Aussie Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen. Source Twitter, Fair Use, Low Resolution Image to Identify the Subject

Aussie Climate & Energy Minister: Nuclear Advocates are “Dangerously Ignorant”

Essay by Eric Worrall

“Firmed renewables are quicker to build and cheaper to operate. Those who say otherwise are either dangerously ignorant or simply seeking to perpetuate the climate wars.” 

Climate change minister says nuclear is too slow and expensive

By  Anna Macdonald Tuesday June 21, 2022

At the Investor Group on Climate Change Investment and Finance Summit, Bowen also called nuclear energy the slowest and most expensive form of alternative energy.

“Its adoption in Australia would push up power prices and crowd out cheaper and cleaner technologies,” Bowen said.

Firmed renewables are quicker to build and cheaper to operate. Those who say otherwise are either dangerously ignorant or simply seeking to perpetuate the climate wars.” 

Bowen’s comments come after Nationals leader David Littleproud said he wrote to prime minister Anthony Albanese about considering nuclear power in Australia. 

“Can we make it safe, affordable and reliable in Australia? We need to have this conversation and if opportunities exist – back ourselves,” Littleproud tweeted earlier this month.

“We have a world-class Integrated System Plan for the transformation of the electricity grid,” he said.

Read more: https://www.themandarin.com.au/192758-bowen-climate-change-minister-nuclear-slow-expensive/

Nuclear power has the advantage that it works. Unlike renewables, which have a 100% failure rate when it comes to replacing fossil fuel.

France proved nuclear power works, when they transformed their fossil fuel electricity generation to nuclear power in the 1970s.

There are no comparable renewable success stories, despite trillions of taxpayer dollars expended over the last few decades, by politicians who desperately wanted to please voters by making renewable energy work.

Even green Germany is going back to coal.

You might think decades of incontrovertible evidence that renewables are not a viable replacement for dispatchable power should have an impact on political thinking. But Aussie Energy Minister Bowen thinks all you need to store electricity is a little money. “the rain doesn’t always fall either, but we manage to store the water – we can store the renewable energy if we have the investment” (h/t Jo Nova).

I think we can be confident Energy Minister Bowen simply isn’t listening to advice which contradicts his firmly held but technically naive opinions. The fact the energy storage solution required to affordably cure intermittency does not exist, and will likely never exist, means nothing to him. Bowen himself told us what he thinks of those who contradict his ideas:- “… Those who say otherwise are either dangerously ignorant or simply seeking to perpetuate the climate wars.”.

Bowen will discover the hard way, like all his predecessors, that the real obstacle to his dream of a green energy future was never political, the problem is technological. But it is ordinary Australians who will pay the price for Bowen’s inability to listen, and the folly of his doomed taxpayer subsidised attempt to do the impossible.

Update (EW): h/t SurrrNo word yet on what France thinks of being called “dangerously ignorant”. President Macron made a speech advocating France’s nuclear solution to climate change in February. You would have thought Australian politicians would have eased off insulting France, after the cancelled submarine contract diplomatic crisis.

5 26 votes
Article Rating
307 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Eng_Ian
June 21, 2022 10:10 pm

We can store green energy….. For a few $B or $T.

I wish that politicians had to pay for their own brain fades. Why should the taxpayer fork out every time.

The pitchforks come out when the lights go out.

Dennis
Reply to  Eng_Ian
June 21, 2022 10:21 pm

It used to be said that voters react mostly to their hip pocket nerve, where the wallets are kept.

Robert B
Reply to  Eng_Ian
June 21, 2022 10:41 pm

I just wish that those who voted for them would switch everything off when there is a short supply of electricity, or at least pay extra to cover the sky rocketing costs for everyone. But nah. They figured out how to share the burden of their stupidity fairly.

Every electorate that voted in a Greens or Teal candidate can be cut off when there is a shortage. Plus those that voted Labor can be charged double of what it costs in other electorates.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Robert B
June 22, 2022 3:37 am

actually since they forced the smartmeters on us
they COULD be isolated and given “special treatment”
all it needs is someone sane in the control system to give em a nice wakeup

Glen MICHELL
Reply to  ozspeaksup
June 22, 2022 8:39 am

A technician asked some years ago if I wanted a ” smartmeter” installed. Upon further enquiry I deduced that I would be a victim of loadshedding if energy supply was insufficient.

niceguy
Reply to  Glen MICHELL
June 24, 2022 5:11 pm

That’s the only possible use case.

It’s quite shocking that even academics can’t see that.

Peter
Reply to  Robert B
June 24, 2022 3:32 am

Seriously, our leaders are asking people to do precicesly that. Except for the well off of course.
And a few jobs will have to be eliminated as industries lose electricity.

Bryan A
Reply to  Eng_Ian
June 22, 2022 5:38 am

And then there’s this…

“Firmed renewables are quicker to build and cheaper to operate. Those who say otherwise are either dangerously ignorant or simply seeking to perpetuate the climate wars.”

Quicker to build only because of hurdles placed in front of nuclear. Cheaper to operate??? Well the fuel is free, when it’s available. But f it were so “Cheap” why did/does it require subsidies to be compete?
But not cheaper to build.
The average cost to build an 1100MW Nuclear Generator is about $6bn
The average cost to build 1000MW of Wind Turbines is about $1.75bn
Now at first glance this does look like wind some cheaper to build, BUT doesn’t take into account Capacity Factor. Nuclear is available almost 100% of the time while wind is available about 1/3 (33%) of the time so you need 3 times as much to generate the same amount. 3300MW of Wind Capacity is needed to equal 1100MW of Nuclear Capacity.
3300MW of wind will cost 1.75 x 3.3 $5.8bn and require additional battery storage to retain the other 2.3 MW that is generated but not used at the time.
Then there are “still days” when the wind does not blow at all sometimes lasting 2 weeks at a stretch.

Willem post
Reply to  Bryan A
June 22, 2022 6:32 am

In China, a 2000 MW, standard-design nuclear plant, 2 reactors, turnkey cost about $5000/kW, build time about 4 years from ground breaking to production

In Europe, about $20 billion, 15 years.

NO WONDER WIND AND SOLAR APPEAR TO BE SO ATTRACTIVE TO IDIOTS

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Willem post
June 22, 2022 6:52 am

Whole nuclear aircraft carriers, with 1100 MW output reactors, were built in US shipyards in 3 years. This is the time frame that can be achieved when there are no protesters interfering.

Willem post
Reply to  DMacKenzie
June 22, 2022 7:36 am

It takes at least 10 years to build new US aircraft carriers, and about $12 billion. Power plant capacity is about 125 MW, of which 100 MW is needed to go at 33 knots.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  Willem post
June 22, 2022 12:58 pm

Build time for a capital ship occupies two distinct phases — time in the slipway from “laid down” to “launched”, and fitting out — time between “launched” and “sea trials”. Finally there is “commissioned” at the conclusion of any repair/refit needed following sea trials. I don’t have dates when the various carriers started sea trials, but I expect for such a complex ship trials+corrections would occupy about a year.

Typically the most constrained resource is the slipway so as much work as possible is done after launch. From the various dates it appears the shipyard has two slipways that can handle carriers.

Anyway, the 10 Nimitz-class carriers were all laid down at the Newport News Shipyard in Virginia between 1968 and 2003 at an average cost of $4.5 billion in 2000 dollars. Typical slipway times were 3-4 years. The shortest was 32 months for the John C. Stennis (CVN-74). Longest was 62 months for Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69). Average was 42.2 months.

Shortest laid down to commissioned was 56 months for Harry S. Truman (CVA-75), but John C. Stennis took 57 months and both Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) and Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) took 60. The Truman was the winner because of an outstanding launch-to-commission time of just 22 months together with a very respectable slipway time of 34 months.

The longest laid down to commission times were 86 months for Dwight D. Eisenhower and 82 months for Nimitz (CVA-68). These were the first two ships in the class. Average for the class was 67.6 months.

Nimitz-class carriers have two Westinghouse A4W reactors rated at 550 MW(thermal) each and providing a combined 260,000 shaft horsepower (194 MW) using four steam turbines through reduction gears. Following the typical rule that MW(e) = MW(t) / 3 means the two reactors could produce 367 MW(e) if devoted to that use.

So DMacKenzie is correct if we are talking about MW(thermal) and “build time” consisting of just the time occupying the slipway.

The new Gerald R. Ford class carriers is projected to consist of 10 ships, but just 5 have been announced, 3 laid down, 2 launched and only 1 commissioned. It took 92 months from laying down to commissioning for Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), which as the first of the class is 6 months longer than the early Nimitz ships. A long time, but not 10 years. Assuming we can afford to continue building out the class as planned (looking dubious considering how much economic damage President Brandon has done in less than 2 years), I expect the total time to shrink to just over 6 years once lessons from the first two or three have been incorporated.

Add in protestors, attorneys and regulators from all the alphabet soup federal agencies, and that time could easily triple. Take away all the existing procurement regulations designed to funnel money to powerful Senators’ friends and you could probably cut that by 30%.

The Fords use two Bechtel A1B reactors, producing 700 MW(t) each, effectively 467 MW(e) combined. Unit cost is projected at $13 billion (2018 dollars).

Both classes displace roughly 100,000 long tons, so unless the Ford hulls are more efficient, I would expect them to need the same amount of power to achieve the same speeds, or 194 MW equivalent at “above 30 knots”, which leaves a lot of available power for enhanced electronics and linear catapults.

Willem post
Reply to  DMacKenzie
June 22, 2022 6:11 pm

The price tag of the Ford was $13 billion

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Bryan A
June 22, 2022 10:04 am

You also need factor in the complete replacement of the wind turbines every 15-20 years, so figure at least two complete replacements in the life span of the nuke plant – and that’s if there’s no hurricanes or tornadoes or “derechos” to turn the turbines into rubble. Plus you have to factor in an extra 1100MW of gas turbines (PLUS fuel to operate them) that can be ramped up on demand to make up for the wind not blowing or blowing at “incorrect” speeds, plus you have to add the cost of much more difficult grid management and additional transmission and distribution lines to bring the wind ‘power’ from the middle of nowhere to civilization.

Last edited 14 days ago by AGW is Not Science
MarkW
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
June 22, 2022 2:33 pm

Those additional transmission and distribution lines are also subject to damage from the odd hurricane, tornado or derecho.

niceguy
Reply to  Bryan A
June 24, 2022 5:15 pm

I know little on forging but…

Some French reactors have “cracks” in the metal… that is tiny non migrating defaults.
How many such “cracks” exist in one’s pressurized cooking pot? Did anyone check with ultrasounds?

Apparently people doing forging in France have been cheating a little bit when making these huge 300 bar vessels. The metal wasn’t always so good… Get what, we never had any metal incident over the whole programs. Many issues some major but no high pressure burst.

Last edited 12 days ago by niceguy
Willem post
Reply to  Eng_Ian
June 22, 2022 6:25 am

The key word is FIRMED

It sounds so innocent, but that would involve STORAGE at about $600 billion/TWh, with a useful life of about 15 years

Europe, if in 70% wind/solar mode, would need lots of fossil backup capacity, in case wind/solar would be inadequate, as frequently happens throughout the year, plus about 300 TWh of storage to get through the winter.

That is the reason Europe is desperate to fill its gas storage reservoirs, because pipeline capacity is not large enough on cold days.

Shoki Kaneda
Reply to  Eng_Ian
June 22, 2022 6:27 am

Don’t forget the torches.

Dennis
June 21, 2022 10:15 pm

Minister Bowen has never been known for brilliance and/or common sense

The transition to renewable energy in Australia was started by the Renewable Energy Target with incentive subsidies for investors by the Federal Labor Government in 2010-2011, Chris Bowen was a Cabinet Minister at that time. Following creation of the RET of just over 30 per cent the public assets power stations were privatised, leased and even demolished by State Labor Governments and privatisation completed by Coalition State Governments that inherited the privatisation processing.

Therefore Minister Bowen has been involved in the deception right from the start.

Last edited 14 days ago by Dennis
Mr.
Reply to  Dennis
June 21, 2022 10:39 pm

I don’t think Mr. Bowen has the intellect to pull off nefarious schemes of his own conception.

He’s always been a plodder, a hack.

He’s been told what to say, and not to deviate from the line that the Fabian Society has planted inextricably into the Australian Labor Party.

LdB
Reply to  Dennis
June 22, 2022 1:16 am

That was generous he usually just engages his mouth before his brain has time to catch up.

Reply to  Dennis
June 22, 2022 3:33 am

Sorry, can’t blame him. The ‘curse’ was started by PM in 2001, but at a rate to source 2% of Australia’s energy by 2020. The Rudd regime increased this in 2009 to 20% by 2020 = 41 000 GWH. The Abbott government reduced this to 33 000 GWH, which still continues.

Reply to  Dennis
June 22, 2022 3:54 am

Not his fault. The RET was started by PM Howard to provide 2% of Australia’s electrical energy. This was increased in 2009 by PM Rudd, to 20% = 41 000 GWH. Total cut to 33 000 GWH by PM Abbott in 2015. The RET scheme still continues, with coal and gas fired power stations taxed to subsidize renewable power stations.
Now, because of the closure of so many coal fired stations, we need to build new gas fired stations and subsidize the coal fired stations.

Ironically, because there has been the demand to get rid of coal fired power stations, the operators are believed to have cut down on the maintenance. What is the point of maintaining it if you have to close it in a few years? So we have a power shortage!

BobM
Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
June 22, 2022 8:19 am

“Ironically” ?? An eventual reliable power shortage would seem to be a direct straight-forward result, no? That’s simple logic, not irony.

RobK
June 21, 2022 10:23 pm

Such an embarrassment.

RobK
June 21, 2022 10:26 pm

Recently Australian governments collectively have had an impeccable record of managing rainfall.

Dennis
Reply to  RobK
June 21, 2022 10:51 pm

As with generators and electricity supply dams and water supply are the primary responsibility of State Governments in the Commonwealth of Australia.

Federal Government does consider State Government applications for funding assistance but planning and development approval processing is state and local government councils.

It is often not understood by Australians that the Federation of States consists of the former British Colonial Governments and at time of Federation they retained most of their powers and areas of responsibility, and they formed the Federal Government to look after areas of national importance such as defence, international border control including territorial waters, foreign affairs and trade, etc.

RobK
Reply to  Dennis
June 21, 2022 11:21 pm

I was thinking of the recent flood mitigation efforts and the eternal Murray-Darling bun fight, not to mention drought and desalination, of course.

Lewis P Buckingham
Reply to  Dennis
June 22, 2022 3:34 am

Yes, the new South Australia Premier is open to nuclear.
Makes sense as that state needs reliable electricity or it won’t get the big contracts for defense.
Its also got a stable tectonic plate to bury the waste.
However, under Howard, the Federal Government said no to nuclear power as well as nuclear weapons.
Time for the Libs to ‘make a difference’ rather than being Labor Lite on energy.

MarkW
Reply to  Lewis P Buckingham
June 22, 2022 9:50 am

Burying the waste is nothing more than an expensive way to get rid of a valuable resource.
Reprocess, don’t bury.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Dennis
June 22, 2022 3:40 am

yeah, except they managed to make aged care federal and allow the states to evade any and all responsibility for the abuse neglect and mismanagement.
hardly inspiring

Petit_Barde
June 21, 2022 10:40 pm

Chris Bowen graduated with a Bachelor of Economics in 1994, elected in 1995 (Fairfield City Council). Never had an actual job.

Murph
Reply to  Petit_Barde
June 22, 2022 5:39 am

No Labor politician has had a real job. To qualify for pre-selection you have to come from the unions or legal hacks that look after the unions. Unfortunately the other option isn’t any better.

Forrest Gardener
June 21, 2022 10:41 pm

Another data point supporting the proposition that the big lumps float to the top of the tank.

If only the world had a journalist worthy of the name. Do solar panels produce energy at night? Do wind turbines produce energy when the air is still? Where are examples of battery systems which work as you say they do?

Last edited 14 days ago by Forrest Gardener
Dennis
Reply to  Forrest Gardener
June 21, 2022 10:55 pm

But Minister Bowen has claimed that batteries with wind and solar energy supply installations can replace fossil fuelled power stations, he also acknowledged hydro and pumped recycled water hydro in the approved mix list.

The problems would all disappear if Australia had 82 per cent renewables our new Federal Labor Government Cabinet believes.

Megs
Reply to  Dennis
June 29, 2022 12:43 am

But would there be anywhere left to grow food?

Bob Close
Reply to  Forrest Gardener
June 22, 2022 2:36 am

It would all be so funny to see these ignorant politicians squirm, if the outcome for the rest of us were not so serious, when the lights go out.
Ideology is one thing you can afford in opposition, but when in government, you really need to understand the issues and be on top of your brief. Clearly Bowen nor Albo do not even comprehend how deep into the energy mire his government is enmeshed, and don’t have a clue how to extract themselves when they keep prating on about investing in renewables.
All over the world where renewables have been given the lead and subsidized to the hilt, they have failed to deliver reliable and cheap energy when needed, think California, Spain, Germany, Denmark UK and now Australia. That’s why we have the 4B$ farce of Snowy 2 to soak up the spare cheap renewable energy in the middle of the day that is ruining the national grid and putting dispatchable power on the back burner. Until reliable batteries are invented that can take large loads and deliver over many hours, renewable energy can only be a part-time solution to our energy woes.

The whole energy debacle is predicated on the failed predictions of the AGW theory of climate change, where CO2 from fossil fueled industry is supposedly going to ruin the planet, but for 40 years these predictions have been wrong. It’s time to say enough is enough, that theory is wrong and we simply don’t have to de-carbonize our economy at all. So let’s do the smart thing for once bring on investment for more fossil fueled energy and lets get back to the future with coal and gas, until something better comes along.

mikee
June 21, 2022 10:49 pm

My cat is better informed than Bowen about the nuclear industry. Unlike Bowen who has never had a real job, my cat is employed as a part-time mouser!

ThinkingScientist
Reply to  mikee
June 22, 2022 5:18 am

Ditto my Cocker Spaniel, except he is employed full time as an escape artist.

Mike
June 21, 2022 10:54 pm

Apart from a few days here and there, the last 6 weeks have been still and overcast – and cold – here in Southern Vic Australia. HELLO!?? Anybody home Bowen?

Last edited 14 days ago by Mike
ozspeaksup
Reply to  Mike
June 22, 2022 3:42 am

yes Ive been commenting LOUDLY about how much pv or windpower we have NOT been producing for a good 10 days or more..(to mates with pv) as well as others

H B
June 21, 2022 10:57 pm

Fingers in the cookie jar I think Mr Bowen just like Turdbill

Drake
Reply to  H B
June 22, 2022 7:21 am

I think you have a typo. Isn’t it TurdbAll.

Dennis
June 21, 2022 10:59 pm
griff
Reply to  Dennis
June 22, 2022 1:41 am

Great things.

By 2030 we may have one in the UK, by 2035, five… delivering a total of 2.5 GW of power…

Not overwhelming…

Graemethecat
Reply to  griff
June 22, 2022 1:50 am

Yes, but unlike Wind and Solar, these reactors will be working 24/7, 365 days of the year.

Bryan A
Reply to  Graemethecat
June 22, 2022 7:59 pm

And Nuclear will, on average, be able to produce usable electricity >92% of the time for 40 – 50 years. Unlike Wind which produces usable electricity <35% of the time a few days a week for 15 – 20 years before needing replacement or Solar which produces usable electricity about 22% of the time for 10 – 15 years before needing replacement and is only productive from 10:00 – 14:00 daily but never at night

Last edited 14 days ago by Bryan A
Ben Vorlich
Reply to  griff
June 22, 2022 2:31 am

The oldest UK Nuclear power station, Hinkley Point B, came online in 1976. the most recent, Sizewell B, in 1995. Total net available 6.83GW. Working reliably keeping the lights still.
Today supplying 5.7GW or 83.5% of net.

Windturbines installed and on the grid 24.5GW supplying now 2.47GW or 10.1% been supplying erractically, unreliably and unpredictably since the day they came online. Been at less than 20% of installed since the early hours of Monday.

Griff, you are dangerously ignorant (lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.) It’s people like you that have got us to the situation we’re in now

HotScot
Reply to  griff
June 22, 2022 3:29 am

That’s not the fault of the technology, that’s the fault of green loonies like you resisting it.

MarkW
Reply to  HotScot
June 22, 2022 9:54 am

That reminds me of Biden, first he does everything in his power to make it impossible to produce more gasoline, then he threatens to punish the refiners if they don’t make more gasoline.

Reply to  griff
June 22, 2022 4:20 am

THE WORLDS FIRST NUCLEAR REACTOR COMMENCED BUILDING ON 16 NOVEMBER 1942, AND REACHED CRITICALITY OF 9 DECEMBER 1942.

JUST OVER THREE WEEKS!

AND THEY WERE NOT CERTAIN THAT THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING.

RR KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING, AND SHOULD BE ABLE TO FINISH DESIGN AND BUILD A SMR IN ABOUT THREE MONTHS. ADDING PIPEWORK MIGHT TAKE A BIT LONGER!

IT IS A MATTER OF DECIDING TO START, WRITING THE CONTRACT, AND PROVIDING THE MONEY. BUT NOTHING WILL BE DONE WHILE IT IS ILLEGAL IN AUSTRALIA TO EVEN TALK ABOUT IT.

OweninGA
Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
June 22, 2022 5:10 am

True, but I would not build one like that anywhere again – they REALLY didn’t know what they were doing. No containment, graphite modulators, and overall very poor safety and radiation containment made that reactor a danger to all around. Luckily, it was more a proof of concept and was disassembled shortly after it showed what could be done.

Of course, there is no reason for reactors to take as long to construct as they do, but savants like the minister in the article throw one road block after another in the way of construction permitting and micromanage every piece along the way with the intent of preventing construction.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
June 22, 2022 3:23 pm

I believe you are referring to the first sustained nuclear chain reaction achieved at the University of Chicago.

My father was in law school at U. of C. at the time and I believe he told me the reactor was constructed on or under a squash court he used to play on.

Richard Page
Reply to  griff
June 23, 2022 4:57 am

Actually a company founded by Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are building their first Natrium SMR in Wyoming; they started in 2020 and hope to have it finished before 2030. The company hopes this will be the prototype of more reactors, built smaller and faster.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  Dennis
June 22, 2022 4:22 pm

Dennis:

I see all marketing hype and no supporting detail. Do you have a more informative link?

Surrr
June 21, 2022 11:18 pm

Aussie Climate & Energy Minister: Nuclear Advocates are “Dangerously Ignorant”

So dose that mean the French and every other countries governments that are using or building nuclear power stations are as Nowen says “Dangerously Ignorant”?

Get ready for the total collapse of our energy industry in the next 3 years Australia.

Dennis
Reply to  Surrr
June 21, 2022 11:20 pm

Mirror, mirror on the wall …..

Reply to  Surrr
June 22, 2022 12:01 am

Nuclear Advocates are “Dangerously Ignorant”’
No, he said that people who scoff at renewables are dangerously ignorant.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 2:35 am

Nick,
Can you point us to the storage that has been invented that lasts for weeks when the wind doesn’t blow? Batteries won’t cut it.
If you can’t, we can continue scoffing at “renewables”

Lrp
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 3:46 am

Doesn’t matter; Bowen is an idiot

MarkW
Reply to  Lrp
June 22, 2022 9:56 am

And Nick is willing to be-clown himself in order to protect his paycheck.

HotScot
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 3:53 am

Firmed renewables are quicker to build and cheaper to operate. Those who say otherwise are either dangerously ignorant or simply seeking to perpetuate the climate wars.

Where is the word ‘scoff’ in there?

What he said was, support of electricity generation by any means other than renewables is dangerously ignorant.

HotScot
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 3:53 am

Firmed renewables are quicker to build and cheaper to operate. Those who say otherwise are either dangerously ignorant or simply seeking to perpetuate the climate wars.

Where is the word ‘scoff’ in there?

What he said was, support of electricity generation by any means other than renewables is dangerously ignorant..

Bryan A
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 5:56 am

But Renewables require something more that Nuclear doesn’t and also needs to be included in the overall renewable costs. STORAGE.
Solar only produces nameplate for 4 hours per day (10am to 2pm local time) with 1.5 hours before and 1.5 hours after either building up or dropping off and virtually No capacity at night. While Wind has days on end when the air is still and it matters not how many turbines you have, they still sit unmoved.
So STORAGE is needed to retain the overproduction that will remain inherent in the technology. And Those Batteries aren’t cheap and require much mining and processing of vast amounts of ore to build the behemoths.
Then capacity factors of 22% and 33% will demand that 3 – 4 times nameplate is required just to replace current usage let alone to allow for the additional load of electrified heating, cooking and transportation.

MarkW
Reply to  Bryan A
June 22, 2022 9:58 am

If there are any clouds, solar never builds up to name plate capacity, regardless of what time of day it is.

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 9:55 am

Once again, Nick bends over backwards in order to misread the text in order to try to change the subject.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  MarkW
June 22, 2022 10:26 am

He is one slippery dude, no doubt.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 10:25 am

And Nick is purposefully ignorant, which is way worse and a damn shame.

b.nice
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 3:32 pm

Anyone that thinks renewables are the way to go, is DANGEROUSLY IGNORANT..

That would be YOU, Nick !

Dangerous like a limp lettuce leaf !

Ignorant as a griff.

griff
Reply to  Surrr
June 22, 2022 1:48 am

France has a problem currently due to safety issues across a large number of reactors… its newest reactor at Flammanville is 10 years overdue…

UK can’t finance new reactors – EDF may pull out of next planned one, Sizewell, due to issues over funding/UK govt support

Is ignorance a factor, I wonder…

Derg
Reply to  griff
June 22, 2022 1:54 am

Can’t finance reactors?

The US “found” 40 billion for Ukraine. Give
me a break.

HotScot
Reply to  Derg
June 22, 2022 4:30 am

$80bn for Afghanistan.

HotScot
Reply to  griff
June 22, 2022 4:29 am

France has a problem currently due to safety issues across a large number of reactors

How many, precisely?

EDF may pull out of next planned one

There’s that word again. “may” which contrary to your fevered beliefs, does not mean ‘certainly’.

And you really believe that one of the wealthiest countries in the world can’t finance nuclear power on exactly the same basis as an electricity company?

Grow up griff, your logic is on a par with a child.

Reply to  HotScot
June 22, 2022 10:28 am

not my children, they are way more logical then Griff

Bryan A
Reply to  griff
June 22, 2022 6:14 am

Not Ignorance…Willful Incompetence

June 21, 2022 11:25 pm

“The fact the energy storage solution required to affordably cure intermittency does not exist, and will likely never exist, means nothing to him.”
Much said, but never with a proper attempt to quantify what is needed, or how someone who was actually trying to make it work would do it. Bowen has been getting advice, and it shows in his phrase “Firmed renewable”. It means that he, unlike folks here, has actually read the ESB report alluded to here a few days ago under the title “Green Aussie PM Caves, Offers Subsidies for Coal and Gas“.

The ESB has done the arithmetic of what 2050 might look like, and they set it out thus:
“AEMO’s Step Change scenario estimates about 122 GW of additional wind and solar (collectively variable renewable energy (VRE)) firmed by approximately 45 GW of new dispatchable storage capacity, 7 GW of existing dispatchable hydro and 9 GW of gas-fired generation will be required by 2050 to meet demand as coal-fired generation withdraws.”

The bolded section means that there would be 45 GW of some system, perhaps fast response gas, which would deal with the intermittency. It’s a cost, and the report is about how it could be met via market mechanisms. But it is not an unfeasible cost, and in terms of both emissions and fuel cost, firing up 45 GW or less occasionally when needed is a lot better than burning fuel for 100+ GW all the time.

Last edited 14 days ago by Nick Stokes
Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 22, 2022 12:33 am

Well, they have done the arithmetic, and they know about making the market work. Where is yours?

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 2:42 am

Firmed by approximately 45 GW of new dispatchable storage capacity,

As you should be aware, if you’re then there’s no hope, that’s the wrong measurement units.

For the UK, as it stands today with no EVs or Heat Pumps or direct electric heating peak demand is just over 40GW winter demand rarely falls much below 30GW.
So
The battery, or any other,storage has to
supply 40GW continuously and have a capacity of 2500GWh (3 windless days).

I don’t care if it was God himself who did the arithmetic both you and he are diabolically misinformed and are (deliberately?) misleading everyone else

Reply to  Ben Vorlich
June 22, 2022 2:49 am

I don’t think God is diabolically misinformed. But in the report, dispatchable storage capacity can be anything that can supply up to 45 GW for the time required. That could include fast response gas stations, pumped hydro, whatever.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 4:02 am

For how long? That’s the crucial bit of information which you and they have failed to provide

Reply to  Ben Vorlich
June 22, 2022 2:53 pm

As long as you need it. They are referring to reserve generation.

b.nice
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 3:37 pm

“They are referring to reserve generation.”

Nick can’t read.. they say dispatchable STORAGE

Stop your ignorance…. or is it deliberate mis-direction !

Ben is correct. Wrong units.

HotScot
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 4:48 am

But in the report, dispatchable storage capacity can be anything that can supply up to 45 GW for the time required.

Anything “can” happen, but it probably won’t.

More word salad.

OweninGA
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 5:17 am

Why would they advocate wasting so much gas? It would be a far better use of it just to put modern Combined Cycle Gas Turbine generators on as baseload and forget all this idea of carrying the entire night load on topper units for days or weeks at a time. The difference in efficiency is astounding.

Bryan A
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 6:19 am

But the Renewable Accolites are also calling for an End to Gas, ALL GAS, so what happens when those “Fast response Gas Stations” (reliable back-up) have no fuel?

MarkW
Reply to  Bryan A
June 22, 2022 10:04 am

Nick was hoping that nobody would remember that part.

Reply to  Bryan A
June 22, 2022 2:55 pm

The ERB is referring to one way to make the grid work with very much less fuel use in 2050. The official aim is net zero.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 10:33 am

All to replace what? a viable and working system that is cheap and robust. Nick please stop, you are over the ledge.

MarkW
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
June 22, 2022 10:03 am

If it’s stated by a government official, it is true.
If you don’t believe that, then you need to be scheduled for re-education.

Lrp
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 3:54 am

They don’t know; that’s why we’re in trouble now.

HotScot
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 4:46 am

The ESB has done the arithmetic of what 2050 might look like

There’s one of those words again, “might” which should be followed by ‘might not’.

Their arithmetic is wrong, at best fanciful.

Nothing of this nature can be reliably projected out to 2050.

Stop being such a child.

old mike
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 12:23 pm

Nick,
you’re too old to believe in unicorn farts. I’ll bet you still put out milk and cookies for Santa.

Waza
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 21, 2022 11:58 pm

What ESB arithmetic? 84 pages of waffle.
Not even examples of whole of life costs of existing solar wind or batteries.
Surely they can provide actual $/kW hr for existing facilities.

Reply to  Waza
June 22, 2022 12:29 am

ESB is calculating how much is needed to make the system work. They are not advising on how to make a profit from it.

Waza
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 12:50 am

Who said anything about profit.
I make it simple for you.
How much do existing wind farms cost?
How much do existing solar farms cost?
Include actual whole of life costs.

Reply to  Waza
June 22, 2022 1:01 am

This is not the subject of the ESB report. They are concerned with how much power is needed to make the grid work in 2050. And they have set out the relevant arithmetic.

Derg
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 1:58 am

Every time solar and wind are added to a grid prices go up and reliability goes down. Show me a place where this is NOT true?

b.nice
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 3:39 pm

And they have done it from a fantasy anti-reliability perspective.

You know that, so stop your petty attempts at dis-information.

Bryan A
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 8:10 pm

By 2050 the global need for electricity will quadruple at a minimum with…
Increased population
Transportation’s Electrification
Equitable access for the unelectrified hoi polloi
Social Justice
Heating and cooling electrification

“Net Zero” will only ever be a function of creative reporting and, given all involved, simply a Weapon of Maths Destruction

TonyG
Reply to  Bryan A
June 23, 2022 7:32 am

“Net Zero” will only ever be a function of creative reporting

It’s always “net”, because that way they can do whatever and just purchase Indulgences carbon offset credits.

Derg
Reply to  Waza
June 22, 2022 1:56 am

Include the costs to make them reliable and there is the full cost.

John R T
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 6:33 am

The Minister was addressing a Summit of Investors. Profit must be their goal.

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 10:06 am

Spoken like a true socialist. Just ignore the cost, full speed ahead.

paul courtney
Reply to  MarkW
June 23, 2022 10:33 am

Mr. W: IMO he’s doing something else (well, yeah, he ignores cost but more on that later). He changed the word “storage” to somehow include gas-fired generation. I don’t know if he got that from the Report, or if it is his idea, but it is the old switcheroo to say that a report requiring 45x of “storage” is talking about NG generators. Notice his use of the word “whatever” above, he knows what he’s done and won’t be called on it.
IF he admits this too loudly, he may need to engage OweninGA above, who tells us using NG for backup is hugely wasteful, compared to just burning NG for generation. And then he would need to ignore costs and efficiencies (see above).
Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m surprised not to see others call this switch. Maybe Mr. Stokes can tell me I’m wrong, that “storage” includes new generation.

H B
Reply to  Waza
June 22, 2022 12:41 am

They do not understand the difference between KW and KWh

Tom
Reply to  H B
June 22, 2022 4:57 am

Even though I memorized the equations as a student mechanical engineer many years ago, I didn’t fully understand the difference between power and energy – horsepower and ft-lb. When I later converted to KW and KWh, the relationship became quite obvious. Anyone who doesn’t fully understand that shouldn’t be commenting about it.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 3:08 am

“45 GW of some system”
i.e. something that hasn’t been invented yet. Otherwise, it’s fossil fuels to the rescue again – “fast response gas” That’s not completely fossil fuel free, is it? The idiot Greens think they can get rid of fossil fuels altogether by using some magic batteries that can store weeks of power.

Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
June 22, 2022 3:14 am

The task for the ESB was to put together a system that would work, and design a scheme so that everyone would be properly remunerated. Not to be completely FF free. From the point of view of both emissions and fuel costs, a system that draws on a 45 GW reserve occasionally, even if that uses gas, is vastly better than one that burns gas continuously for 100+ GW.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 3:31 am

So, you essentially admit that a grid can never be run on 100% renewables. Be careful, you’ll be excommunicated from the High Church of Green!
Nothing wrong with burning gas continually (unless you have a fear of plant food)

HotScot
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 5:01 am

Not to be completely FF free.

Renewables can never be FF free. For every GW generated by them there must be an equivalent 100% back up be it FF or nuclear.

In other words, the cost of renewables is at least double what’s required.

It’s all very well designing a system for a period in time when most of us will be dead, but if it’s unaffordable it won’t be used and people will die.

Power serves humanity, humanity doesn’t serve power.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  HotScot
June 22, 2022 6:45 am

At the risk of upsetting Nick again I’m going to quote another essay from Prof. Helm’s website entitled ‘Energy Policy'(30th March 2022)

“The key point about wind is it’s difficult economics. It is low density, disaggregated, intermittent and remote from consumers. Meanwhile it’s lobbyists claim that wind is the cheapest form of electricity generation. Sadly this is not true once the full costs are taken into account and that means that it is government that has to decide how much offshore and onshore wind are built and has to provide subsidies to the full costs to make it happen.

It cannot be stressed enough that the intermittency of wind makes everything else potentially intermittent too and hence requires system – wide investment to ensure supply equals demand at a reasonable price.

Prof Helm is Professor of Economic Policy at Oxford University. Although he is by no means a climate change sceptic he is an expert on energy policy which is his main research area.

http://www.dieterhelm.co.uk/energy/energy/energy-policy/

DMacKenzie
Reply to  HotScot
June 22, 2022 7:05 am

“…at least double…”
And to provide the demand, and at the same time recharge depleted batteries, the renewable source has to be twice as big as demand to start with.

Lrp
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 5:28 am

Failure should not be remunerated, and coal power plants don’t burn gas.

Tom
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 6:00 am

 a system that draws on a 45 GW reserve occasionally, even if that uses gas, is vastly better than one that burns gas continuously for 100+ GW.

This is only true when you ignore the total cost in both environmental cost and wealth of the nation. When everyone has to live in poverty to in order to achieve this, the environmental cost will be the highest.

MarkW
Reply to  Tom
June 22, 2022 10:12 am

The idea that 45GW can back up 100GW worth of wind/solar is so ludicrous that only someone who has never run the numbers would be able to believe it.

There are many times throughout the year when wind and solar are so close to zero, that the difference isn’t worth mentioning.

michel
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 8:37 am

a system that draws on a 45 GW reserve occasionally, even if that uses gas, is vastly better than one that burns gas continuously for 100+ GW.

It might be, but you have to get specific and quantitative to show it. General argument like this is literary criticism.

In the present case the argument is that it is ‘better’ – which has to be defined – to install 122GW of wind and solar AND 45GW of ‘storage’ – which you are interpreting to mean 45GW gas backup.

Better than to install 20-30 GW of conventional?

This is craziness. Show the numbers, if you can.

michel
Reply to  michel
June 22, 2022 8:39 am

The way to show it (if you can) is to do a Net Present Value analysis of the cash flows over lifetime of the project. See Brealey and Myers for an explanation of how and why to do this.

Reply to  michel
June 22, 2022 10:39 am

“a system that draws on a 45 GW reserve occasionally, even if that uses gas, is vastly better than one that burns gas continuously for 100+ GW”

Its not better for birds, its not better for plants and it is defiantly not better for anyone other than maybe the rich and Elite.

Reply to  michel
June 22, 2022 3:08 pm

“Show the numbers, if you can.”
The ESB report is here
Better than to install 20-30 GW of conventional?”
Then you get 20-30 GW, not nearly enough. Australia is a big country with a big grid. The AEMO balances that grid every day. It is their calc that 45 GW backup is enough.

b.nice
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 3:44 pm

So why waste the taxpayer money on a second supply that doesn’t actually work a lot of the time

Just build the 45GW of coal and/or gas, and that is all that is needed.

b.nice
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 3:47 pm

By kow-towing to the childish nonsense of the nonsense anti-CO2 agenda, they are deliberately increasing costs for everyone, and at the same time making the system even more unreliable than the current small amounts of wind and solar have already made it.

michel
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 23, 2022 12:43 am

The question was the rationality of the policy. Why is it the rational choice to build 122GW of wind and solar AND 45GW of storage/backup?

That is absolutely huge, when its going to be done for a country which right now has demand of about 55GW.

Why does this make sense compared to simply meeting whatever the forecast level of demand is by buiilding enough conventional?

It makes no sense. Well, I suppose if you are determined to go net-zero and think that Australia will save the planet by doing so, maybe it makes a certain kind of sense. But that is completely irrational.

What is needed is a comparison of the NPV of the two options.

By the way – I don’t believe, based on the studies of the UK and the NY studies that Menton has linked to, that 122GW backed up by 45GW is going to be enough. You have to have almost total backup for wind and solar, and even in Australia you are going to need at least a week’s worth of supply to be safe.

If this is 40GW of gas generation, then you need to show the NPV of building this and the 122GW, as compared to just building and running the gas or some other form of conventional – because do without the wind and solar, and it doesn’t have to be gas.

Hasn’t anyone read any basic accounting and finance text books?

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 8:41 am

It sounds like one of the steps in ESB’s plan consists of “then a miracle happens”. They’re just stuck on deciding if that is step 2 or step 6.
Imagine all of the fossil fuels we wouldn’t have to burn if we weren’t using it to manufacture billions of tons of unreliable energy harvesting towers and panels and associated equipment.
When will you admit that the solar and wind industry is just a scheme to make money by selling people something they don’t need and using government to force them to buy it. It’s ALL about money and was never about ‘saving the world’. Step 1, create a bogeyman. Step 2, sell bogeyman repellant. Step 3, if anyone says there are no bogeymen, or that the repellant doesn’t work, then label that person a “bogeyman”.

Bryan A
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 9:52 am

You’re right. Renewables can never be (RELIABLE BACK-UP) Fossil Fuel free. They can’t guarantee 24/7/365 capacity because they don’t have a 24/7/365 fuel source.
HOWEVER
Fossil Fuel can always be Renewable Free and supply power 24/7/365 consistently and reliably

Reply to  Bryan A
June 22, 2022 3:10 pm

and, as we now find, very expensively.

Graeme#4
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 7:51 pm

Not in Western Australia Nick. Fortunately, we are not connected to the “National” Grid, so our mainly fossil-fuel power is stable, reliable and low-cost. They certainly have made a hash of things in the other states and are now paying the prce.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 23, 2022 6:58 am

Very expense? only after government intentional intervention to try make it so. 100 years of experience show it not expensive at all.
Nick I really think you have lost your mind.

b.nice
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 3:42 pm

“is vastly better than one that burns gas continuously for 100+ GW.”

So having someone only supply when wind and solar, but still having to keep the infrastructure available, doesn’t make costs more expensive.

You are living in lu-lu-land, Nick.

OweninGA
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
June 22, 2022 5:20 am

Not only not fossil fuel free, but the absolute worst way to burn gas to get electricity. More CO2 per kWh than base load CCGT by far.

Lrp
Reply to  OweninGA
June 22, 2022 5:30 am

Gas should be used for making fertilisers not burn to cover up wind and solar inadequacies.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 3:46 am

nah we cant have gas
and what cost? for the sup[posed many many batteries to store?
lifespan of those is never talked about let alone disposal either

michel
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 4:00 am

Nick, surely you can see the complete insanity of what they are proposing.

The country now has approx 55GW of generation, of which about 19GW is coal that will go offline by 2030.

So their problem is, they will have about 36GW of generation and demand of something like 60GW+ – assuming some growth in demand, don’t know, could be a lot more if its really an all electric future.

So their plan is to install 122GW of solar and wind. This is crazy enough in itself. But they also intend installing 45GW storage to back it up.

They do not say how many GWh this storage is to supply, but the UK would require at least 2 week’s worth of the total wind and solar supply, to get through winters. The numbers are available. Estimates are also available for NY State.

This cannot be a sensible plan. The alternative is to just install conventional to cover the gap, that is, 60 – 36 = 24GW of conventional generation. You are surely not claiming that the alternative of 122GW + 45GW storage is a sensible or cost effective alternative to that?

If you’re going to say demand is even higher, well, the sensible thing to do if generation is such a problem is to discourage it. Rather than burn oil and gas to generate electricity, just burn it direct in heating or ICEs.

The wind and solar, once you provide the backup, are just a hugely expensive spare wheel.

This is a crazy plan, and will lead to disaster if seriously attempted. Surely its obvious to anyone not afflicted with green hysteria?

HotScot
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 4:39 am

What happens when the wind doesn’t blow? Wind can provide up to 30% of the UK’s electricity (ignoring for a moment that’s a fraction of total power requirements) but for frequent extended periods over the last few weeks it’s been struggling below 10%.

And on the longest day of the year solar fell off a cliff at 6pm last night. Today is much the same, as will be tomorrow.

How does a society function when it can’t rely on cheap electricity?

Screenshot 2022-06-22 at 12.32.20.png
Jim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 5:27 am

Let’s see: 45+7+9 = 61GW So basically there will be back up for a full 50% of the installed wind and solar. I wonder what the actual output average is for 122 GW’s of wind and solar? Maybe periods as low 20%? Let’s see 122 GW * 0.20 ~ 24 GW. Then 24 + 61 = 85 GW. That is a lot short of 122 GW. There will be the same problem as today but probably much worse since by then there won’t be any baseline fossil fuel providers left.

This doesn’t even address whether the 61 GW of power will last a minute or 3 days. Nor does it allow for recharging batteries if they are used.

It’s all pie in the sky, bureaucratic word salad, propaganda. This is not a plan. It doesn’t even address where or how funding is to be supplied.

How does the old saying go? Put wishes in one hand and poop in the other, see which one gets filled first.

BrianB
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 8:43 am

The entire history of the world is of busy bodies writing specious reports full of “math” that guarantee they have resolved a problem. Then cheerleaders, sometimes named Nick, shake their pom-poms and say “math, where’s yours?” as though the burden of proof is not on the central planners with their new “it’s sure to work this time” mathematically pure and profoundly, stupidly wrong five year plan.

Well, they have done the arithmetic, and they know about making the market work.

Talk about dangerously ignorant. Leaving aside the inevitable GIGO of assumptions about the world 30 years down the road, markets do indeed work but governments and central planners are not what or who make them work. They are what prevent them working and make them fail. All the government can do to make markets work is ensure a level playing field and protect against theft and fraud. Anything else is interference with and destruction of markets.
You may make the incorrect argument that the government should intervene and substitute its wisdom and power for the market. That is a wrong but at least honest argument. To argue that the state deciding what will be built, when and where and at what cost is “making the market work” is a false argument made in bad faith, much like the claim “stakeholder capitalism” is just a modification of free market capitalism when it is antithetical to free markets.
Why can’t believers in state capitalism [AKA fascism] and socialism and its kissing cousin the welfare state simply state their beliefs honestly and plainly rather than euphemizing them on the backs of things contrary to what they believe and intend? Because nobody wants what their real intentions are? You never see free market capitalists having to claim they’re really free market socialists to try and push their agenda through. If you have to disguise your intentions, perhaps you need to reexamine them.

Last edited 14 days ago by BrianB
MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 10:01 am

The willingness to suspend all rationality in deference to the government is strong in Nick.

The calculations for how much battery capacity is needed to support wind and solar have been done. Multiple times.

They always show that trillions of dollars isn’t even a good start in building all the batteries that are needed to make wind and solar reliable.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  MarkW
June 22, 2022 10:35 am

“My mind is made up, don’t confuse me with facts!”

John_C
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 4:16 pm

So Nicky,

You need 45GW of standby power. You could have your 100+ GW of CC power for a lower CO2 output than your standby, at lower cost in operation, footprint, distribution, well, actually, lower impacts on every metric. You are burning down the village to save it. If you cared about CO2 impacts, you’d build nukes. If you cared about low environmental impact, you’d build nukes or CC gas turbines, or scrubbed coal. If you only care about virtue signalling, you’ll support PV and windmills. And that’s because of the huge impacts on land and sky and the economy, like flagellants in the Dark Ages.

Chris Morris
June 21, 2022 11:26 pm

This is Mr Bowen’s storage
On Friday, the Australian Financial Review reported the multi-billion pumped hydro project would not be operational before 2028. The original timeline would have seen energy generated in 2026. 
 
Snowy 2.0 was first announced by prime minister Malcolm Turnbull with a price tag of $2 billion. It is now expected to cost more than $10 billion and will take a further two years to build.
 
For years the former Liberal-National government dubbed Snowy 2.0 as the answer to Australia’s domestic energy woes, with pumped hydro able to firm renewables and act as an energy storage source. 
According to the AFR report, the delays have been caused by a number of complications involving contractors and supply chain logistics.  Federal energy and climate change minister Chris Bowen said he would work closely with the project developer Snowy Hydro to “try and get it back on track.”  However, the “harsh reality is that it is way behind par.” 
 
“The bottom line is Australians will be waiting longer than they were led to believe for the start of the new energy to flow,” Bowen said. 
Bowen said the delay with Snowy 2.0 would come at the cost of Australia’s planned energy transition. 
 
The Labour party have campaigned on a promise to reduce emissions by 43% by 2030, significantly higher than the former government’s longstanding target of reductions of 28%. 
“We supported Snowy because it does have a role to play in energy security. It does have a role to play in providing that stability to the system because, ultimately, it’s a form of storage,” Bowen said. 
“But we’re going to be waiting a substantial period longer than we were told by the previous government for it to play that role.”

Dennis
Reply to  Chris Morris
June 21, 2022 11:29 pm

I understand that $6 billion of that estimate relates to the buyback of the shareholding by State Governments in Snowy Mountains Hydro now wholly owned by the Federal Government. The State Governments wanted the money as part of the negotiations to provide planning approval/development application processing for Snowy 02.

However the States still control dams and waterways.

Last edited 14 days ago by Dennis
Chris Morris
Reply to  Dennis
June 22, 2022 12:33 am

You comment is interesting. Even sympathetic media don’t mention it.
Snowy 2.0 delays and another cost blow out blamed on Covid-19 | RenewEconomy

Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 22, 2022 1:50 am

Your SMH link is marked as an opinion article. It is written by
Ted Woodley is a former managing director of PowerNet, GasNet, EnergyAustralia, China Light & Power Systems (Hong Kong).

Not a Green. But it still may be true that Snowy 2.0 is not great value for money.

Loydo
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 3:56 am

Everyone is a green compared to Eric.

Bill Toland
Reply to  Loydo
June 22, 2022 4:43 am

Everyone is a genius compared to you.

John Endicott
Reply to  Bill Toland
June 22, 2022 6:51 am

That’s why Kirk Lazarus warned that you should never go full Loydo. 🙂

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
June 22, 2022 10:15 am

You say that like it’s a bad thing.

b.nice
Reply to  Loydo
June 22, 2022 3:49 pm

Eric is “greener” than you will ever be.

People like you are cheering for environmental destruction.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 10:42 am

Green as in greening the planet? There is nothing green about the Green movement unless you mean green from scamming dollars anyway they can and at the expense of anyone they can.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Chris Morris
June 22, 2022 4:16 am

Snowy 2.0 appears will be overdue, over priced and have over promised.

MarkW
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
June 22, 2022 10:16 am

It’s a government project. What did you expect?

John_C
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
June 22, 2022 3:36 pm

They’ll under deliver to make up for the overage.

observa
June 21, 2022 11:27 pm

Can the nukes and hydro so make with the batteries-
Scientists demand for new dam projects to be STOPPED in Australia (msn.com)

Dennis
Reply to  observa
June 21, 2022 11:37 pm

Note the “scientists” and the mostly inherited wealth Green followers, and the no rainfall will fill dams person …

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wentworth_Group_of_Concerned_Scientists

Reply to  observa
June 21, 2022 11:43 pm

Anti-damism is powerfull right thru all the States in Oz. In Oct 2019 PM Morrison in middle of a drought (with NSW Premier at his side) offered NSW a $Bn to replace or enlarge a couple or 3 dams – Dungowan the water supply for Tamworth – raising the wall at the Wyangla Dam and I think Mole River Dam might have been in their too. After a year passed with no progress only paper pushing I predicted nothing would happen. Amazingly that looks to be the case. Recent news tells the story. The NSW departments must be riddled with anti-damists.
NSW gets some rain and anti-damism cancels damshttp://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=6933

Reply to  wazz
June 22, 2022 12:08 am

After many years of dam building, the fact is that there aren’t a lot of unexploited opportunities left. Expanding Wyangala and Dungowan are pretty small beer. Pittock, who has actually done the arithmetic, says the business case fails. Too little benefit for the cost.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 22, 2022 12:28 am

The discussion here is of NSW, not the tropics.

lee
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 1:13 am

“With the support of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA), we have identified 22,000 potential pumped hydro energy storage (PHES) sites across all states and territories of Australia. PHES can readily be developed to balance the grid with any amount of solar and wind power, all the way up to 100%, as ageing coal-fired power stations close.”

https://theconversation.com/want-energy-storage-here-are-22-000-sites-for-pumped-hydro-across-australia-84275

WR2
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 11:20 am

And yet you want to base your support of the australia plan based on their using pumped hydro for storage?

b.nice
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 3:54 pm

You are lying your teeth out, Nick

There are still plenty of places for large dams.

And here is the dam build capacity per decade.

Water storage desperately needs to be increased..

…. IF you care anything about human interests, of course.

Australian Dam capacity added per decade.png
Julian Flood
June 21, 2022 11:35 pm

The problem of how to keep the lights on when the sun does shine and the wind doesn’t blow is simply solved: forbid access to the Grid for schemes that cannot guarantee a capacity factor of 95% or more.

If renewables can reach that standard and make a profit then we can all relax. If not…

JF

Julian Flood
Reply to  Julian Flood
June 21, 2022 11:36 pm

doesn’t shine, dammit.

ThinkingScientist
Reply to  Julian Flood
June 22, 2022 5:39 am

Indeed, the solution is to require any supplier wishing to supply the grid be required to do so on a dispatchable basis at the point of delivery to the grid and on, say, a month forward basis. Then any supplier is free to implement whatever system they want. And we can watch the renewables get killed off by the free market and everyone return to enjoying low cost, reliable electricity. You know, like the good old days.

SAMURAI
June 21, 2022 11:46 pm

I’ve done a quick napkin note calculation to determine the rough cost to provide 1-week of backup battery storage in the US based on the following parameters:

Tesla PowerWall cost for 1 week backup for average home: $40,000
Number of US homes: 122 million
Residential power consumption as percent of total grid: 16%
PowerWall suggested replacement time: every 15 years.
Total Cost: ($40K x 122MM)/.16 x 6.6 replacements per century= about $200 trillion/century of $2 trillion/year….

Then you have to build an entire wind/solar grid which would cost around another $200 trillion/century or another $2 trillion/year, for $4 trillion/year for both wind/solar grid, and with a 1-week battery backup… Insanity…

If the US just kept all its existing hydro and nuclear plants, it would require an additional 50 more Palo-Verde scale nuclear plants @ $12 billion/plant, or just $600 billion to make the US grid 100% “green” which would need to be replaced 2 twice/century.. or $1.2 trillion/century…

Hmmm.. $1.2 trillion/century for a nuclear/hydro grid vs $400 trillion/century for a wind/solar grid with a 1-week battery backup…

Who exactly is “dangerously ignorant” again?….

Reply to  SAMURAI
June 22, 2022 12:09 am

So who is proposing a week of backup battery storage? Straw man.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 22, 2022 3:15 am

I’ve found some unobtanium down the back of my sofa. It looks a lot like biscuit crumbs and cat hair, but I promise you it really is unobtanium. It’s yours for a snip at £50 billion.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 3:13 am

Well when the wind hasn’t blown for weeks and solar can’t cut it at night you’re going to need more than a week’s worth of backup!
Nick, you’re a sensible chap – why are you defending this renewables silliness?

Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
June 22, 2022 3:26 am

You’re just arm-waving. These people operate a national grid. They can do the arithmetic to work out how much backup is needed. You don’t even try.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 3:34 am

I said you’d need more than a week’s worth of backup when the wind doesn’t blow for days on end (often when it’s freezing cold) Without fossil fuels and current battery technology that’s not possible.
That’s not arm-waving. That’s fact. I don’t need to try any harder.

Last edited 14 days ago by Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
June 22, 2022 12:07 pm

The ESB backup would require some fossil fuels. But using gas as backup is a lot less expensive in fuel and emissions than using it as your main generator source.

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 12:23 pm

Spoken like someone who has absolutely no knowledge of how reality works.
First off, in order to be able to start quickly, the gas plant has to be kept in at least warm, if not hot standby. That takes gas, so there will always be emissions, even when the plant isn’t generating any actual electricity.
Secondly, trying to operate any form of fossil fuel power plant in this kind of stop and start mode is very inefficient and damaging to the plant itself.

BTW, for years, the nutcases have been proclaiming that the goal is no fossil fuel plants. Your heresy has been noted.

Last edited 14 days ago by MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
June 22, 2022 6:01 pm

Well, the AEMO knows how reality works. They make it work. But
Secondly, trying to operate any form of fossil fuel power plant in this kind of stop and start mode is very inefficient and damaging to the plant itself.”
What people overlook is that we do this now, in a big way. There is huge diurnal variation in demand, and then peaks between days. The traditional way the grid worked is that coal plants took the base load, and gas and hydro came on or off as needed. Adding a variable renewables input is just a bit more of that.

b.nice
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 4:00 pm

“would require some fossil fuels”

Then JUST build the fossil fuel supplies..

… and STOP WASTING MONEY on unreliables.

Mr.
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 6:28 am

Clearly, no actual actuaries were employed in the preparation of the ESG numbers.

John Endicott
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 6:46 am

You’re just arm-waving. “

Says Nick as he furiously waves his arms instead of responding to he points being made.

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 10:20 am

I’ve always been fascinated how socialists are so eager to pass responsibility for thinking to government officials.

b.nice
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
June 22, 2022 3:59 pm

“Nick, you’re a sensible chap”

BS.. Nick is brain-washed shill zealot, with zero common-sense.

SAMURAI
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 4:30 am

Nick-san:

When crazy countries actually decide to build extensive wind/solar grids with no nukes, coal and natural gas backup, there are these really rare natural phenomena that require at least 1-week of emergency backup power called: night, no wind, too much wind, too little wind, snow, clouds, hail, sleet, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, sandstorms, dust, dirt, floods, etc.,…

if there isn’t at least one-week’s worth of backup power, you’re completely screwed as the EU is already experiencing…

The great thing about natural gas, coal, and nuclear power (especially next generation Thorium MSRs) is that they can produce constant energy 24/7/365 for 50 years with absolutely no need for emergency backup…

A good case could be made that 1 week of wind/solar backup is too short…

Thankfully, the actual duration of required backup power for a wind/solar grid will never need to be seriously determined, because CAGW will relatively soon become disconfirmed, and countries which already have too much wind/solar are already seeing how fragile, expensive, intermittent, unreliable, unstable, and diffuse this idiotic form of energy generation is…

Cheers..

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 6:34 am

Idiot—that is a minimum number needed to approach real power reliability.

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 10:19 am

You are correct for once Nick. A week of storage is nowhere near enough.

b.nice
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2022 3:58 pm

“week of backup battery storage”

Without at least a fortnight’s worth (for the whole of the NEM)….

…. Wind and solar are pointless.

Thanks for pointing that out, Nick!

griff
Reply to  SAMURAI
June 22, 2022 1:45 am

It is ridiculous to suggest that all US homes would need backup power at the same time, or that any of them would need such power for a week.

The existing grid provides most of the functionality required… no extra grid for home solar!

I see no reason why US would get rid of any hydro plants.

MarkW
Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 22, 2022 10:24 am

In the winter, much of the US is only seeing a few hours of daylight per day, and the sun, when it does shine, is low on the horizon and hence is not capable of producing much power. Even if the skies were clear, which they rarely are.

And then there is the snow and the frost that will be covering many solar panels in the winter.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  griff
June 22, 2022 3:37 am

“The existing grid provides most of the functionality required…”
i.e. a fossil fuelled grid. Fossil fuels to the rescue again!
Griff, you live in England like me. Do you have roof top solar? Does it power your home 24/7? You’re such a fan of solar I presume you must have it. If you don’t that makes you a total hypocrite.

HotScot
Reply to  griff
June 22, 2022 5:17 am

It is ridiculous to suggest that all US homes would need backup power at the same time, or that any of them would need such power for a week.

What’s ridiculous is not to make an allowance for it.

But let’s assume you’re right and a high pressure system only affected the US west coast for a week (happens frequently). What would be the effect on the rest of the country if there was no power, not to mention the lives lost on the west coast from a week of no power.

Industry, shipping, transport, technology, defence – everything, shut down for a week. How long would it take to recover from that, not just on the west coast but across the country.

You are a dangerous fantasist.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
June 22, 2022 10:22 am

In the winter, solar produces very little power for months on end for most of the US.
During that same period, wind is also producing little to nothing because the wind is either to weak or to strong, not to mention the problem with icing.

A week back up would be a bare minimum.

Rich Davis
Reply to  SAMURAI
June 22, 2022 7:42 pm

Nick doesn’t propose a week of storage. He proposes that once socialism collapses the economy and the famines and food riots dispose of 90% of the population, there will be more than enough power, at least intermittently a few times per week to listen to the propaganda broadcasts. Well, at least for 10-15 years until all the eagle choppers and slaver panels have broken down.

Matthew Sykes
June 21, 2022 11:48 pm

we can store the renewable energy if we have the investment” Indeed, and this pushes the price up higher than the cost of nuclear, and far beyond gas and coal.

Pumped hydro, thats what you want. And when it rains, you get energy for free. Will the eco mob let you flood valleys though?

And forget batteries, they are an environmental disaster and dont provide enough storage.

MarkW
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
June 22, 2022 10:26 am

They’ve passed a law requiring industry to create a battery that lasts forever, is 100% efficient and free.

Problem solved.

Robber
June 22, 2022 12:07 am

“Victoria’s Energy Minister Lily D’Ambrosio has denied that the state will face energy shortfalls and blackouts amid the continuing energy crisis, saying new offshore wind projects will “blow any shortfall out of the water”.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Robber
June 22, 2022 3:16 am

Does she do stand up?

MarkW
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
June 22, 2022 10:27 am

That’s what she was doing. Just not very well.

Bill Toland
Reply to  Robber
June 22, 2022 4:48 am

I’ve come to the conclusion that most politicians are delusional. After all, what normal person would actually want to be a politician?

MarkW
Reply to  Bill Toland
June 22, 2022 10:27 am

I’ve been saying for years that the biggest disqualification for being president, is actually wanting the job.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Robber
June 22, 2022 7:07 am

Wind Europe says there is going to be worldwide shortage of suitable construction vessels to build and connect offshore windfarms in the near future.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Dave Andrews
June 22, 2022 7:09 am

For those that don’t know Wind Europe is the ‘Voice’ of the wind industry in Europe.

Eric Vieira
June 22, 2022 12:11 am

A lot of these politicians are often graduates in economics if graduates at all. Practically none of them are MINT grads or engineers. They just don’t know what they’re talking about, or worse they don’t care. In Switzerland, we have an environment/transportation/energy/communications minister who studied music (piano) without graduating. A Socialist who is pushing the hard green left agenda to the extreme with a green left majority in parliament. We have elections next year and I hope the Swiss will wake up, but I’m quite pessimistic about this …

Ed Zuiderwijk
June 22, 2022 12:19 am

I know who the ignorant is, and it isn’t me.

Clarky of Oz
June 22, 2022 12:26 am

Firmed renewables? Please explain!

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 22, 2022 3:17 am

Often referred to as “fantasy land”

Bryan A
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
June 23, 2022 9:40 pm

Firmed because Wind And Solar without reliable back-up is Infirm

Clarky of Oz
Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 22, 2022 4:53 am

Thanks Eric, I had seen some commercial organisatio sprouting the use of gas powered turbine engines to do this which sort of negates the idea of “renewables”

As I understand it, pumped hydro is not all that plentiful in mainland Australia. (Snowy II) is behind schedule and over budget. Grid scale batteries are also not plentiful and expensive.

So if we have a firmed solar array, then during the time taken to charge it’s associated battery means it is unable to supply energy to the grid. Thus the solar array is not only usless at night, it is also not supplying energy to the grid during a large part of the day. On a simplistic level it seems to be a smoke and mirrors trick.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Clarky of Oz
June 22, 2022 3:17 am

It’s wind turbines with really stiff blades.

Mr.
Reply to  Clarky of Oz
June 22, 2022 6:39 am

“Propped-up” would be a more accurate descriptor than “firmed”.

But hey, that would have connotations of something that was broken, frail, ineffective, infirm, disabled . . .

Bryan A
Reply to  Mr.
June 22, 2022 11:19 am

Firmed refers to renewables that have additional dedicated storage sources that (could, would, might, may) (weasely words) guarantee nameplate capacity is met 24/7/???

Forrest Gardener
Reply to  Clarky of Oz
June 23, 2022 3:45 am

A really big supply of rechargeable AAA batteries?

UK-Weather Lass
June 22, 2022 12:37 am

Aussie Climate & Energy Minister shockingly reveals that by pushing intermittents he knows absolutely nothing about baseload electricity generation issues … and yet still has the audacity to call those pushing the nuclear option ignorant.

Is he fit for purpose … I mean seriously?

observa
Reply to  UK-Weather Lass
June 22, 2022 1:39 am

Bowen is dangerously ignorant but his AEMO have to deal with the reality-
AEMO suspends new wind and solar projects as it battles to deal with market crisis | RenewEconomy

shoehorn
June 22, 2022 1:30 am

This bloke Chris Bowen has a glass jaw and is a remnant of the previous Labor govt. voted out in 2013. Now Minister for Climate and Energy (sort of like Dingoes and Babies). Heaven help us all.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  shoehorn
June 22, 2022 1:52 am

🤣 I see what you did there.

griff
June 22, 2022 1:39 am

Look at the construction times for reactors – EDF has two still building after 10 years and just delayed the UK Hinkley plant again…

Hinkley will require a rate for its electricity for 30 years already way ahead of any fossil fuel or renewable cost in the UK and will add a £30 surcharge annually to every UK electricity bill.

whatever their benefits, nuclear plants are not affordable or quick to build…

fretslider
Reply to  griff
June 22, 2022 1:57 am

Look at all the hoops it has go through

Honestly griff, when are you going to come with a non disingenuous argument?

John Endicott
Reply to  fretslider
June 22, 2022 6:40 am

never. he doesn’t know how too, all he know how to do is push the watermelon party line, no matter how many poor arguments and outright lies he has to spout in order to do so.

MarkW
Reply to  fretslider
June 22, 2022 10:31 am

This has been explained to griff at least a dozen times. And will no doubt be explained to him dozens more times in the future.

He doesn’t want to know anything that might contradict what he is told to believe.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  griff
June 22, 2022 1:59 am

France built 56 reactors between 1972 and 1987 before the Greens got busy.

ThinkingScientist
Reply to  Chris Hanley
June 22, 2022 5:43 am

Like back in the good old days when you could still sink a Rainbow Warrior eh?

Graemethecat
Reply to  griff
June 22, 2022 2:00 am

Strip out the huge regulatory burden and lawfare and nuclear plants could be built vastly more rapidly. The French managed it in the 1970’s, and the Chinese are doing it today.

drednicolson
Reply to  griff
June 22, 2022 2:00 am

An example of hobbling a horse then demanding it run fast.

fretslider
Reply to  drednicolson
June 22, 2022 2:11 am

Pure Biden!

AndyHce
Reply to  drednicolson
June 22, 2022 3:43 am

remember Gideon?

Derg
Reply to  griff
June 22, 2022 2:03 am

Because of Government….greens will not stand for nuclear power.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  griff
June 22, 2022 3:20 am

£30 surcharge? Just cancel the (much greater) green surcharge. After all, renewables don’t need subsidies as wind and sunlight are free, aren’t they Griff?

HotScot
Reply to  griff
June 22, 2022 5:25 am

…..and will add a £30 surcharge annually to every UK electricity bill.

Woe is me. I’ll have to do without a bottle of malt whisky once a year.

🤣

Dave Andrews
Reply to  griff
June 22, 2022 7:18 am

Wind subsidies add 25% to every household’s electricity bills in the UK and that works out to far more than £30pa

MarkW
Reply to  Dave Andrews
June 22, 2022 10:33 am

And that’s with wind only managing a few percent of total power delivered to consumers.
As the level grows, so will the cost.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
June 22, 2022 10:30 am

Greens do everything in their power to delay the construction of nuclear. Then they proclaim that nuclear isn’t viable because it takes too long to build.

Do they take lessons in hypocrisy?

Graeme#4
Reply to  griff
June 22, 2022 8:31 pm

As usual, the outlier Hinkley C is trotted out once again as an “example”. Never mind all the other successful nuclear plant builds. For a start, Barakah in the UAE completed its first two units on time, on budget, in 8 years each. These units are now delivering reliable low-cost power to the folks in the UAE. And when you look at the total cost of the longer lifetimes of nuclear, coal and gas, renewables come in at TWICE their cost, and that’s before adding the required firming/backup. So please don’t say that nuclear power plants are not affordable or quick to build.

June 22, 2022 1:42 am

Scoffing at renewables.

In 2009 Renewables provided 8.9% of global energy demand (12,983 TWh)
In 2019 Renewable provided 11.7% of global energy demand (20,281 TWh) after an investment of $3,015 Billion.

This represents a spend of $0.41 Billion per TWh added from 2009-19.

Over the same period $1,825 Billion was invested in Conventional Energy to meet 88.3% of demand.

This represents $0.07 Billion per TWh added from 2009-19.

Renewables may be quick to build and notionally cheaper to run but given their intermittency they cost 6.2x as much to build to meet continuous demand.

Nominally to replace all conventional sources of energy would cost every one on earth today. $8,004 dollars.

Derg
Reply to  Eric Huxter
June 22, 2022 2:04 am

It’s not possible.

Philip
June 22, 2022 1:43 am

Moody’s Investor Service estimates that reactor owners would have to sell electricity at an average of 15 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) over the life of a plant in order to earn an adequate profit. Solar (sans Fed and State subsidy) cost about 35 cents per KWh.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that new solar power costs over three times as much as nuclear power. Energy sources acknowledge that solar is not cost competitive and that several studies find solar power to be two to five times as expensive as nuclear.

But maybe things are different down under… Like in Germany. No nuclear and energy costs are about 3X N. America’s.

Problem with Nuclear right now isn’t nuclear, its inexpensive NG.

MarkW
Reply to  Philip
June 22, 2022 10:35 am

The biggest expense in building a nuclear power plant is not material or engineers. It’s lawyers, to deal with all the lawsuits and the ever changing regulations.

Graeme#4
Reply to  Philip
June 22, 2022 8:39 pm

Australian electricity costs range from USD 14c to 22c per kWh.

Craig from Oz
June 22, 2022 1:44 am

Rain stores naturally. It will flow in a predicable way, seep into the ground in a predicable way and evaporate in a predicable way.

Storing it is a matter of finding an area where water flow in is greater that ground seep and evaporation.

The other thing with water is you very rarely consume it at the rate it is produced. When it rains the water produced is days or possibly months away from coming at the tap at the home of Mr and Mrs Citizen. It is a small minority of water that is consumed straight out of the sky.

Water consumption can also be delayed. Humans can go several hours completely safely without having to drink.Your PC switches off if the mains fail. Your fridge switches off if the mains fail. Your electric stove switches off if the mains fail.

Those who say otherwise are either dangerously ignorant or simply seeking to perpetuate the climate wars.

Klem
June 22, 2022 1:47 am

Nuclear provides cheap and plentiful energy which is the lifeblood of Capitalism, and is therefore despised by the Marxists. As long as they are in power, you will not see a nuke plant built in Oz.

Peta of Newark
June 22, 2022 2:10 am

Fool.
Quotethe rain doesn’t always fall either, but we manage to store the water –”

No.
To properly store water you store it in the soil/ground/dirt beneath your feet – not in artificial lakes and reservoirs. You store it in soil organic matter, swamps, mires, bogs, natural lakes, porous rocks and aquifers.

And when you store it in those sorts of places:

  • wildfires and droughts stop
  • you are not tempted to use it for irrigation and thus (salt) poison your farms (you wont hardly need irrigation)
  • average high (weather) temperatures will fall
  • average low (weather) temperatures will rise
  • dust storms disappear
  • raging floods and landslides stop
  • The Climate becomes stable & clement and makes the place somewhere desirable to both move to and live
  • you will have done something real genuine and lasting ‘For The Children’

The raw materials & the technology are cheap as chips and are all ready & waiting for the get go….

So less of the fine virtuous words and fake empathy (sympathy) – get off yer backside and do it.

186no
June 22, 2022 2:26 am

I am a simple soul; why is it not possible to use intermittent wind power to pump water – when both are in sync windy days and reservoirs with capacity – collected at low level to higher level storage and release it downhill to create ….hydro electric power…you can tell I am not a scientist. May not work for all parts of Aus but it would in wet temperate climates unless you live around the Dead Sea.

ThinkingScientist
Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 22, 2022 5:52 am

Nice calculation Eric and a good way to illustrate to a greenie the scale of what’s involved.

So 587 tons of water at 1 m^3 per ton is a cube of of 8.4 metres per side. That’s about the entire cube volume to encompass a UK decent size 4 bed detached house. The block containing the water would have to be around 26 m off the ground at its base and would probably fill most UK gardens.

And all that for just a paltry 2kw for a single day.

Bryan A
Reply to  ThinkingScientist
June 22, 2022 11:29 am

Then, for Pumped Storage Batteries, you need to lift that 587 tons of water 35 meters above the ground every day so it’s available at night

willem post
Reply to  Bryan A
June 23, 2022 3:13 am

What about EFFICIENCY?

observa
Reply to  186no
June 22, 2022 2:45 am

Yep and my parents did just that on time and on budget with Snowy Hydro grabbing the low hanging fruit. Now they’re adding more marginal Snowy Hydro II which is already blowing out the budget and time frame.

Now I live in the driest State in the driest continent (South Oz) and we have hills we sometimes call mountains or ranges so even pumping seawater uphill is no go. Not so the Great Dividing Range on the east coast of Australia so which high valleys are you suggesting filling with plentiful seawater for pumped hydro storage? This I gotta hear as will the local MP no doubt.

Mr.
Reply to  observa
June 22, 2022 7:06 am

Victoria’s most suitable hydro site (McAlister River?) in the NE high plains region was permanently closed off as a National Park in the 1990s by the state Labor government.

ghl
Reply to  Mr.
June 22, 2022 10:47 pm

You would think storing water in a national park would be a good thing, eh? Win – win.

MarkW
Reply to  186no
June 22, 2022 10:37 am

You need both the water, and two places to store that water.
Around the world, that’s a combination not often found.
Most that do exist have already been exploited.

Zane
Reply to  MarkW
June 22, 2022 4:53 pm

Yup.

a happy little debunker
June 22, 2022 3:00 am

“the rain doesn’t always fall either, but we manage to store the water – we can store the renewable energy if we have the investment”

Let’s see Bowen try and get a new hydro dam approved…

Bob Brown would be rolling in his grave – if he were dead!

Andrew Wilkins
June 22, 2022 3:26 am

The replies to the “Squizz” tweet are comedy gold. It’s a bunch of greens displaying their complete ignorance about basic physics.
Anybody who comes on the thread and gives some hard data to prove that magic batteries are impractical and beyond expensive just gets words such as “bollocks!” shouted at them.
It’s a right giggle.

Richard Page
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
June 22, 2022 7:24 am

I saw the first few then gave up in disgust. I thought the frickin’ muppet with the “what a great analogy, I must remember that” comment was particularly delusional and moronic.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Richard Page
June 22, 2022 10:07 am

“Muppet” sums them up precisely

ozspeaksup
June 22, 2022 3:35 am

yeah …renewables are so good..
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-21/wind-turbine-waste-landfill-recycling-costs/101168442

and paywalled is an item re the 1k a yr HIKE in the pv owners of SA energy bills
“theyre too successful” is how theyre weaselwording it

Zane
June 22, 2022 4:45 am

Did he pronounce nuclear as ” Noo Koo Leer ” because some politicians do. 😀

Shoki Kaneda
Reply to  Zane
June 22, 2022 10:11 am

Jimmy Carter pronounced it “nook-ee-er”.

VOWG
June 22, 2022 4:56 am

Anyone who believes wind turbines and solar panels are the answer to anything are nuts.

observa
Reply to  VOWG
June 22, 2022 5:49 am

Well renewables are dirt cheap when you don’t need them and outrageously expensive when you do so they are highly valued from time to time. You just need to contextualize these things silly.

MarkW
Reply to  VOWG
June 22, 2022 10:40 am

If you live miles and miles off the grid, they are a solution. Until such time as the grid gets close enough to make connecting to it practical.

Bruce Cobb
June 22, 2022 5:23 am

“Firmed Renewables”. Heh. So, you take expensive unreliables which throw the grid out of whack, and try to “firm them up” via a variety of schemes, adding further expense. Retarded much? Maybe even “dangerously retarded”.

Richard Page
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
June 22, 2022 7:28 am

Obviously you don’t understand what a momentous plan this is. Australia will lead the world by completely ridding itself of coal, oil and gas, replacing them with cheap, green renawables firmed up by coal, oil and gas. Isn’t the future just wonderful! sarc

Coach Springer
June 22, 2022 5:30 am

Dump planes, trains, ships and automobiles. Why? Bicycles are quicker to build and cheaper to operate. “Missing Context” as Facebook is fond of saying.

Last edited 14 days ago by Coach Springer
Duane
June 22, 2022 6:02 am

I don’t agree with the author’s silly assertion that renewables are a “100% failure in replacing fossil fuels” whatever that might even mean ???. It takes a real ignoramus to state something like that. Of course renewables also cannot totally replace fossil fuels either. And neither can nuclear. Or some day nuclear fusion.

The only sensible approaches are to develop and operate a diverse array of energy sources and not be fully dependent upon any one source. So that any supply disruptions or radical price increases cannot bring the entire grid down to its proverbial knees

These are all capital investments, and a wise investor never puts all of their eggs, so to speak, in a single basket or investment. That’s why mutual funds of various types (growth, income, large cap, small cap, etc. etc.) exist, as well as other types of investment besides securities, from gold to cash to government bonds to real estate to whatever else is available. Investment counselors and managers and smart investors always follow the rule of portfolio diversification to minimize risk and still obtain a good return.

Sure, nukes are slower to develop than windmills or utility scale solar plants, although the newer modular reactors should considerably speed up both the licensing as well as construction of nukes.

This discussion should never assume a binary world – where everything must be a choice of 100% this, or 100% that. The discussion should be along the lines of what is the most practical, reliable, and economic mix of energy sources?

Last edited 14 days ago by Duane
observa
Reply to  Duane
June 22, 2022 6:45 am

Don’t play semantic games here Duane. Power consumers want a level playing field and that requires dispatchable electricity at the correct voltage and frequency. Not weather dependent reactive dumping of electrons on the communal grid. Solar and wind cost shift to coal/gas/nuclear insurers of last resort although there is an economic case for them-
Hot Water PV Diverter Comparison Table (solarquotes.com.au)
and wind for desal plants or pumped hydro and the like.

Just not in a level playing field communal grid unless expensive battery storage can make them so. Fight that out with the EV makers and dream on.

Duane
Reply to  observa
June 22, 2022 2:25 pm

Nope … WTF are you talking about, “semantics” … you don’t know the meaning of the word .. I am speaking of facts that you’re apparently ignorant of.

You are ignoring peak power demands which wind and solar can supply without the need of storage. Peak power demand always occur in the daytime, and that happens to be when wind and solar produce the most power. Utilities have always used a combination of base load plants that run 24/7 and peak plants that only operate at peak load periods. Renewables, more than a century before wind and solar – i.e., hydro power – have been depended upon to provide that peak power. Hydro plants do have built in storage in their reservoirs, but there are still hydro plants that still operate only at peak demand times.]]

Utilities hate to operate a conventional fossil fuel or nuclear plant at anything less than 100% power output because that is very inefficient. Far better to have some large plants that operate continuously to provide base power, then smaller plants, especially renewables, to provide peak daytime power.

Wind and solar cannot be a sole power source – no power source should ever be the sole power source, as I commented above .. but they’re extremely useful as peak power generators.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Duane
June 22, 2022 7:30 am

We already know what the most practical, reliable, and economic mix of energy sources is; coal, gas and nuclear. Hydro, if available. That’s it.

Duane
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
June 22, 2022 2:27 pm

Hydro is renewable too – the first, in fact. And many hydro plants are only used to produce peak power during daylight hours when demand is highest.

To ignore wind and solar completely is stupid and nothing but rank Luddism. Better join the 21st century, dude.

Richard Page
Reply to  Duane
June 22, 2022 7:32 am

Australia has its own supply of uranium, coal and gas; which it fully intends to replace with renewables sourced from China. That is an insane policy right there and the very definition of energy insecurity.

Duane
Reply to  Richard Page
June 22, 2022 2:27 pm

As I wrote, it is dumb to focus on a single source of power.

MarkW
Reply to  Duane
June 22, 2022 10:42 am

So we should add wind and solar, which don’t work, because you don’t want to rely on only one type of power.

And to think, you spend your time insulting the intelligence of others.