Ever Ascendant: True Cost of Unreliable Wind & Solar Continues to Rise Unabated

If wind and solar power were truly competitive with conventional generators, there would be no need for even a nickel in subsidies. The fact they continue unabated says it all.

Claims that the cost of wind and solar generation are falling don’t stand a minute’s serious scrutiny. One group that has applied a blowtorch to the ‘wind and solar are free and getting cheaper all the time’ narrative is the Global Warming Policy Forum. Here’s Dr John Constable explaining why the true cost of unreliable wind and solar is always in the ascendant.

Fact checking IRENA: Ignore the renewables industry PR and turn to empirical data
Global Warming Policy Forum
John Constable
23 June 2021

In sharp contrast to claims by the renewables lobby, the costs of wind and solar energy are not falling, empirical data shows.

When soap bubbles burst they vanish in an instant. Financial bubbles by their nature take a little longer to deflate, and doubtless the renewables industry bubble will take several years, not least because it has vested interests puffing the sector harder and faster than the realists, such as ourselves, can pick holes. But eventually, the lobbyists will run out of breath and the tissue of propaganda will be more holes than substance. The wretched pretence will collapse in an embarrassing mess.

We don’t know precisely when this will happen, but China seems to be betting on the later 2020s, just before it has undertaken to reach peak emissions, giving it plenty of time to blame the West for breach of promise and return to carbon business as usual. That seems like a plausible date to us too.

In the meantime, analysts and market-watchers are confronted by a confusing storm of argument bringing prolonged gales of high temperature Public Relations, such as the extravagantly upbeat claims of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) published yesterday, and brief but chillingly cold showers of empirical information regarding the underlying high and increasing costs of renewable energy.

On the one hand, for example, IRENA claims, though without evidence to us, that “new solar and wind projects are increasingly undercutting even the cheapest […] of existing coal-fired plants”.

On the other we see the striking paper in the Harvard Business Review indicating that the solar industry has failed to correctly price-in the cost of recycling its own waste, meaning that “the sheer volume of discarded panels will soon pose a risk of existentially damaging proportions”, increasing the Levelised Cost of Electricity “to four times the current projection”, with the result that the “the economics of solar – so bright-seeming from the vantage point of 2021 – would darken quickly as the industry sinks under the weight of its own trash”.

And, in fact, even the current economics don’t look that promising, as can be inferred from recent Bloomberg and Financial Times’ reports of significant rising costs for steel, polysilicon and freight, resulting in an 18 per cent fall in the value of solar company shares.

Nor is wind power exempt from these concerns, as is evident in Bloomberg’s report in early May this year that Vestas would have to increase its wind turbine prices due, amongst other things, to rising costs for steel – up 25% in China this year. Furthermore, as readers of the work of Professor Gordon Hughes for both GWPF and the UK’s Renewable Energy Foundation will know, capex is in a sense the wind industry’s least concern, with long term opex costs, particularly offshore, looking all but certain to sink the vast flagship wind projects whose low bids for guaranteed prices are the toast of European governments. The champagne will have gone distinctly flat by the later 2020s when taxpayers are called upon to bail out failing wind farms or face blackouts.

None of these empirically grounded criticisms of renewables should be surprising to anyone who had a basic understanding of the physics of wind and the solar flux; these are high entropy energy flows, close to random heat, and require large masses of capital equipment to correct the defect and produce a low entropy supply to consumers. This is an intrinsically low productivity energy sector, with consequently high costs. And even if you choose not to think along these abstract lines, the empirical information in company accounts, such as that examined by Professor Hughes and my GWPF colleague Andrew Montford should be utterly conclusive. The costs of renewables are just not falling in the way claimed by industry lobbyists. The real wonder is why anyone believed that guff in the first place.

And, for the avoidance of doubt, there is no need to take this post’s word for granted or to trust that of Gordon Hughes or Andrew Montford. Analysts and investors, politicians and civil servants, are invited to conduct their investigations and come to their own conclusions. That is the way that financial bubbles burst, one realistic and inquiring mind at a time.
Global Warming Policy Forum

About stopthesethings

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

Comments

  1. ronaldsteinptsadvancecom says:

    Electricity is a secondary energy source that we get from the conversion of other sources of energy such as coal, natural gas, oil, nuclear power, and so on. These sources are known as “primary sources, but electricity itself is not a “primary source”. The products for wind turbines and solar panels are all dependent on “primary sources” of energy.

  2. Rafe Champion says:

    An Australian modelling exercise indicates that the cost of 100% RE power could be over $400 per MWhr.

    https://www.riteon.org.au/netzero-casualties/#218

  3. Shudong Zhou says:

    They turned the solar energy application that belongs to all mankind into their private domain. All industries have applications of solar energy, not just the breeding and breeding industries. Why is people active during the day? Sleep at night? Everyone uses the sun.

  4. Here in Australia we have a very accurate record of the performance of all sources of electricity on the eastern grid over many years. Frankly I do not understand how wind could possibly be cheaper. Using the data I have to be equivalent to a coal-fired power station you must have energy storage otherwise it is unusable because of its variability. In 2020 a PHES of 350 GW hours would be needed to stabilise 8 GW of wind. The wind will cost you $16 billion Australian and the energy storage $10 billion. This is for something that will last about 25 years. Our largest coal-fired power station is equivalent to what you can buy for that 26 billion and certainly could be rebuilt for $6 billion. The coal station was commissioned in 1984 and it will be now closed in 2030 that is nearly 50 years. So wind plus PHES will cost at least $50 billion. That’s going to be cheaper, pull the other one it’s got bells on it. By the way as to wind variability here we have wind turbines in the middle of Queensland and in Tasmania that is about 3000 km apart also South Australia about 1200 km to the west. For a three-hour period in 2020 it dropped to less than 2% of capacity. There was a another time when it dropped to 5% for 33 hours.

Leave a Reply to ronaldsteinptsadvancecom Cancel reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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: