The Ruinous Cost Of Free Energy: Why An Electricity System Built On Renewables Is The Most Expensive Of All Options
We could 'Clean Green & Clean' this planet; recycle the carbon a trillion times. This article was written by Stephen Wilson of the Institute for Public Affairs. Graphics by the "Ten Fingered Sword."
Click on the picture below to access the post by Stephen Wilson of the IPA
The Ruinous Cost Of Free Energy: Why An Electricity System Built On Renewables Is The Most Expensive Of All Options.
Australia previously benefited from some of the lowest consumer electricity prices in the industrialised world, but it now has some of the highest.
This paper shows that an electricity supply system built on a foundation of baseload generation – that which provides power 24/7 to the grid to meet base energy needs – results in the lowest Total System Cost.
This invalidates claims that renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy. That may be true in particular locations at particular points in time, but at the system level a system built on renewable energy would be the most expensive – by far – of available options.
Customers pay for what they use, but far more of what we pay is required to cover the costs of the physical infrastructure, from generation to our meter, than for generating the electricity itself. To expose the full costs of providing electricity, we need to focus on Total System Cost.
For example, when a consumer installs rooftop solar panel they draw less electricity from the system, and daytime load on the system is reduced. The excess is exported into the distribution network further reducing load on the system, which forces large-scale generators to reduce output. But the large-scale generators, transmission and distribution networks, retail-ers and environmental costs still exist. Less energy drawn from the main system does not mean less fixed cost: in this case it means more fixed costs overall.
The main power system that Australians inherited – engineered in the 20th century on a foundation of low-cost mine-mouth coal – can provide bulk electricity at a wholesale cost level in round numbers of about $50 per megawatt-hour (MWh) or in other words 5c per kilowatt-hour (kWh).
When a flexible, fast-response open cycle gas turbine meets the last megawatt of demand it sets the spot price for all generators operating at that moment across the entire market. Such units are increasingly called upon to balance not only the relatively predictable and smoothly changing variability of aggregate customer demand, but at the same time the far steeper and more volatile fluctuations in wind and solar power output. Also in round numbers, if the price of an extra unit of gas for the marginal generator is about $10 per gigajoule (GJ), then the wholesale electricity price at that moment will be about $100/MWh, which is 10c/kWh. Each $1/GJ change in the gas price will change the corresponding electricity number by $10/MWh (1c/kWh).
Continuing with round numbers, if the system is to be operated only on wind, solar and hydro power, with energy shuffled in and out of large and small storage assets and devices, the generation cost averaged across the energy for the total interconnected system will approach $200/MWh (20c/kWh) or more. The additional costs in the transmission and distribution systems will be far higher than for the historical coal-based and the current increasingly gas-price exposed system.
In other words, the further the system moves away from the inherited gen-eration system in the coal-based ‘$50 cost zone’ through the gas-based ‘$100 cost zone’ and towards the wind- and solar-based ‘$200 cost zone,’ the more the actual outcomes for final consumers are likely to escalate to even higher price levels. The underlying economic problem remains even if cost of living price relief shifts costs from electricity bills to the tax-and-welfare system.
This paper is summarised in the following short statements:
The system with the lowest Total System Cost is the one we have.
The levelised cost of energy (LCOE) of any generation type does not reflect Total System Cost.
There is a modest role for renewable technology before it increases Total System Cost.
Contrary to popular belief, coal-fired power plants do not have a predeter-mined life. They can be refurbished periodically and remain in service for an indefinite period. The benchmark for comparing costs is not a hypothet-ical fleet of new coal plants: it is the fleet of already existing coal plants.
Thus the lowest cost system is the one we have, and the next lowest cost system is one built on new baseload power plants, whether they be coal or nuclear.
Official plans assume, encourage, or require the elimination of coal-fired generation, not on cost, but on emissions grounds.
Notionally wind and solar provide “free energy” because there is no fuel cost. LCOE acknowledges the up-front investment required to generate electricity from the wind or the sun, and ‘levelises’ that cost across the output from the turbines or the panels over their life. However, LCOE (which is used by AEMO – relying in turn upon the CSIRO’s GenCost model – to develop the ISP) is a simplified calculation applied at the genera-tion level that is not able to provide insight into the Total System Cost with various types of generation technology needed to serve customer demand at all times.
These conclusion are summarised in Figure 5, below, which appears in the body of the report on page 20.
Beyond the $200/MWh wholesale cost zone indicated in the Figure above, there is the additional cost of the poles and wires required to deliver the elec-tricity as the system hypothetically transitions to one built on renewables.
Storage via batteries and pumped hydro is often raised as a means of shifting excess wind and solar generation to periods of high demand, but each has significant limitations with respect to duration and cost.
The total system cost of a renewables-based system (>80% share) may be two or three times as expensive as one premised on baseload (whether current or with new build nuclear), and a ‘renewables only’ system is likely to be five or six times as expensive. All such costs must ultimately be recouped from the consumers, if not the taxpayer.
It is true that it takes time to plan, prepare, finance, and build nuclear power plants. Avoiding increasingly high cost electricity while also pursuing envi-ronmental goals would require prudent management for a number of years of the existing system, including the existing coal plants and gas plants, while replacement baseload assets capable of playing the same role without incurring far higher costs are planned, prepared, financed and deployed.
The United Nations: No carbon footprint, poverty and hunger.
The World Economic Forum: no carbon footprint, global poverty and hunger
A carbon footprint and the right technology, a clean planet, food and prosperity for all. Imagine Greening the interior of Australia. Water from the north, worms from the west, probiotics for the sand and we have an arable interior. We could even plant trees.
See Below: “Into The Future”
and less of this…...
The graphics above and below have been created by the genius of the “Ten Fingered Sword”
Click on the picture below for the story.
“Into The Future-A story from the past-Israel”
Ian Brighthope
Israel has achieved a remarkable feat by transforming large swaths of the arid Negev Desert, which covers over 60% of the country, into highly productive agricultural land. This transformation has been driven by necessity and innovation, as Israel sought to feed its growing population despite limited water resources and harsh desert conditions. One of the key breakthroughs was the invention of modern drip irrigation technology by Israeli company Netafim in the 1960s. This allowed precious water to be used efficiently to grow crops in the desert. Israeli farmers carefully select crops that respond well to the unique mineral content of the water and soil in the Negev. For example, cherry tomatoes grown there are 2-3 times sweeter and have 3-4 times greater yields compared to other regions.
In addition to tomatoes, the Negev is now home to fish farms, olive groves, and plantations growing a diverse range of fruits and vegetables. Agricultural research stations work with farmers to develop crop strains optimized for the desert climate and to test new growth techniques. Genetic engineering has also played a role, with crops developed to absorb water and nutrients while leaving salts behind.
Another remarkable aspect is the use of brackish water, which has 20 times the salt content of drinking water, to irrigate crops. Desalination is too expensive, so plant varieties were developed that can thrive on this salty water. The Negev's brackish water aquifers are vast, containing an estimated 300 billion cubic meters.
Israel's success in desert agriculture is now seen as a model for combating hunger in arid regions worldwide. Israeli specialists are training agronomists in over 50 countries to replicate their techniques. The greening of the Negev has reversed the process of desertification, with the desert actually shrinking as more land comes under cultivation - a trend opposite to what is occurring in much of the world.
In just a few decades, Israel has turned the "uninhabitable" Negev Desert into a thriving agricultural heartland that now supports over half a million people. By combining cutting-edge technology, crop science, and sheer tenacity, they have conjured lush fields and orchards from sand and salty water. As one farmer poetically put it, they are "nudging divinity with modern science"and turning a "curse into a benediction."
A memo to Australians: “If we don’t do it, somebody else will”
Ian Brighthope
Ian Brighthope
The actual goal with all of this crap is to take energy/power away from normal people and have what little there is, controlled by a few unelected banksters.
It doesn't matter... yes it's a total waste of money .. but then so is operating ski fields and ice hockey rinks...and going on vacation --- what isn't a waste of energy?
Wasting money on fake renewable energy is no different ...
But it does serve a very valuable purpose - as I explain here
https://fasteddynz.substack.com/p/the-three-pillars-of-bullshit
And btw....
https://fasteddynz.substack.com/p/the-problem-with-cheap-clean-energy