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.
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 Surrr – No 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.
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.
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.
Australian electricity costs range from USD 14c to 22c per kWh.
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.
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.
Fool.
Quote“the 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:
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.
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.
You need to pump rather a lot of water. To keep one household 2KW heater going for one day, given a 30m drop from high to low:
E = F x D = M x A x D
E = 2000 x 24 hours x 60 minutes x 60 seconds = 172,800,000 joules.
A = 9.8 m/s^2 (acceleration due to gravity)
D = 30m
Solve for M (mass)
M = E / (A x D) = 172,800,000 / (9.8 x 30) = 587 tons of water.
So to keep one 2KW heater going for one day, your upper and lower reservoirs need to have a capacity of 587 tons of water.
That’s why hydro systems are big – they have to be, to contain a meaningful amount of potential energy.
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.
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
What about EFFICIENCY?
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.
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.
You would think storing water in a national park would be a good thing, eh? Win – win.
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.
Yup.
“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!
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.
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.
“Muppet” sums them up precisely
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
Did he pronounce nuclear as ” Noo Koo Leer ” because some politicians do. 😀
Jimmy Carter pronounced it “nook-ee-er”.
Anyone who believes wind turbines and solar panels are the answer to anything are nuts.
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.
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.
“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”.
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
Dump planes, trains, ships and automobiles. Why? Bicycles are quicker to build and cheaper to operate. “Missing Context” as Facebook is fond of saying.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As I wrote, it is dumb to focus on a single source of power.
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.
Nope – you insult yourself by making any comments at all, revealing your stupidity and ignorance – quite a combo there! I spout facts that only embarrass the stupid.
Wind and solar most certainly DO work. The largest electric utility in Florida and one of the largest in the world is FPL .. and FPL also happens to be the largest generator of utility scale solar power in the world .. and also happens to have the most reliable power grid in the world with the cheapest electricity rates in the world.
If that is your definition of “doesn’t work” then you don’t know the meaning of any English words.
“also happens to have the most reliable power grid in the world with the cheapest electricity rates in the world.”
At least 18 states have lower residential rates .
And you expect us to believe you ???
Make them put up or shut up. Build no more wind turbines or solar panels until the battery storage is in place. Bid it out and let’s see the facts.
They think because their mouths move and noises emanate that they are speaking incontrovertible gospel.
It’s pretty funny watching the dangerously ignorant minister Bowen accuse others of being dangerously ignorant. It’s called projection, and fascist leftist like Bowen do it often.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_reserves
Considering what Australia’s energy minister just said, look at the table in the Wikipedia link above. What country do you think has the largest uranium reserves (by far) in the world?
Again, considering what the energy minister said, what country do you think has the third largest thorium reserves in the world?
List of countries by thorium resources – Wikipedia
You Aussies are sitting on a massive reserve of nuclear fuels (especially uranium). You could be the Saudi Arabia of nuclear. With your ani-nuclear sentiment, it is tragic you are not taking advantage of your reserves.
Tied with the U.S. for third largest thorium reserves.
Bowen isn’t very smart…he’s an old school Labor politician, a ‘bully’ who never deals in facts or engages in discussion, instead relying on ad hominem personal attacks and name-calling. He is way in over his head intellectually and few respect a word that comes out of his mouth. Other than that, he’s a great guy.
He will never fairly assess or apply critical thought to the nuclear power issue because he is incapable of doing either.
So are EV policy planners.
Electric vehicle raw material costs doubled during pandemic (cnbc.com)
“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”
When he shows us how he can simply store wind and sunshine in barrels, then I will revise my opinion of his being a moron.
Being able to economically store water proves that we can also economically store electrons.
I’ve never had much respect for politicians, but this guy doesn’t even pass that low bar.
Whenever you store energy there is always that potential energy sitting there waiting to be released. It doesn’t care if you are green or not.
That’s why you want to produce energy and use it immediately. It solves all those nasty storage problems. You can’t do that with unreliables.
He sounds more like a carnival barker than a competent government official.
The one thing the renewable energy industry has not lacked in the past decade is investment.
What it has lacked and continues to lack is performance.
Are all Australian Politicians so disingenuous or is it just a green thing?
Politicians care not what is right or wrong or technically feasible or economically prudent. They care only if they can get elected/re-elected. Ignorance is an advantage for a politician.
Australian Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, states:
“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.”
Hey, Chris, ol’ pal, please get back to us when you can compare renewables against other power sources on a levelized cost of energy (LCOE) basis . . . the only metric that fully accounts for total life cycle cost and what most concerns knowledgable people.
Oh, and in doing such, please ditch all subsidies given to “renewables”.
Now, you were saying something about being “dangerously ignorant” and perpetuating “the climate wars” . . .
I’d like to know how he knows that “firmed renewables” are cheaper to build and operate, when he doesn’t even know what technology is going to be used to “firm” renewable power.
Hello from Finland. In winter it is nice to have warm. In fact for us it is life and death question. So we support nuclear power.