Mythbusting Energy claims

With the increasingly shrill debate on nuclear energy in Australia, there is no shortage of articles espousing the different views. Unfortunately, most of those supporting the government's claims that Nuclear is the most expensive source of energy base their arguments on official reports from the CSIRO and the AEMO. Both of these organisations have submitted reports that support the government's position. Given that both the CSIRO and AEMO are well-respected organisations, it should be enough for the government to win the case. But not so. 

The opposition under Peter Dutton has made nuclear energy the foundation of the Coalition's low-emission policy. This change in energy policy for the coalition came rather late in the electoral cycle, with an election due in the next 12 months, and after the Labor government has committed significant resources to an extremely expensive rapid decarbonisation based on renewables, wind and solar.

So we have the battle lines. Labor is supported by the institutions of government, and most of the media, because it is a left-of-centre government, and the many vested interests in business, who have either already received significant renewable energy contracts or expect to do so.

On the pro-nuclear side, we have the coalition, and a small but vocal pro-nuclear lobby, and the experience of the world in its use of nuclear energy demonstrating safety, reliability and lower consumer costs, but also with some negatives due to long and expensive construction times.

The coalition's case is helped by the facile attempts by the CSIRO and the AEMO biasing their reports pro-renewables. Professional analysis of the reports has exposed multiple fallacious assumptions which if corrected would reverse the pro-renewables conclusion. 

I have posted on this before. See Why is the CSIRO lying to us? and Is the AEMO also lying to us?

Most recently I came across a paper by Robert Idel titled "The Levelised Full Cost of Electricity"

This is an important paper as it provides a robust basis for comparing the full cost of various sources of electricity generation. In doing so it highlights the problems with the CSIRO and AEMO reports and it provides real-world calculation showing that the Levelized Full Cost of Electricity for Renewables, Wind and Solar, is substantially greater, not less, but greater than gas, coal, and nuclear. The table below, reproduced from the paper, shows the results of the calculation for two locations Germany and Texas, and shows that the cost of Wind+Solar is either double (Texas) or quadruple (Germany) the cost of Nuclear.

If I can borrow from the Mythbusters, Chris Bowen's claim that "Nuclear is the most expensive form of electricity generation" is BUSTED!

The Hidden Costs of Renewable Energy

Rising Energy costs in many countries following widespread policies to rapidly decarbonise their economies have ignited a closer look at the real cost of low-carbon generation technologies. 

In Australia, the debate has gained greater intensity following the Coalition opposition parties declaring their policy to include nuclear power in the energy mix. This is a direct denial of the Labor government's anti-nuclear stance. With a federal election now due in less than 12 months, the debate is in full swing. Into this debate the IPA (the Institute of Public Affairs) has lobbed a detailed report by Professor Stephen Wilson titled “The Ruinous Cost Of Free Energy: Why An Electricity System Built On Renewables Is The Most Expensive Of All Options” The report presents a direct challenge to the Labor governments oft-repeated claims that renewables is the cheapest form of energy and nuclear is the most expensive. It is well worth reading the full report, but here are the key points of his analysis.

Historical Context: From Low to High Electricity Prices

Australia once enjoyed some of the lowest electricity prices in the industrialized world. This was largely due to its reliance on baseload generation, primarily from coal. However, the shift towards renewable energy has led to a dramatic increase in electricity costs. Today, Australia has some of the highest electricity prices globally.

The Concept of Total System Cost

Wilson emphasizes the importance of considering the Total System Cost when evaluating energy systems. This concept goes beyond the simple cost of generating electricity and includes all associated expenses, such as infrastructure, storage, and transmission². According to Wilson, a system based on renewable energy sources like wind and solar is significantly more expensive than one based on baseload generation, such as coal or nuclear power.

Infrastructure Investments

One of the primary reasons for the high cost of renewable energy systems is the substantial infrastructure investments required. Wind and solar power generation necessitates extensive infrastructure, including storage facilities and transmission networks. These investments are essential to manage the variability of renewable energy sources and ensure a stable supply of electricity.

The Challenge of Variability

Renewable energy sources are inherently variable. The sun doesn’t always shine, and the wind doesn’t always blow. This variability poses a significant challenge for maintaining a stable electricity supply. To balance the grid, additional costs are incurred to manage these fluctuations. This often involves using backup power sources, such as gas turbines, which can quickly ramp up production when renewable output drops.

Impact on Consumers

Ultimately, the higher costs associated with renewable energy systems are passed on to consumers. Wilson argues that the increased infrastructure, storage, and grid balancing expenses result in higher electricity bills for households and businesses. This contradicts the common perception that renewable energy is a cheaper alternative.

Comparing Costs: Renewable vs. Baseload Systems

Wilson provides a stark comparison between the costs of renewable and baseload energy systems. He estimates that a renewables-based system could be two to three times more expensive than a baseload system. Furthermore, a ‘renewables only’ system could be five to six times more expensive. These figures highlight the significant financial burden that a transition to renewable energy could impose on society.

The Myth of Free Energy

The term “free energy” is often used to describe renewable energy sources. However, Wilson argues that this is a misleading concept. While the sun and wind are free, the process of converting these natural resources into usable electricity is far from cost-free. The infrastructure, maintenance, and grid management required to support renewable energy systems come with substantial expenses.

The Role of Government Policies

Government policies play a crucial role in shaping the energy landscape. Subsidies and incentives for renewable energy have driven significant investment in wind and solar power. However, Wilson suggests that these policies may not always consider the full economic impact. By focusing on the apparent benefits of renewable energy, policymakers might overlook the hidden costs that consumers ultimately bear.

The Need for a Balanced Approach

Wilson’s analysis underscores the need for a balanced approach to energy policy. While renewable energy has its merits, it should not be pursued at the expense of economic stability. A diversified energy mix that includes baseload generation can provide a more reliable and cost-effective solution. This approach ensures that the benefits of renewable energy are harnessed without imposing undue financial burdens on consumers.

Conclusion: Rethinking Renewable Energy

Stephen Wilson’s article challenges the prevailing narrative that renewable energy is the most cost-effective solution for the future. By highlighting the hidden costs and complexities associated with renewable energy systems, he calls for a more nuanced understanding of the energy landscape. As we move towards a sustainable future, it is essential to consider the full economic impact of our energy choices and strive for a balanced and pragmatic approach.

Proverb Images with answers

 Here are the answers to the Proverb Images question I posed.

A stitch in time saves 9 - Copilot version

A stitch in time saves 9 - my version

The early bird catches the worm - Copilot version

The early bird catches the worm - my version

Silence is golden - Copilot version

Silence is golden - my version

Too many cooks spoil the broth - Copilot version

Too many cooks spoil the broth - my version

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush - Copilot Version

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush - my version

I am sure you guessed them all!

AI creativity challenge

 You may have noticed I have started exploring the latest AI tools. I have used it to create poetry (see AI poetry shoot out ) and challenged the tools themselves to assess the benefits of AI (see 10 ways where AI will make a contribution) and their threat (see 10 Ways AI can be a threat to humanity).

Today I decided to evaluate AI's creativity. The challenge was to produce a visual representation of certain proverbs. In the first test, I simply asked Microsoft's Copilot to "Please provide an image to represent the proverb " text of proverb".  I ran the test on 5 well-known proverbs.

In the second test, I described the image that I thought would represent each of the proverbs I had used in the first test. However the images Copilot produced in response to my descriptions did not match what I had intended. And in virtually all the cases, despite multiple attempts, I could not get the image I conceived. In the end I gave up and accepted what I thought was the best. 

Here are the results of the first test. I won't name the proverbs here, to let you puzzle them out. 

Proverb 1 Copilot Conceived

Proverb 2 Copilot Conceived

Proverb 3 Copilot Conceived

Proverb 4 Copilot Conceived

Proverb 5 Copilot Conceived

And here are the images for the second test.

Proverb 1 -My conception

Proverb 2 My Conception

Proverb 3 My conception

Proverb 4 My Conception

Proverb 5 My conception

I am sure you will guess them, but I will post the answers  in a few days.

Net Zero is NOT achievable without nuclear

Today, Peter Dutton, the Leader of the Opposition in Australia, made a bold declaration. The Liberal National Party (LNP) has unveiled its policy for Australia’s energy transition, advocating nuclear energy as the primary source of carbon-free baseload electricity. Dutton has issued a challenge, setting the stage for a direct clash with the Labor government’s strategy, which focuses solely on renewable energy.

Labor, in its quest to position Australia as a renewable energy titan, has initiated a deluge of renewable energy projects. The country is inundated with daily announcements of colossal wind farms, sometimes offshore, or encroaching upon prime agricultural land, the destruction of pristine environments, or the conversion of farmland for new transmission lines or solar farms. There are also new targets for electric vehicle (EV) sales and funding for solar panel manufacturing, despite the market being saturated with Chinese-made panels.

Chris Bowen has been appointed by the Labor government to spearhead this transition. His efforts have been nothing short of formidable. Bowen is unwavering in his mission, sparing no exaggeration and showing little concern for factual precision. He proclaims Australia as a renewable energy colossus, denounces nuclear as the costliest and riskiest technology, asserts that net zero is attainable without baseload power sources, and suggests that batteries can bridge the energy gap. Moreover, he promises to lower electricity costs, maintain power supply, and bolster industry growth.

This stance persists against a backdrop of rising electricity prices, the gradual shutdown of coal-fired power plants, and load shedding during peak energy demand. Consumers and businesses are incentivized to reduce consumption during these periods to keep the power grid stable—well, sort of.

No one, not even Bowen, finds the current state of affairs satisfactory. Yet, Bowen insists this is merely a transitional phase and that ‘she’ll be right.’

Amidst this turmoil, Peter Dutton has boldly proclaimed that the emperor has no clothes. He has criticized Labor’s target of a 43% emissions reduction by 2030 as unrealistic and has prioritized the cost of living over the renewable energy transition. Dutton has also highlighted nuclear energy as the linchpin of baseload power necessary to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recognized that net zero emissions cannot be realized without nuclear power. While some, including Bowen, remain unconvinced, many believe that renewables alone are insufficient for achieving net zero.

One of the most persuasive arguments against the feasibility of renewables alone concerns resource availability. The materials required to produce the necessary minerals for solar panels and wind turbines are unlikely to be mined by 2050.

Referencing Simon Michaux’s “The Green Energy Myth,” the table below outlines the volume and types of minerals needed to meet net zero goals and the estimated years of mining required to obtain these resources. Focusing on copper alone, it would take over 250 years at current mining rates to acquire the amount needed for net zero. Evidently, achieving net zero without nuclear is an impossibility.

Ref Simon Michaux:The Green Energy Myth

Professor Simon Michaux, a leading researcher in the field of minerals within a circular economy, is currently with the Geological Survey of Finland (GTK) and formerly of the University of Queensland. Michaux aims to revolutionize the interplay between energy, minerals, and industrialization to foster sustainable material consumption in society. His recent presentation at the Navigating Nuclear symposium at UNSW, titled "Challenges and bottlenecks to the green transition", addressed these issues.

These inconvenient truths are likely to be disregarded by Mr. Bowen, but Mr. Dutton has certainly brought some compelling facts to the table.