A minute ago according to NemWatch batteries were supplying less than 0.4 GW out of 29.3 GW demand. Coal, oil and gas supplied about 18 GW. According to true believers that is supposed to be reversed in a few short years. The average morning spot price in most states was about $85 per MWh for the breakfast rush but that usually rises to $200+ for the dinner rush say around 6pm.

A couple of days ago an electricity retailer offered $5 credit to draw 0.2 kWh from home batteries or plugged in EVs. Despite generous offers they seem to be desperate at times. Those small batteries could be low on juice from an overcast week and the owners want to conserve the energy. Gawd help us if it becomes compulsory.

You have to wonder how heavy electricity users like aluminium smelting would fare under a battery dominant system. It's obvious to most of us we need a like-for-like replacement for coal baseload. Shame that Bowen doesn't get it.

The article presents an alarmist view of renewable energy and battery storage, using outdated and misleading information.

First, it incorrectly claims that batteries are the weakest link in a 100% renewable energy supply chain. Significant advancements in battery technology have led to an 89% drop in lithium-ion battery costs over the past decade, with further reductions expected. Complementary storage technologies like pumped hydro, compressed air energy storage, solid-state batteries, and flow batteries enhance system reliability and cost-effectiveness.

The article's estimated cost of A$1.2 to A$2.3 trillion for the necessary battery supply is exaggerated. Effective grid management employs a mix of storage solutions, demand response strategies, and diverse renewable sources to balance supply and demand, reducing the required battery capacity. The assumption that power needs to be stored for half a year is unrealistic, as energy systems balance supply and demand on much shorter timescales using complementary resources and transmission infrastructure.

Claiming that 100% reliance on renewables and batteries is neither politically nor economically feasible is unfounded. Studies and real-world examples show that transitioning to a high percentage of renewables is economically viable. Countries like Germany, Denmark, and parts of the United States have successfully integrated large shares of renewable energy into their grids, resulting in cost savings and improved energy security. The article also overlooks the substantial environmental and public health benefits of reducing fossil fuel reliance.

The article cherry-picks examples like South Australia's 2016 blackout without broader context. This blackout was caused by an extreme weather event that damaged transmission infrastructure, not the inherent unreliability of renewable energy. Since then, South Australia has improved grid stability and reliability through better planning and investment in renewable energy and grid infrastructure, enhancing energy security and lowering electricity prices.

Finally, the assertion that battery storage costs are unlikely to decrease further contradicts historical trends showing significant cost reductions. Continued investment in research and development, as well as increased production capacity, are driving down costs and improving performance. Government policies, including subsidies and incentives for renewable energy and storage, foster market conditions that support technological innovation and cost reduction.

John,

I've yet to see you quantify a single cost, which is remarkable given what you claim. The OECD has done system cost analysis showing that relying on wind and solar is over twice the cost of nuclear. I've also seen research claiming that storage costs would need to fall by more than ninety percent to be competitive. And the current and future environmental destruction from commercial wind and solar is reason enough to have a national ban.

Fester,

Thanks for the opportunity to quantify the costings. Although, I’m pretty sure I’ve done it before.

According to IRENA's 2020 report, the global weighted-average LCOE for onshore wind was $39 per MWh. This represents a 13% decrease from 2019, driven by improvements in technology, economies of scale, and competitive supply chains. (http://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2021/Jun/IRENA_Power_Generation_Costs_2020.pdf?rev=c9e8dfcd1b2048e2b4d30fef671a5b84)

The same report indicates that the global weighted-average LCOE for utility-scale solar PV in 2020 was $57 per MWh. Solar PV costs have fallen significantly, by about 85% between 2010 and 2020, due to technological advancements and increased production capacity. Offshore wind has also seen cost reductions, with the LCOE falling to $84 per MWh in 2020. While still higher than onshore wind and solar PV, it benefits from consistent wind speeds and larger turbines.

BloombergNEF reports that the cost of lithium-ion battery packs has decreased from around $1,100 per kWh in 2010 to $137 per kWh in 2020. This represents an 89% reduction over a decade, primarily due to economies of scale, improved manufacturing processes, and increased demand for electric vehicles. Further cost reductions are expected as battery technology continues to evolve. By 2023, BloombergNEF anticipates battery pack prices could fall below $100 per kWh, making them even more competitive (http://about.bnef.com/blog/battery-pack-prices-fall-to-an-average-of-132-kwh-but-rising-commodity-prices-start-to-bite).

Pumped hydro is currently the most widely used form of energy storage, with an LCOE typically ranging from $50 to $150 per MWh. It is valued for its large storage capacity and long-duration discharge capability (http://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2020/Jul/IRENA_Innovative_PHS_operation_2020.pdf?la%3Den%26hash%3D4533ABDD9EA1D0755720FF46F3241FAB56C65014). CAES systems have an LCOE ranging from $60 to $150 per MWh. They store energy by compressing air and then releasing it to generate electricity during peak demand periods (http://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2020/Jul/IRENA_System_Operation_Collection_2020.pdf?rev=c530b773d9b04a5abdfb307b3938d5f0).

The OECD estimates that nuclear energy's LCOE is approximately $112 per MWh. (http://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_30001/technology-roadmap-for-small-modular-reactors). Fossil fuel power plants, particularly coal, have variable LCOE depending on the region and fuel prices. However, they incur substantial external costs related to environmental and health impacts, which are not reflected in the LCOE (http://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2019/Apr/IRENA_Global_Energy_Transformation_2019.pdf).

Regarding environmental destruction, I think I've corrected your claims there sufficiently in the past. But let me know if there is something you feel I haven't addressed.

Regarding environmental destruction
John Daysh,
That's what it really boils down to. Present Green technology fails miserably & totally in that department.
The recent lurch in pollution comes from exactly that industry. The pseudo intellectual elite advocating for this failure are the ticks feeding off the society they hood-winked for long enough with this nonsense. Get rid of present Green energy & the emissions will go down. would be interesting to hear their answers were we to ask them how they propse to ged rid of the pollution from Green energy ?

Indyvidual,

On the contrary, environmental destruction and pollution (or the lack thereof) are where renewables are the most obvious winners. However, my travels on the various social media platforms make me no stranger to the wild claims you’re likely referring to.

A study by the IRENA in 2019 found that solar photovoltaics emit about 40 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour (g CO2e/kWh) over their lifecycle, while coal emits around 820 g CO2e/kWh. Although manufacturing and disposing of renewable infrastructure have environmental impacts, these are much smaller than the ongoing emissions from coal, oil, and gas.

Innovations in recycling methods for solar panels and batteries, as well as more efficient manufacturing processes, are reducing the environmental footprint of renewable energy. The NREL found that recycling recovers up to 95% of materials from solar panels.

The claim that the recent increase in pollution is due to renewable energy isn't supported by the data. Fossil fuel combustion remains the largest source of air pollution globally. The WHO reports that air pollution from fossil fuels causes 4.2 million premature deaths each year. Transitioning to renewables has been shown to reduce air pollution and related health issues. In the U.S., the EPA found that wind and solar power prevented 12,700 premature deaths between 2007 and 2015 by reducing air pollution.

Countries that invest in renewable energy are seeing economic benefits, like job creation in new industries, and environmental benefits, such as reduced air pollution and lower greenhouse gas emissions. The IEA reported that renewable energy jobs worldwide reached 11.5 million in 2019, highlighting the significant economic potential of the sector.

Addressing pollution from renewables involves better recycling programs, advancements in material science for more sustainable products, and policies that encourage environmentally friendly practices throughout the lifecycle of renewable technologies. For example, the WEEE mandates recycling and proper disposal of solar panels.

While there are challenges, the environmental and health benefits of moving away from fossil fuels far outweigh the temporary and manageable impacts associated with green technology. Continued innovation and responsible practices further minimise its environmental impact.