Yes, Graham, and the basis of the climate fraud is the assertion that human emissions govern climate, when there is no science to support the assertion.

.

Dear Graham,

.

Unless I have misunderstood your calculations, it seems to me that there is a major cost factor missing from the pricing structure of the fossil fuel numbers you indicate.

The IMF produced a report in May 2015 in which it calculated the human cost of fossil fuel-based energy — “for example, the local damages related to having particles in the air, breathing problems, health-related problems that are believed to increase the mortality rate, or just lower quality of life”.

It calculated the “true cost” of fossil fuel-based energy, in 2015, to be $5.3 trillion a year. This article by Public Radio International (PRI) sums it up :

http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-06-07/imf-true-cost-fossil-fuels-53-trillion-year

Here is the IMF Working Paper :

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15105.pdf

The Cambridge Judge Business School of the Cambridge University had previously produced a Working Paper along similar lines. Here is a brief presentation :

http://insight.jbs.cam.ac.uk/2015/measuring-fossil-fuel-hidden-costs/

Here is the Working Paper :

http://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/research/workingpapers/wp1502.pdf

.

I think it is important to point out that the numbers you indicate do not represent what economists refer to as the “true cost” of fossil fuel-based energy, defined as “the difference between the market price of a commodity and the comprehensive cost of that commodity to society. The term is normally used to draw attention to missing or hidden costs that are not found in the market price, even though it could theoretically apply to hidden benefits as well”.

Positive and negative factors that are not reflected in the market price are called “externalities”. In economics, an externality is the cost or benefit that affects a party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit. Economists urge governments to adopt policies that "internalize" an externality, so that costs and benefits affect parties who choose to incur them. Action must be taken to correct this kind of market failure.

It is more than likely that the end result is in favour of the so-called “renewables”.

Sorry to be a bit pedantic, but I think it is important to see the whole picture before forming an opinion on such an important subject.

.

Graham, your article is extremely inaccurate. It lazily parrots old claims while failing to look at the real causes. Worse still, you've misrepresented study findings. When I clicked on "Studies show that for every megawatt of installed renewable generation, you need a megawatt of backup dispatchable." I found the link said nothing of the sort! It quoted one grid manager in Germany giving a figure of 0.8, but there's no evidence for claiming the study itself draws that conclusion. The conclusion that it did come to was " A one percentage point increase in the share of fast-reacting fossil generation capacity in a country is associated, on average, with a 0.88 percentage point increase in the long-run share of renewable energy." Quite clearly that's not a requirement, and I can only guess you've wrongly deduced the figure of 1 for that. If you'd instead thought about it a bit more, you might have realised the real reason for this outcome: dedicated baseload power stations are no longer economic to build. In other words, when old power stations reach the end of their economic life and need replacing, it's no longer profitable to replace them with ones that lack the ability to quickly respond to changes in demand.

You also seem to be ignorant of what "gold plating" is. It's unnecessary spending with the intention of justifying price increases. Making the system two-way certainly isn't gold plating - it's a basic upgrade that should be fairly cheap and non-controversial.

And can you give some examples of those "previously inaccessible places where wind and solar farms are frequently located"? Or is that just an assumption too?

Calling Elon Musk's battery deal with SA a lifeline is a great exaggeration - it will reduce peak power prices a bit and slightly improve resilience, but even without it SA's power supply is far more reliable than it was before the wind turbines were installed. BTW ISTR reading a few years ago that the capacity factor for SA's generation from fossil fuels was 25%, which was the same as the figure from wind turbines.
(tbc)

Graham (continued)

As for cost, renewables have a different cost structure: a higher capital cost and lower running cost. Unfortunately, rather than ensuring cheap finance is available so they can take advantage of that, governments have resorted to expensive cross subsidisation. So electricity from renewables is expensive, but it doesn't have to be.

Fortunately Nick Xenophon's done something about it: secured federal funding for concessions loans for dispatchable renewable power (solar thermal with MSS) at Port Augusta.

I think that the AEMO's latest report sums it up when it measures the output variance from wind and solar renewable power and find that it varies from nearly 100% to as little as 2% statewide and 5% nationwide. This clearly means that wind and solar needs to be backed up by a reliable and dispatchable power to most of the demand.

Germany is a prime example where wind and solar installation has a total equivalent to nearly the full demand of the country and it is clear to see that there are periods where renewable energy supplies nearly 100% of the load and periods where it supplies as low as 15% (where roughly 10% comes from hydro and biomass). The backup supply for Germany comes mainly from France with its cheap, plentiful and safe nuclear generators.

While the debate seems to rage about the cost of various generation sources, the real issue to networks are:
1) The value of power to the customers is time-dependent, which is why the bidding system often means that power stations sell their power at virtually nothing at midnight and at a huge cost at 6 pm.
2) The cost of a lack of power when it is needed vastly exceeds the cost of generation. The blackout in SA cost residents and businesses about $500m which why backup supplies are essential for renewables and must be included in the costs.

The focus needs to shift from generation of power to the consumption and the effect that high cost and low reliability has on the consumers.

Shadow,
"1) The value of power to the customers is time-dependent, which is why the bidding system often means that power stations sell their power at virtually nothing at midnight and at a huge cost at 6 pm."
I think that's a bit of an exaggeration, but I agree with your basic point.
A direct result of that is that dedicated baseload power stations are not well suited to the demands of the market.
A second implication is that there's great economic potential for energy storage.

"2) The cost of a lack of power when it is needed vastly exceeds the cost of generation. The blackout in SA cost residents and businesses about $500m which why backup supplies are essential for renewables and must be included in the costs."
That's a non sequiter, as the blackout was caused by tornadoes bringing down powerlines, not a shortage of backup capacity.