Economic Fantasy: Battery ‘Solution’ to Intermittent Wind & Solar Would Cost $Trillions

It took the proletariat a nanosecond to work out that wind power cannot, and will never, work as a meaningful power generation source.

Graphs like the one above – depicting the entire output of every wind turbine connected to Australia’s Eastern Grid (spread across four states, NSW, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia) – quickly gave the game away.

Challenged with the inherent unreliability and obvious intermittency of wind power, those pushing it have been reduced to chanting mantras about mega-batteries saving the day.

The way they tell it, it’s as if they simply left grid-scale battery storage off their shopping lists – like some muddle-headed shopper returning home without milk and bread – and all they needed to do was pop back to the shops to collect some.

A bargain struck by economic vandals: $150,000,000 for 4 minute’s power.


The world’s largest battery cuts a lonely figure in a paddock near Jamestown in South Australia’s mid North; it doesn’t generate power; it stores a piddling 100 MW worth; it consumes power during each charge/discharge cycle, lost as heat energy; it cost taxpayers $150 million; and would satisfy SA’s minimum power demand for all of four minutes. On those hard numbers, anyone talking about batteries providing an economic solution to Australia’s energy crisis, is either delusional or hoping to sell them.

Those fantasists claiming that we’re a heartbeat away from running entirely on sunshine and breezes, need to keep up the line about giant batteries being the simple solution to a glaring problem. Except, that they will never put a number on what their purportedly quick and simple fix might cost. And that’s because the number is in the many $trillions, as detailed by Francis Menton below.

Another Small Dose Of Realism On The Prospects For A 100% Renewable Grid
Manhattan Contrarian
Francis Menton
4 April 2018

As official Manhattan Contrarian April Fool Germany — not to mention U.S. states like New York and California — careen toward 100% renewable energy utopia, few stop to ask the question of how this is supposed to work from an engineering perspective. Is it as simple as just building a bunch more wind turbines and solar panels and assuming that everything will be just fine?

A youngish Stanford professor, Mark Jacobson, puts out a couple of papers saying that he’s made a computer model, and all it will take to make a 100% renewable system (solar, wind, water) will be maybe a little new-fangled storage (not yet invented), plus a few extra transmission lines (no costs provided). Suddenly this guy has a celebrity following ranging from Mark Ruffalo to Leonardo DiCaprio to Governor Jerry Brown of California. But before we go down the road of covering the landscape with these devices, will anyone address what it will take to make this work as a reliable 24/7 electricity system, and how much that project will cost?

From time to time some serious group of people will put out a real study pointing to a few of the engineering problems of these fantasies, yet somehow these types of studies never draw the same level of attention as guys like Jacobson. So I do my small part to publicize them.

In this post back in June 2017 I summarized a study then out from a group of authors led by Christopher Clack that dissected numerous flaws in Jacobson’s work. Clack did a pretty good job eviscerating Jacobson, but his study did not go as far imagining what it might take to create an alternative system that would actually work, let alone attempting to assign any sort of costs to such a thing. (However, Clack did strike enough of a nerve to draw a defamation lawsuit from Jacobson, since withdrawn.)

We now have a new study out from a group of authors led by independent consultant Matthew Shaner, published in Energy & Environmental Science in February. The full study is behind a pay wall (it will cost you 42 pounds!), but the link goes to the abstract, and there is also a long article summarizing the results by James Temple in the MIT Technology Review of February 26. Shaner et al. have analyzed 36 years of global, hourly weather data (1980-2015) in order “to quantify the covariability of solar and wind resources as a function of time and location, over multi-decadal time scales and up to continental length scales.” The title of Temple’s summary gives you the first hint as to the results: “Relying on renewables alone significantly inflates the cost of overhauling energy.” Let’s have some details:

[A] study published in Energy & Environmental Science [has] determined that solar and wind energy alone could reliably meet about 80 percent of recent US annual electricity demand, but massive investments in energy storage and transmission would be needed to avoid major blackouts. . . . Relying on these intermittent sources alone would requiring building many more solar and wind farms to produce excess energy during particularly sunny and windy periods, plus huge storage systems that can bank hours’ or even weeks’ worth of power.

We then get this small clue as to the cost of starting down this road:

Just getting to 80 percent of demand reliably with only wind and solar would require either a US-wide high-speed transmission system or 12 hours of electricity storage. A storage system of that size across the US would cost more than $2.5 trillion for a battery system.

Two and a half trillion dollars is about two-thirds of a year’s worth of the entire federal budget. Maybe we could swing it if we could just skip Medicare and Social Security and National Defense for a year? But suppose you want to do away completely with those evil fossil fuels?

To meet all the nation’s annual electricity needs with 99.97 percent reliability, utilities would have to build 12 hours of storage plus at least twice the amount of renewable-energy generation, the study found. Or businesses could deploy slightly more wind and solar coupled with more than a month’s worth of storage.

If 12 hours of storage goes for about $2.5 trillion, I guess the month’s worth will set you back about 60 times that, or $150 trillion. That’s about 8 times the full annual GDP of the U.S. these days. No problem! Don’t forget, by the way, that electricity is only about 40% of U.S. energy consumption, the remainder consisting of things like transportation (planes, trains and automobiles), industry, and home heating.

Back here in New York State, the official goal is to get 50% of our electricity from renewables by 2030. Supposedly, with a few heavy-handed incentives, private investors will just build the generating facilities on their own. A January 26 report from the Empire Center lets us know how that’s going:

Renewable energy companies aren’t building the windmills and solar panels Governor Andrew Cuomo hoped for when he pledged in 2015 to have 50 percent of the state’s electricity come from renewables by 2030.

I guess we shouldn’t be too surprised about that. So what’s the solution?

The state will build them itself. Part GG of Cuomo’s proposed Transportation and Economic Development (TED) Article VII budget bill would let the state Power Authority . . . “finance, plan, design, engineer, acquire, construct, operate or manage” renewable energy projects, defined as “solar power, wind power, hydroelectric, and any other generation resource authorized by any renewable energy standard adopted by the state for the purpose of implementing any state clean energy standard.”

Yes, it’s the strategy of just building lots of new solar and wind facilities — at taxpayer expense of course — and assuming that they will all turn into a workable 24/7 system. You would be very safe to bet against this.
Manhattan Contrarian

Just as sensible as trying to run on sunshine & breezes.

About stopthesethings

We are a group of citizens concerned about the rapid spread of industrial wind power generation installations across Australia.


  1. Chris Bright says:

    10 GWh of lithium-ion batteries would occupy the same volume as the Great Pyramid of Giza, Egypt. That alone should indicate the cost of any attempt to use batteries to mitigate the intermittency of renewable energy.

  2. Chris Bright says:

    Batteries are likely to be limited to 5 MW and so many would be needed to meet the electricity demand of a country. For example, 10 000 such batteries would be needed to meet the peak electricity demand of Great Britain, 50 GW.

    This is based on some elementary considerations of voltage and current. For DC, the IEC limit of low voltage is 1500 V DC above which the system is classed as high voltage and stricter safety rules apply, adding to the expense. Even so, 1500 V would need about 500 cells in series, assuming cell voltage could not be greater than 3 V due to fundamental electro-chemistry.

    The series connection of cells would be at risk of failure of a single cell, requiring the whole connection to be taken out of service for repair. For that reason, batteries are rarely manufactured above 800 V.

    So 1500 V is the likely upper limit.

    Regarding current, this is likely to be not much more than 4000 A. Above this, connections and switchgear become generally awkward to obtain and install, and costs are prohibitive.

    So 1500 V and 4000 A, perhaps a little more, yield 5 MW as the maximum rating of a battery.

    This does not deal with the energy rating, ie MWh, and how long a battery could maintain its power output.

  3. Son of a goat says:

    My latest book “The Boys in the Bubble” is available from Ego- mania publications.

    After several years of anecdotal evidence I decided to delve into whether there was a possible link between “the capacity factor of wind farms and the intellectual capacity of those who spruik them.”

    After surveying 100 fully paid up propaganda merchants from the wind industry there does seem credible evidence “that as the capacity of a wind farm drops in any particular point in time so does the intellectual capacity of the zealot in comprehending the situation at hand.

    When the capacity of a wind farm dropped to between 20-30% the rhetoric coming from the zealot was reduced to rantings of:
    1/ Stating the war on renewables was over.
    2/ The transition was inevitable.
    3/ Here have a look over here, look what Barnaby’s up to.
    4/ I’ve passed 10,000 twitter followers, kiss my arse.

    However when the wind capacity of the wind farm to below 5% for any length of time the rhetoric of the zealot dropped to nonsensical dribble of a spoilt child, with such gibberish as;
    1/ Who cares if there’s no wind at a point in time?
    2/ Who cares about a generator’s capacity?

    The only time there was a variation from the norm was with a particular group known as rent seekers. Their intellectual capacity rose to 100% when money was involved irrespective of the capacity factor of the wind farm. More research is needed to see whether this variation was due to hereditary or environmental factors.

    Once again all monies raised will go towards the Jay Weatherill home for the deluded.

  4. Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    “Those fantasists claiming that we’re a heartbeat away from running entirely on sunshine and breezes, need to keep up the line about giant batteries being the simple solution to a glaring problem. Except, that they will never put a number on what their purportedly quick and simple fix might cost. And that’s because the number is in the many $trillions, as detailed by Francis Menton below.”

    AND on the third day BILLIONS became TRILLIONS! Taxpayers hard-earned money sacrificed at the alter of “climate change” all to try to create some kind of perfect climate nirvana.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: