Speaking of Dick Smith, Farnortherner:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TchHz0_hmY

Now, I like Smith as much as the next Aussie, but he can still be wrong and this interview is an example of that.

First, he argues that wind farms cause significant environmental damage due to land requirements and clearing. While wind farms do have environmental impacts, studies show that wind energy has a lower lifecycle environmental footprint than fossil fuels (http://www.proquest.com/openview/8a0cf63845f8ea7dc6cd7f34f1a8a73a).

Smith claims that adding battery storage to wind farms makes power prohibitively expensive. Although battery storage can be costly, these costs are decreasing with technological advancements. The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) reports substantial reductions in battery storage costs, making renewable energy more competitive (http://arena.gov.au/assets/2015/07/AECOM-Energy-Storage-Study.pdf).

Regarding the intermittency of wind and solar, Smith suggests they are unreliable without extensive storage. While intermittency is a challenge, it can be managed through a diverse energy mix, improved grid infrastructure, demand response strategies, and advancements in energy storage. Countries like Germany and Denmark have successfully integrated high levels of renewables into their grids (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2213138824001899).

Smith advocates for nuclear power as a reliable baseload source with a lower environmental impact. However, nuclear power faces challenges such as high costs, long construction times, radioactive waste management, and the risk of catastrophic accidents. New nuclear projects often face delays and budget overruns (http://www.worldnuclearreport.org).

Smith's comparison of Australia's nuclear potential to countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh is misleading. These countries often receive international support for their nuclear projects, and Australia's context is significantly different (http://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/gc/gc64-inf2.pdf).

Smith criticises conservation organisations and the Greens for ignoring the environmental damage caused by renewables while opposing nuclear power. However, these organisations generally support renewables to address climate change, and their opposition to nuclear power is based on concerns about safety, waste management, and high costs (http://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ad5a93ce-3a7f-461d-a441-8a05b7601887/Nuclear_Power_in_a_Clean_Energy_System.pdf).

Smith's assertion that no country operates entirely on renewables and storage is technically correct but misleading. While no country relies solely on renewables, many are progressing towards high renewable energy percentages. For example, Iceland generates nearly all its electricity from renewable sources. Innovations in grid management, storage, and international electricity trade are facilitating higher renewable integration (http://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2020.00110/full).

John,

Still peddling your dishonesty I see. Regarding Iceland, it is powered mostly by geothermal and hydro, with very little wind and solar, so no relevance to Australia. In contrast, Barakah generates nearly four times as much power as Iceland's grid. You might also note the NEA report stating:

"However, the costs of reaching net zero with high shares of variable renewables are probably prohibitive. This is, in part, because initially as variable renewables are introduced, they can be backed up with a low cost option, which in the absence of a serious carbon constraint is likely to be natural gas."

https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-10/system_costs_of_electricity_-_cop26_flyer.pdf

Anyone reading your arguments should be aware of your irrational view of the danger of nuclear power. You believe that the radiation from nuclear power stations is a cumulative harm. Yet the amount of radiation is so small that you would need to live next to a nuclear power station for several years to get the equivalent of a day of background radiation. In fact, natural variation in annual background radiation equates to many centuries of living near a nuclear power plant. Further, a recent study shows that people in areas with higher background radiation live 2 1/2 years longer and have a lower incidence of some cancers.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33479810/

The study adds to a growing body of evidence that higher background radiation is protective against cancer. So your scaremongering is at best out of ignorance and at worst a deliberate attempt to mislead. Given that you never quantify any of your wildly optimistic claims about renewable energy I suspect the latter.

And you dispute the area that wind and solar will affect and the environmental harm that will come of it, insisting benefit to Australian wildlife and claiming that technological improvement will reduce the footprint. What benefit, by how much or to what area you don't say.

The reality according to Net Zero Australia is unprecedented environmental destruction of over twice the area of Tasmania at a cost several times that of going nuclear.

https://www.netzeroaustralia.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Downscaling-Land-use-impacts-on-Australian-communities-the-land-sea.pdf

Net zero solely with renewable energy is a huge threat to Australia's wildlife and economy being perpetrated by unscrupulous people with vested economic interests.

Too true Fester. Meanwhile, here's a good article in The Spectator's Flat White about the futility and obvious shortcomings of costly community batteries which don't even provide power during blackouts https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/07/no-mr-bowen-community-batteries-are-not-a-substitute-for-nuclear/?
"...That’s because the battery is only designed to work when the power is on.

Ausgrid’s FAQs on their website provide this answer to the question, can I draw on [the battery] during a blackout?

No. Community batteries will only be capable of grid-connect mode, so if the power goes down the battery will also switch off."

Fester,

Your accusation of dishonesty on my part is unfair and unfounded, and I think you know that. Let’s keep this civil.

Iceland relies on geothermal and hydro power, illustrating high renewable energy integration potential. Australia's renewable strategy will differ due to its unique conditions, but countries like Germany and Denmark show successful integration of wind and solar, more relevant to Australia.

The Barakah nuclear plant generates significant power, highlighting nuclear's capability. However, comparing nuclear to renewables should consider lifecycle costs, safety, waste disposal, and construction time. Nuclear plants, including Barakah, have faced substantial investments and delays.

The NEA report notes that initially, variable renewables can be backed up by natural gas due to cost considerations. However, advancements in storage and grid management technologies are reducing these costs. Integrating renewable sources with enhanced storage solutions (like advanced batteries and pumped hydro) is making renewables more viable for net zero targets.

Arguments minimising radiation risks from nuclear plants overlook severe accident impacts. While some studies suggest low levels of radiation might be harmless or beneficial, the broader consensus emphasises caution due to long-term and unpredictable radiation exposure effects.

Regarding wind and solar's environmental footprint, advances in technology are reducing necessary land use. New designs in wind turbines and solar panels are more efficient, requiring less space. Offshore wind farms and rooftop solar installations can further mitigate land use concerns.

The Net Zero Australia report highlights extensive land use for net zero with renewables. However, ongoing technological improvements and policy adaptations aim to minimise environmental impacts. Strategies like agro-voltaics and using degraded lands for renewable installations can reduce impacts on wildlife and ecosystems.

Accusations of unscrupulous economic interests driving renewables overlook the global consensus on transitioning away from fossil fuels to mitigate climate change. Renewable energy sources offer sustainable development and economic growth opportunities, with global markets favouring low-carbon technologies.

The debate between renewable and nuclear energy is complex, considering environmental impacts, costs, safety, and sustainability. It’s not an “either/or” scenario. Nuclear power has its place, but advancements in renewable energy, along with strategic planning and innovation, remain an important consideration.

Mikko2,

The article you linked it doesn't adequately account for the integrated and evolving nature of renewable energy systems. Community batteries are not a direct substitute for nuclear power but are part of a broader strategy to enhance energy storage and grid resilience.

Firstly, De Percy's claim about community batteries being ineffective during outages is necessarily true, since they operate that way by design. However, their primary purpose is to store excess solar energy and help balance the grid during peak demand periods, not to serve as standalone backup systems.

Regarding his claim that community batteries cannot replace the baseload power provided by nuclear energy, it's true that batteries and nuclear power serve different roles (i.e. energy storage and grid stabilisation vs. continuous baseload power) but his comparison overlooks the broader context of integrated renewable energy systems, which have various sources like solar, wind, and hydro, complemented by storage solutions to ensure reliability and grid stability.

De Percy is right about the expense of implementing enough community batteries to meet national energy needs, he fails to account for the rapid advancing and increasing cost-effectiveness of the technologies. Moreover, a cost analysis analysis also needs to consider the long-term benefits of reduced greenhouse gas emissions and increased energy independence.

Lastly, he suggests that the government's renewable energy policies, including community batteries, are facing increasing public resistance and causing electricity bills to rise. The picture surveys of public opinion on energy policies paint is mixed, to be sure. Overall, however, surveys and studies generally show a strong majority support for renewable energy initiatives in Australia, driven by concerns about climate change and environmental sustainability.

The claim about rising electricity bills needs to be viewed within the context of the broader market dynamics, including fossil fuel prices and infrastructure investments. which includes various sources like solar, wind, and hydro, complemented by storage solutions to ensure reliability and grid stability.

Anyway, this is why I've been suggesting you get your information from reliable scholarly sources. Of course a right-wing journo is going to tell his right-wing readers what they what they want to hear.