost to replace a despatchable megawatt of fossil fuelled thermal electricity with a despatchable megawatt of renewable alternatives? (presumably wind and solar alternatives only since geothermal and tidal appear to be too far up the cost curve) I haven’t heard the question asked seriously let alone an attempt at a calculated answer. Anyone?
Simple. For each and every megawatt of new renewable, you still need a megawatt of gas fuelled thermal electricity (only gas is used for this purpose) as back-up, or something even more expensive (battery for instance), so gas is still the best-case scenario.
So the cost is exactly equal to the cost of the “renewable”, minus the gas cost, which is zero (gas is like water and wind: you may be billed by the volume, but you actually pay for the transport infrastructure to bring it to you, which stay the same whether you use it or not; so if you reduce your use, you get a higher price per unit for a similar total bill).
So the cost is exactly equal to the cost of the “renewable”. Pure waste.
“…so gas is still the best-case scenario.”
I understand that but these warmists believe in 100% renewables by whenever they can manage it. Now in South Australia we’re paying the highest power prices in the world in a country that exports fossil fuel to the world and we haven’t paid for the storage yet to make the windmills reliable. Ipso facto it’s reasonable to ask how much more will it cost to do that without any fossil fuel backup? In other words where is there fully despatchable wind or solar power with greenfields backup (batteries, pumped hydro, molten salt?) and what is the cost of that per kw/hr? Or is it simply the case that nowhere has it been attempted yet for the obvious?
oh. You mean, what would be the cost for pure renewable scheme, backed up by some storage, no gas, nuclear or whatever ?
Well, remember that a storage is nothing but a production device that actually cannot produce without having consumed before (slightly more than he will produce afterward), which means that he actually works only half of the time as producer, meaning twice the capital cost for the output.
The best storage is, and will stay, pumped hydro. This kind of thing has no significant limit in energy storage (i.e., it can store months of energy, if need be), so you only need 1 W for 1 W of “renewable”. Assuming you find a way to construct the thing without greens screaming to death, of course.
Hydro is almost pure capital cost, so a pumped hydro cost double the price of a regular hydro. Add the price of the renewable, and the total cost is, in best case scenario, 3x on producer side. May be only 2x on consumer side, assuming grid cost and taxes don’t change.
paqyfelyc
No, not true even as an approximation.
Rough numbers. A pump needs 1.3 to 1.4 watts of electric power to “pump” water uphill (more flow resistance in the huge canals and tunnels needed, plus motor electric resistance, plus pump impeller efficiency losses, plus the “perfect physics” of lifting the mass of water against gravity to create the potential energy stored in the reservoir.
But, when that water flows back downhill, the generator sends to the power grid 88% to 92% of the potential energy in the water. Again, resistance to water flow through the tunnels, canals, and valves and controls, turbine impellor efficiency losses, and resistance losses in the generator, and resistance losses in the power plant transformers and distribution network. Making every loss worse, and “perfect” hydro-electric generator impeller can be optimized for obtaining every possible erg of energy out the flowing water – one way flowing water. A turbo-pump (able to pump water uphill as well as extract energy downhill) CANNOT be optimized for either function perfectly, and so does NEITHER job as well as it theoretically could. (For example, if you wanted to drive your car backwards at highway speeds, you’d need the space wasted on a rear-facing seat, a second steering wheel, 4-wheel steering, more reverse gears, etc. Going one-way fast? Don’t need any of that wasted weight and space in the car.)
The ONLY way a pumped storage system can work requires MASSIVE amounts of very, very cheap electricity available when you need to pump water uphill, MASSIVE amounts of water available to the suction of the pumps at the bottom, two lakes separated by high elevation changes very close to each other, two control stations, two spillways and dams, two transformer yards, etc.
Now, solar power ONLY GENERATES energy 6 hours a day (on average over the year) from 9:00 am to 3:00 pm. The remaining 18 hours a day, solar power generates nothing. Thus, to provide an AVERAGE of 1000 watts per hour electric from solar power, you need 4000 watts of solar cells.
But, as you can see from the rough figures above for pumped storage, you need 200 watts of electric power to get 100 watts back to the grid from pumped storage. So, to get 1000 watts of pumped storage water for ONE of those 6 hour periods when solar is not available “to the grid” you need 2000 watts of EXCESS electric power generated when solar power IS available.
But there are three six-hour periods when solar power is not available, right?
So, to generate 1000 watts of solar power in just six daylight hours ((;00 am to 3:00 pm – even though those are NOT the peak electric demand hours!), you need 1000 watts of solar cells clean, aimed at the sun, and at rated efficiency.
To generate 1000 watts solar power on average over the whole day using solar with pumped storage, you need those 1000 watts of cells. Then you need 3×2000 watts of ADDITIONAL solar power cells to generate the excess electric power to refill the pumped storage lakes on your property. SO, a total of 7000 watts of solar power capacity has be purchased, installed, mounted, cleaned, and maintained to get an average delivery on average (perfect) days of 1000 watts.
All this assuming no droughts, no dust storms or rainstorms or snow storms. No silting or flooding or water problems. No backup of turbines or generators go out for maintenance.
(Niagara’s artificial storage is unique in the world: Lake Eire’s water to the massive (and highly-protested!) storage lakes are filled cheaply by gravity since they are below the falls, below the average Lake Eire water level. So, each night when the tourists are not looking at Niagara Falls, they “turn off” the Falls, divert “all” of the water to the tunnels and canals going to the two artificial lakes downhill above the power plants, and refill the storage lakes. During daytime, that “free water” flows from the storage ponds to the power plant intakes, and generates power.
Pumped storage requires nighttime (lower power demand) “cheaper” electricity to be available each evening to run the pumps to pump the water back uphill to refill the upper reservoir to be available to drain back down through the turbo-pumps the next day.
Affordable? Really? Here in NJ, we had our rates raised about 50% to deploy ‘renewables’, which consists mostly of solar PV. In addition to massive solar farms, we have PV panels on the utility poles. So how much does solar produce? The last time I checked (EIA data), solar PV produces about 0.7% of all the electricity generated in the state.
NJ gets most of its power from nuclear (price stable), followed by natural gas (gotten really cheap), yet our rates haven’t gone down. One day, I would like to figure out what has really been spent for every kWh of solar power generated, to get a real idea what this program has cost. The problem is breaking out the costs from the arcane billing system, where accounting for specific costs in a mind bending experience.
To rip off Pace Picante Sauce; solar PV in NEW JERSEY?!?!?
They are correct. We can therefore stop the subsidies immediately.
Read through this whole thread and it seems to me that the term “baseload” is being redefined. It used to mean the load “demanded” by consumers. It is now being redefined to mean the load “available” from generating devices.