Someone who added a leaf of home grown lettuce to a multilayered sandwich once told me with a straight face they were self sufficient in food. So it is with rich countries pouring billions into green schemes who then kid themselves. They gleefully assert that mandated scheme X has increased Y% in the early years confident in the knowledge that coal, gas and oil is doing the heavy lifting behind the scenes. Crunch time will be when the backup is no longer there or there is a climate emergency.

Australian GDP and power sector emissions are both growing about 2% a year so the nexus is not broken. AEMO tells us eastern Australia should worry about gas supply by 2019. In the following decade several big coal baseload stations will have to be retired. To be replaced by Twh scale batteries? A current worry with lithium battery systems is that they haven't paid for themselves by the time the battery needs replacing.

Then there is Australia's parlous dependence on imported oil having been mostly self sufficient in the late 20th century. Electric cars will not only require price reductions to achieve mass uptake but there must be some way of charging millions of them at night when solar is zero and the wind may or may not be blowing.

So that's three energy knockout blows by 2030 ... near total oil vulnerability, gas in short supply and big coal stations needing replacement. Hopefully renewables enthusiasts and their attentive politicians will grasp the difficulty of the problem.

The survey the author claims backs support for renewable energy does nothing of the kind. The survey has concerned itself only with the question of what taxpayers money should be shelled out to support the coal industry, the renewable energy industry, and both the coal industry and renewable energy industry; it has nothing to do with what kind of energy people want. I don't know what the actual question was, but it could certainly not be 'Do you support 100% renewable energy?', or any other percentage of energy, or a mix of renewable energy and coal energy. The only thing respondents could speak to were how much taxpayers' money should go to the two industries listed. The survey is completely useless as a means of preferred energy resources.

As well, the survey, as with all surveys on anything, gags a huge number of people. If you do not believe your taxes should spent on any private industry, you cannot respond to that survey.

It seems to have escaped Tom Biegler's attention that the EROEI of wind power is surpassing that of oil.

The EROEI figure of 0.83 for solar in high latitudes was contrived by pretending non-energy costs were energy investments, and by attributing to solar power the system costs that would be better attributed to wind.n the 20th century, solar PV had an EROEI less than one, which meant that it was generally only suitable for off grid applications. But those days are long gone. It's been years since any honest study has shown an EROEI that low. And once it gets past very low values, EROEI does not determine sustainability, and nor is it the main factor in commercial viability. Cost is, and in particular, access to cheap finance (as renewable energy infrastructure's typically capital intense with low running cost and zero fuel cost. As long as cheap finance is available, it can outcompete fossil fuels in Australia.

Yes, but never as solar voltaic or wind power!

That said, recent advances now mean any serious discussion on renewables must have solar thermal front and centre, given in apples for apples comparisons that include economies of scale, it competes successfully with coal as a peak load option and in actual roll out costs!

And given that has been profitably demonstrated by private interests in the sun bleached deserts of California, beats the pants off of coal in the cost of fuel department, which for coal can only ever grow!

Also Australian innovation has produced, arguably the cheapest energy in the world thanks to a world beating energy coefficient of 80%!? And given it is applied exclusively as a very local power option excludes cost adding factors like transmission line maintenance and repairs, transmission losses etc.

[Plenty of links for the professional sceptics to search, that demonstrate this, go fetch, I'm not your flunky.]

And indeed eliminate most of the 64% average as distribution losses.

And here I'm referring to a combination of Aussie invented ingenuity, the two tank and smell free superior method of turning problematic waste into biogas, (methane) which when scrubbed can power up ceramic fuel cells. (Apple HQ)

Almost every Australian family produces enough convertible waste to completely power their homes 24/7; and produce endless free hot water, with or without sunlight or wind!

That said, any rational discussion really ought to include the latest innovation and progress in the nuclear energy option and as fact based evidence, as opposed to tired old slogans, mindless mantras and opposition based on outdated fifties technology?
Alan B.

No, renewables will not meet public expectations.
Sir Winston Churchill knew you can fool some of the people some of the time but not all the people all of the time.
It is inevitable truth becomes known.

Wind power is already sapping energy from air currents that drive ocean surface water currents linked to deeper ocean currents.
Physicists knew years ago of the danger of reducing air current energy, well prior to wind power installations going ahead anyway.

Ocean currents are linked to climate. Ocean dominates control of weather above. Ocean covers 72 percent of this planet's surface.

Batteries for solar power wear out in about 5 years, some less, some last 10 years, all have to be replaced at significant cost and environment impact in manufacturing, delivery transport, recycling, dumping.

The renewable energy mantra does not include the wind energy link to ocean currents and climate or life and cost and environment impact of replacement batteries

Actually, batteries will last around 25 years if just topped up to a maximum 80% for the life of the system, which in widespread common use, could be used as the best way to level out the highs and lows of the most cost effective alternative?

Which should be evidence based on just the assembled facts as opposed to misinformation or emotive ideology; or worse, a hidden anti development economy destroying agenda? Or even worse trotted out as disingenuously presented issue to get the rubes onside as a vehicle to power? Wake up in the morning and smell the Co2.
Alan B.

Renewables have a role to play in the correct geographical location where applicable, however, the only real future for a viable energy future globally is the Liquid Floride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) is a completely safe and scalable nuclear energy generation system.

A LFTR not only provides electrical generation highly efficiently but it also provides the capacity to produce liquid fuels which would replace diesel fuels, the primary future transport energy problem which renewables can't replicate.

For a 5 minute brief on LFTR technology can I suggest you all watch this:

https://youtu.be/uK367T7h6ZY

Cheers
Geoff

zealots who overstate the need for renewables show how dumbed down the education system has made people. The benefits of electricity have far outweighed any negative effects. The amount of coal powered electricity needed to run wind farms should be a clue but no longer are people taught to think. Dumb enough to think we can influence the climate while real problems are scoffed at.

es Geoff; and it seems the indians are striving to have a 300 MW prototype operating this year? Others are focusing on miniaturization, the potential being completely automated 10 MW systems powering single streets of around ten households, as owner operator cooperatives, with maintenance limited to around a cursory routine inspection once every four months or so?

And given a total projected operating cost of around a thousand dollars P.A, the cost per household down to around a $100.00 a year?

And their power usages would include (overnight) hot water, air conditioning/central heating and pumps for water usage, some of which could be collected directly from the atmosphere via dehumidifiers?

Even then there would be serious surplus energy to power various cottage industries some of which could be high tech?

And given the low cost per participating household opens up a planet of possibilities for the impoverished poor the world over!

And therefore automatically rejected by diabolically disingenuous greens? Who want anyting else?
Alan B.

Alan B,
What evidence do you have establishing batteries can last 25 years?
And what type of batteries are you referring to?

I have long term hands on experience with 110 volt DC lighting plant operation in outback Australia and it is known life of a battery cell depends on the workload and how many times they are recharged.

Where do you get the idea they last 25 years?

JF: I'm simply amazed that a man of your alleged experience, would need to ask someone, with my limited experience to help them learn stuff already out there as vertible libraries of relevant information, in the public domain!

Plenty of links and evidence for any fool able to operate a computer JF!
Moreover I'm not your unpaid secretary.

Go have a look instead of automatically (and how dare you) impugning the integrity of those who just might have forgotten more science than you've ever learned?

Sure doing something over and over teaches something? In your case a level of self confessed expertise? You need to read up on tesla's battery wall and even more recent developments to stay abreast of this centuries batteries!?

I do have an ability to read and retain relevant information and sometimes for decades. Not something that folks learning to be absolutely dependant on a computer and links for their information or memory are equipped to accomplish?

I suspect, given your deliberately derogatory inquisition, you may have a vested interest in folks having to change their batteries often?
Alan B.

Alan B,

If needed for verification I can forward evidence of my 'alleged' experience to the owner of this site.

I asked you the questions because it was you who challenged my comment about short battery life, with you claiming batteries last 25 years.
I asked genuine questions that you have still not answered.

I understand Lithium Ion batteries used daily under reasonable load can last 10 years but they are unaffordable to the absolute majority of people.
Yes the telco's use Nickel or Lithium batteries but they have huge budgets after selling costly communication.
Satellites and space probes also use expensive batteries that are also unaffordable to the general public.
And some of those batteries can explode as you may have heard.

Do you have a problem with my expertise, as you repeatedly indicate?

It appears to me you have been reading information from decades ago and are mixing it with pieces of modern technology. For example older lead acid batteries are affordable but new technology batteries are absolutely not generally affordable.

I have no vested interest as you suggest.
However the BS linked to renewable energy long-life battery spin annoys me because even at this moment I have about 20 worn out solar batteries I must try to safely dispose of.

I live 6 months a year in a remote Pacific Islands village and people there are always asking me to fix their solar systems, which I do. The fundamental cause damaging components in those systems is low voltage in a cell, or a completely dead cell. A worn out battery in other words, usually in under 5 years.

The island people involved have no cash whatsoever, or available cash to buy new replacement batteries that cost about AUD$90 to $100 each. That is a lot of money for an unemployed poverty stricken person in a developing country where petrol and kerosene costs about double what it does in Australia. Reverting to kerosene lighting is not really affordable either.

So, what batteries are you saying last 25 years, and are they generally affordable?

Leave the insults eh.

Alan B,

It's all here about Lithium Ion, at Wiki.
I note battery life of 3 years, nothing about 25 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery#Battery_life

Excellent article, Tom. Many thanks.

One 'renewable' technology I'm interested in is waste to energy plants. They are being built in large numbers in Europe and the US, producing green electricity and hugely reducing the volume of waste going to landfill. If one accepts they are sustainable, my questions are:
1. how much waste does a modern developed urban community produce per year which can be converted to energy via a waste to energy plant and 2. what proportion of such a community's electricity needs can be met by burning their waste in W2E plants?

In other words, do W2E plants offer much hope to significantly supplement the electricity produced by solar and wind, remembering that W2E plants can operate 24 hours a day?

Aidan

As long as "cheap finance" is available, anything can outcompete anything you fool.

If, as you assert, renewables are more economical than fossil fuels, then there's no need for government to do anything, is there?

And if they're not, then there's no justification of government action.

The whole field is just nonsense on stilts. If it were not, it's supporters would voluntarily pay for it themselves, and support everyone else's freedom to choose, and there would be no issue.

Yes, renewables can meet expectations. The cost of solar, wind energy systems and battery storage are dropping. From a personal point of view some years ago I decided to put superannuation savings in Australian Ethical Investments, who invest in these industries and they have provided a good return: https://www.australianethical.com.au/

Australia's economy is decoupling from energy, to some extent. As an example, education is Australia’s fourth largest export industry. I am speaking on this at EduTech in Brisbane next week: http://blog.highereducationwhisperer.com/2016/05/future-of-tertiary-education-in.html

Tom W.

JF;sorry I can't direct you to a link, given I was listening to a lecture from the owner of the new tesla giga battery factory. Which was in relation to breakthrough technologies, which include titanium diodes, graphene and nano technology that can quite literally double the storage capacity to weight, as well as triple or quadruple the expected battery life?

Even so I'm surprised to not be able to find the lecture presented in a link.

That said, were I you, I'd be investigating the manufacture of biogas in fairly rudimentary systems, (virtually large septic tanks that need rudimentary welding skills to cut and assemble) then using that to power, on demand methane powered diesel (second hand) generators, (Shove some steel wool in the intake manifold) and connecting them to tubular gel storage batteries, which you can buy direct from china.

This is what one can see as community shared, modest working examples in some of the most impoverished countries. And some good diesel replacing fuel can be pressed from the flesh of the coconut, using a very robust, supersized, reassigned garlic press and lots of leverage.

I understand Singaporean scientists have already made some small lithium iron batteries with the breakthrough titanium oxide diodes. A.B.

No one answers the question about the cost escalation that occurs when
the solar and wind systems have to store energy for 4, 5, 6 overcast
windless days. Don't say it will never happen !
What does that do to the arithmetic ?

Use nickle iron batteries and get 40 year plus life and an easy rebuild.
Very rugged and almost indestructible batteries that can be shorted
overcharged and abused in all ways and they couldn't care less.

Two weeks or more of cloudy and windless days are not unusual in some equatorial regions and that causes solar lighting and solar powered freezers to fail.

Nickle Iron batteries sound like they are perfect but when looking into them it seems they are somewhat extra costly to manufacture, they are more heavy, slow to charge, only able to discharge slowly, should not be charged from a constant voltage (solar is constant), and very importantly they really require charging every day (and sun and wind does not occur every day).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel%E2%80%93iron_battery

Pacific Islands JF?

I'd have thought you would have put wind power coupled to Bazz's Nickel iron batteries on the menu or top of the list?

Given for most Islands the wind blows fairly frequently but only as a constant variable; meaning turbines with blades that can be altered to shed some of the wind or utilize every last puff of it?

And given wind as a constant (on again off again) variable, extend the life of nickel iron batteries to the claimed forty years?
A.B.

JF Aus, I had not read that article on wiki previously.
I think with computer control of charging just about all the problems
you mentioned could be overcome.
I note that a 300% charge rate can be used for periods of 30 minutes.
I did not see the reference to a constant voltage charge source.
In any case computer control could adjust the charge profile for
longest life. I think the loss due to the internal resistance can be
offset by the lower annual cost of the batteries over many years.
There is a company in Sth Aus that supplies them for solar systems;

http://www.ironcorepower.com.au/page3.php

I do not know if they are manufactured in Sth Aus.
I have not had any experience with NI cells so I only know what I have read.

Alan and Bazz,

Yes, the Pacific Islands, Solomon Islands.

Most villages are situated in calm wind free areas.
Lagoons generally are lagoons because they have formed in virtually wind free conditions that provide water calm enough for coral to grow without being pounded by wind driven swells and surf.

Where other villages are situated without a lagoon those villages are tucked away to escape wind. Wind can blow houses to pieces or be otherwise annoying.

Present solar systems are computerised and designed to shut down outgoing power before the battery goes flat, and they shut down the solar input to stop battery overcharge.
So yes computers can control solar, but.

But when a battery eventually fails or wears out the computer components invariably fail because they cannot cope with the strange low and erratic voltage, such as a fully charged say 10 volts jumping up to 12 volts and back to 10 as one cell dies, eventually completely. Anyway the computer fails.

Then, some of the gel batteries don't last 2 years and they cause computer failure.

Most people in developing countries cannot afford batteries for a torch or radio. Cost of electric cable to wire a house or to run cable from a windy hilltop wind generator, is out of the question.
Even in Australia solar panels are unaffordable to many people.

People with money can afford alternative energy components but I think most of those people prefer to plug into the city/town power supply instead of messing with alternative energy.

Continued…………..

Cont’d……..

I think power companies have done well filtering or scrubbing soot from furnace fires, and air pollution has been greatly reduced.
I think effort to overcome air pollution should continue.
But what about the whole world ocean?

I think the biggest problem is sewage and land use nutrient pollution feeding algae but this is being ignored by the AGW fraternity.

NASA photos clearly show cloud forming above visible algae blooms. I have put up links on this site showing those NASA photos.
There should be no doubt that ocean and lake algae is being fed and grown (proliferated) by human sewage and land use nutrient pollution.

In other words, there is need to harness nutrient to viably produce algae for biofuel instead of messing with toxic batteries and windless cloudy days.

I have heard nutrient trading is possible.

JF Aus;
Cell monitoring can be done with a small module fitted to each cell.
They are cheap & off the shelf. Require two wires from each cell
to the scanner. The Nissan leaf has such a system and alarms if a cell
is below spec. A friend converted his car to electric and he installed
such a system.
You can make the monitoring as complex as you wish by reading the cells
and controlling the charge voltage and current.
It is a well established system and the hardware is all off the shelf.
You could even disconnect a cell if it really failed but that would
probably need a relay for each cell.

Bazz, Alan and others,

Solar battery cells and cell terminals are sealed. Most people do not have knowledge to tap those terminals and even if they did it would break battery warranty and maybe lead to a short circuit and maybe a fire.

As you would surely know, deep cycle lead acid batteries are designed for solar charging. Perhaps one day they and ordinary lead acid cells could be manufactured as individual cells and placed in a fitting such as used to hold batteries in a torch. Then the fitting could be equipped with individual cell monitoring you point out.

But it all costs money. And anyway cells and whole batteries still have to be replaced.

Perhaps one day the waste recycling gas that Alan B talks about could be achieved if coupled with solar.
Gas produced in household units harnessing sewage and other waste would be perfect to reduce nutrient overload pollution presently feeding algae that is destroying world ocean seagrass nurseries and coral.

But where is the ABC new information news reporting on these subjects? All we seem to hear about is car accidents and dead bodies.

As for affordability, if government and media investigated and reported socio-economic opportunities, Australia could draw on fly-in fly-out workers to provide employment and income to buy solar and things they need.
Working with teamwork to help build productive infrastructure projects in Australia and also in developing nations could make solar affordable, including for many Australians.

But at present there is a shortage of money among people, except if borrowing money and paying interest is viable. However borrowing is impossible for the majority of would be consumers who happen to be at the bottom of the economy.

If only renewables were affordable. If only there was money for innovation and genuine science.

Frankly JF Aus I think someone has been telling you porkies about the
computer failures because of battery cells failing etc.
Proper design would have prevented any abnormal computer failures.
Making connections to cells etc is normal practise and I see no reason
why cell connections should be sealed.
The hardware has been available to monitor each cell for years.
They are just small PCBs with very few components which are connected
to the cell scanner.

From many many years ago I remember NI batteries being used in railway
signal systems and I can assure you they had safety systems long
before airlines and were very rigorous.
It really is all old hat and perhaps the solar people are just catching up.

Bazz

I have not heard any porkies because my insight is first hand, hands on.
About 120 solar units were delivered to the village as part of an AID program. They each have 24 amp hour 12 volt batteries, some gel, some lead acid.
Some batteries failed after 2 years, others after 4 years, a few have reached 5 to 6 years.
Some that failed early ended up not accepting any solar charge. i overcame that by connecting a 40 watt sealed solar controller direct onto the battery.

These batteries are sealed units. There is no access to each cell unless you drill through the plastic, which I did on one battery in order to test for which cell was dead.
Such need to drill is not normal practice.
There is no cell scanner in these developing country household units.
These units have one two integrated circuits and a few diodes and resistors and not much else. I am often asked to fix them, some I can, others I can not.

Look, I am aware solar is used on space probes but ordinary people cannot afford such solar technology controlled by high tech costly computers.
I am also aware Ni Cad is used by the telcos.

With absolute respect to you Bazz, I think you might be the one hearing porkies, told by the solar industry promoters.

In the real world especially at the bottom of the economy where low cost energy is needed most, solar wears out quickly and replacement of batteries and/or control units is generally unaffordable.

JF Aus, all that you said does not change what I said.
A properly designed support circuitry for a microcomputer will not
destroy it no matter what happens to the battery.

Such systems are used in electric cars and that is a very hostile environment.

Bazz,

The renewable systems you are talking about exist but they are not affordable to the majority of would be if they could be consumers.

Yes they are suited to .electric cars but replacement cost is significant.

Yes they are suited to hostile environments including on the moon.

But who can afford the high cost?
It's about AUD$5,000 for a quality solar system just to run a household freezer.

And rechargeable batteries do wear out.

JF, I suggest you search the web, they can be bought for less than $100.
I suspect that you may be looking in the wrong place.
Try electric vehicle conversion sites.
The micro[processors cost less than $20 and each battery cell hardware
would be around $5 a cell. The scanner modules that I saw advertised
were quite cheap, I cannot remember the price.

For a project I did as a one of even getting the PCB made was only $10.

Bazz,

I think billions of people would like an affordable solar system all set up and ready to switch on and use.

A shortage of money seems to be the problem for the renewables industry and just about every other industry and economy worldwide.