There is something that I have found confusing about renewable energy. When it was first advocated by our politicians it was claimed that because wind and solar produced cheaper electricity, renewable energy would reduce electricity prices from the start. Well, just the opposite happened, supposedly because of the upfront capital costs to integrate wind and solar into the grid. But that didn't make any sense to me when I looked at other power grids around the world and how new projects affected the electricity price. The Vogtle project was finished after long delays and well over budget, yet the residents of Georgia pay at most half as much for their electricity as the residents of California. And Finland just completed Okiluoto 3 way over time and budget only to see a great drop in power prices.

Looking at the AEMO data dashboard seems to explain the paradox. It appears that renewables are either producing far too much or too little power for the grid, with most of the excess power they produce going to waste. Further, fossil fuel backup for the entire grid is required. Unfortunately the cost of wind, solar, wasted power, infrastructure, backup and renewable subsidies is well above that of fossil fuel generation alone.

I think it high time to end the renewable energy odyssey. The damage to the economy from higher prices and to the environment from renewable energy construction are all too apparent. Time to try something else.

The trouble with costing each type of power is that its way too easy to manipulate the results to suit the political need. So many things go into determining the actual cost of this or that power module that leaving some items out or putting others in will alter the results.

So for example, when determining the cost of a wind project do you include the cost of the back-up module required to cover for the wind downtimes or not. Include it if you want to increase the costings for wind. Ignore it if you want to enhance the attractiveness of wind.

In reality, the only way to look at this is to examine it as a whole. That is, does the inclusion of renewables in a grid increase overall costs or decrease them.

We are constantly told that these renewables are cheaper than coal/gas/nuclear and logic would therefore suggest that more renewables means lower costs. That hasn't been the case to date and there are as many excuses for that as there are ways to fudge the original costings.

To my way of thinking the best way to look at the overall picture is to compare costs against the level of renewables across a range of jurisdictions.

As here....

http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/01/25/who-would-have-thought-nations-with-more-renewables-have-more-expensive-electricity/

The data here clearly shows a direct and enduring link between the level of renewables in a system and the cost of that system.

We will catch on eventually.

Fester,

There is no paradox, but there does appear to be a misunderstanding on your part of how the transition to renewable energy works and its associated costs. The seeming paradox arises from a short-term perspective that focuses on immediate costs rather than the long-term benefits and savings of renewable energy.

Yes, many expected renewable energy to immediately reduce electricity prices. However, the upfront costs for integrating wind and solar into the grid were higher than anticipated. These costs include not just building the facilities but also upgrading the grid to handle the variable nature of renewable energy.

Comparing renewable energy projects to nuclear ones like Vogtle in Georgia or Okiluoto 3 in Finland isn’t exactly fair. Both nuclear projects faced significant delays and cost overruns, which are pretty common for large-scale nuclear plants. Electricity prices in these regions are influenced by a variety of factors, including state policies and market dynamics. Georgia has benefited from historically cheap coal and gas, while California’s prices are influenced by high demand and strict environmental regulations.

Variability is a challenge. As I’ve mentioned and described previously, however, advancements in energy storage and grid management are increasingly addressing these issues. Excess power can be stored in batteries or used in applications like pumped hydro storage.

Currently, fossil fuel backup is necessary for grid stability. But as technology improves, the need for fossil fuels decreases. It’s also important to consider that the true cost of fossil fuels includes environmental and health impacts, not just generation costs.

Given their long-term benefits, it’s incredibly short-sighted to entirely dismiss renewables over the understandably-higher costs involved during the transition phase. Decreased reliance on imported fuels and opportunities for innovation and job creation in the green energy sector, as just two examples. The environmental impact of renewable construction is a valid concern, but pales in comparison to the ongoing damage caused by fossil fuels.

mhaze,

The costs of different energy sources can be manipulated to fit political agendas. But this isn’t exclusive to renewables. Fossil fuel industries have long been cushioned by subsidies and have hidden costs like environmental damage and health impacts that often aren’t included in their market prices.

Including the expense of backup power or storage solutions in costings makes sense when calculating the cost of wind energy. But the principle should apply to fossil fuels, too, which require infrastructure for fuel supply, pollution control, and waste disposal. Ignoring these costs gives fossil fuels an unfair advantage in cost comparisons.

Evaluating the overall cost impact of renewables on the grid is reasonable. While integrating renewables may initially cost more due to grid upgrades and storage investments, these lead to long-term savings and greater energy security. Areas with a high share of renewables, for example, often benefit from lower fuel costs and reduced price volatility compared to those heavily dependent on fossil fuels.

Saying that renewables always drive up grid costs isn't entirely accurate. High renewable adoption has coincided with higher electricity prices in some places, but this is due to a mix of factors beyond just the cost of renewables. Policy choices, market structures, and existing infrastructure all play roles. For instance, Denmark and Germany have higher electricity prices partly due to taxes and fees that support social programs and grid upgrades. On the other hand, countries like Norway, which relies heavily on renewables, have lower electricity prices thanks to abundant hydro resources.

The link from Climate Depot suggests that countries with more renewables have more expensive electricity. However, Climate Depot is known for its denialist stance, often using selective data to support its arguments. Independent, peer-reviewed studies offer a more balanced view, showing that the relationship between renewables and electricity prices is complex and depends on various factors, including policy frameworks and market conditions.

Renewables come with integration challenges, but they also provide significant long-term benefits like reduced emissions, better energy security, and lower operational costs.

Wind and solar is nonsense following on from the nonsense of CO2 causing climate change (which has never been proved).

The nonsense is wrecking the Australian economy with some of the highest electricity prices in the world. It is also wrecking our environment.

Australia has had the advantage of seeing renewables failing miserably first in other countries, but our dumb political class seems to be completely out of touch with the rest of the world; that, or they are deliberately wrecking Australia for reasons unknown to the population.

An election is coming, and voters can put a stop to the nonsense if they really want to.

Renewable energy would be great if it could be achieved, alas ! Whoever believes something can be produced from & with oil & then expects no fallout or waste is more stupid than plain stupid.