Wind Power: The Complete Joke That Just Isn’t Funny Anymore

If it were only intended as a joke, wind power would be hilarious. However, the power pricing and supply calamity that follows any attempt to rely on sunshine and breezes tend to sober things up.

Random 3,000 to 4,000 MW wind power output collapses are at the heart of Australia’s self-inflicted renewable energy debacle. The consequences of an obsession with subsidised wind and solar were as perfectly predictable, as they were perfectly avoidable. Power rationing is now routine and power prices are soaring out of control.

What’s depicted above – courtesy of Aneroid Energy – is the output delivered by Australian wind power outfits to the Eastern Grid last month. To describe wind power as a power generation system, given that kind of performance is not just delusional, it’s dangerous. Australia’s Eastern Grid is, literally, on the brink of collapse.

One of the few that gets it is, the Australian’s Graham Lloyd. And to assist him to make his rather timely point we’ll throw in a little more data from Aneroid Energy.

In the dark on the power struggle: inconvenient truth proves renewables can’t cut it
The Australian
Graham Lloyd
9 June 2022

Australia’s low-emissions energy journey is locked in a struggle ­between engineering and hope.

The nation has lost its way on energy because it has failed to think long term, excluded emerging technologies from the discussion, and refused to learn the lessons of failure from elsewhere.

Debate this week about how a capacity market should work to keep the lights on and industry in business underscores the point.

Too many people with too little understanding have turned a problem of physics and engineering into one of politics and economics. The breakdown in electricity supply is as serious as it has been predictable. Engineers know that grinding the coal sector into the ground won’t make renewables produce electricity when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining. Leaving gas in the ground, as NSW and Victoria have done, won’t power a back-up supply. Stealing back supplies of gas from companies that have contracted to sell it elsewhere will compound the problems.

Governments generally don’t last long enough to reap the product of the chaos they sow. But new governments should learn the mistakes of others.

Contrary to popular opinion, Germany’s transition away from nuclear power has not been fuelled by wind and solar. It has been powered by greater use of brown coal and a dependence on Russian Gas. Power shortages in South Australia, California, Texas, UK and Europe all share a common feature, a naive hope that renewable energy will do the job it is not equipped to do.

Politicians have been cowered into supporting solutions they don’t understand. No serious thinker believes it’s economically sensible to firm up a national grid with batteries but a whole industry is willing to take government money to give it a try.

It might well be an expensive fix for individual households, but not industry. Spending billions to extend the national grid is based on the premise that the wind will always be blowing somewhere. The reality is this is not necessarily the case.

Hydrogen is a promising technology but experts who have worked in the field maintain it is a dangerous substance, difficult to contain and invisible when it burns. From an environmental perspective, the vast amount of materials and area of land needed to attempt what is being proposed using wind, solar, batteries, pumped hydro, hydrogen and transmission lines does not meet the cost/benefit test. A bigger concern is electricity is only a small part of the challenge ahead. Bigger and more important for industry is process heat, something that wind and solar can never deliver.

Alinta Energy chief executive Jeff Dimery belled the cat this week that the energy crisis was caused by chaotic market planning that had swamped the country with renewables that in turn made coal uncompetitive.

“We’re committing economic suicide if we rush and try to do it too quickly when we haven’t got the alternative supplies in place,” he told a Melbourne conference.

To illustrate the point, he said renewable energy plants in South Australia last Wednesday at 6.15pm were producing one megawatt of electricity, a tiny fraction of capacity. There was no wind in Victoria either.

“So it wouldn’t have mattered if you doubled the capacity of the transmission, and it wouldn’t have mattered if you quadrupled the capacity of intermittent generation. Without coal and gas, the lights would have gone out in South Australia, that is a fact,” he said.

Watching on, as the nation’s energy thinkers look for Band-Aid solutions to potentially fatal conditions in the energy market is the former head of Australia’s Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, Adi Paterson, who has also commercialised pioneering research on lithium ion batteries and participated hydrogen policy work in South Africa.

Paterson says the nation is locked in a false struggle. “This ­debate has become about economics and the universal law of economics is that it does not trump physics,” he says.

“We have the burden of ­explaining more clearly to people what the real energy choices look like. Carbon-free process heat is a much bigger problem than electricity. And the fundamental problem is, if we are going to electrify everything, we are going to need reliable, predictable, ‘always-on’ electricity for a rational society to function.

“With the energy cost issues, people are starting to see that when you take the baseload out the costs go up.”

He said it was important to have an intergenerational view of the problem: “We do not have to do it all in 10 years. In the next century, I believe, if we just take off the false time problem, we will be looking for the highest density of energy we can get, and at the top of that pile is nuclear fusion.”

There are critics who can point to decades of promises but the world is looking to new-generation nuclear reactors and fusion to solve the problem of low-emissions electrification to run a developed industrial economy.

In the domain of nuclear fission, the first small-scale modular nuclear reactor by a US firm NuScale is under construction and will be completed this decade.

The US National Academies road map has set a time line to build nuclear fusion reactors from 2035. Australian company HB11 Energy, of which Paterson is a ­director, is leading the world in ­exploring nuclear fusion using a new generation of high-energy ­lasers. The technology won a Nobel prize for the inventors and can bring decades of theory into reality.

HB11 Energy is looking at the 2040s to have a plant operating based on the principles of inertial fusion using lasers.

Despite this, nuclear fission and fusion technology are not part of Australia’s official energy discussion. Jim Chalmers, says he has ruled out nuclear energy because “the economics don’t stack up”.

The Treasurer said he had never been a supporter of nuclear power and would maintain his opposition to it, which was “economic not ideological”.

Paterson says this view misunderstands the problem.

“There is a tendency to oversimplify,” he says. “I think the fundamental problem of wind and solar is it is highly accessible to the domestic consumer but most of what is useful in our society we don’t really understand. You can win an argument by saying solar, wind and batteries because people understand it.

“I think we need to have this discussion about fission and fusion as a low-cost source of electrons because it gives us predictability and optionality.

“It will give us a stab at solving the energy problem not just the electricity problem. The question for wind, solar and batteries is ‘Where is the process heat?’

“If we solve the issue of nuclear fusion plants – because they will also provide process heat for ­industry – they will be the anchor tenant of most modern economies from about 2060.”

This line might not suit the catastrophisation narrative of a climate emergency. But at least it might just work.
The Australian

The first graphic in the body of Graham’s article is the output from SA’s fleet of whirling wonders (with a nameplate capacity of 2,142 MW) on 1 June 2022.

A little after midnight SA’s ‘team’ were mustering up 1,311 MW (61% of capacity). But the gang couldn’t keep up the effort for very long; by noon Australia’s renewable energy capital was struggling to generate a trifling 200 MW of wind power; output bounced along the bottom for hours, and completely flatlined by 6pm – thereafter output was between zero and 4 MW (0-0.00187% – to the nearest decimal point). Oh, almost forgot to mention, that that evening’s paltry wind power performance coincided with a complete collapse in solar power output. [Note to Ed: that would be sunset, yet again!].

The second graphic in the article is the output from these things in the neighbouring state of Victoria, which have a notional capacity of 3,105 MW. From a peak of 2,376 MW (76% of capacity) there was a 2,038 MW collapse to a trifling 338 MW (10.8% of capacity) – which was the sum total being produced at midnight. [Note to Ed: don’t forget to mention the cruel effect of sunset on solar output].

The graphic immediately above depicts a rather sluggish, ultimately pathetic, but entirely typical, performance by South Australia’s wind farms on 2 June 2022. After a brief burst of 470 MW (22% of capacity) output slid to 193 MW (9% of capacity).

We could go on. Well, in fact, this site has been going on about the cause and consequences of this brewing calamity since December 2012.

Everything we have had to say has proved to be correct. Blind Freddie could see it coming. The engineers who designed and built Australia’s Eastern Grid and the power generation systems connected to it saw it coming, too.

Australia’s Renewable Energy Target – that directs more than $7 billion a year in subsidies to wind and solar – is doing precisely what it was designed to do: namely, destroying Australia’s reliable and affordable power supplies.

At the political level, the scramble is now on to keep coal-fired power plants up and running, wait for it, with government subsidies to the owners of those reliable plants to counteract the effect of the colossal subsidies being doled out to hopelessly unreliable wind and solar. Go figure!

Meanwhile, Australia, which holds the world’s largest uranium reserves, maintains its ludicrous ban on nuclear power generation. Australia’s energy policy is nothing short of treasonous.

Welcome to your wind and sun-powered future!

C’mon Aussie, what on Earth are you waiting for?

About stopthesethings

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

Comments

  1. Does anybody still seriously doubt that Comintern was behind Green? Stalin “officially disbanded” Comintern in May 1945, but its operatives continued operating, pumping out red-diaper babies, and infiltrating academia, media, (no longer) liberal political parties, and now corporate boardrooms, and teaching agitprop. Looking at the results, it’s clear the goal was the destruction of Western democrat societies and industries. China is building one GWe of coal-fired capacity per week. There are 17 nuclear reactors under construction in China.

  2. Shudong Zhou says:

    Are there any engineers in Australia who understand electricity? I am a dangerous chemicals expert! IEC TC15 !

  3. Craig Lucanus says:

    Why bother discussing fusion when fission is what we have to work with? The cost of storage sufficient to impact on carbon intensity is totally,completely, utterly underestimated. Chris Bowen doesn’t get why Germany now clears forests and levels towns to dig for coal instead of building storage. Of course, Oz is the clever country and we’ll show the world how to deindustrialize even better than Germany.

    • For the same reason we discussed nuclear fission as a power generation source in the 1950s. That was developed at a time when people did discuss and develop novel and ultimately beneficial ideas, but you’d rather ignore the prospect of a future with fusion as part of our energy supply.

      • Jeff Walther says:

        Perfectly reasonable to ignore fusion.

        Fission was discovered and within a few decades some very smart people had it working as an energy source.

        Some very smart people have been working on fusion for half a century and have very little to show.

        In nature, fission occurs without any help in rocks, some times.

        In nature, fusion only occurs when you get stellar size masses together.

        Stimulating fusion is a ridiculously difficult problem. Additionally, the prospective benefits are not greater than implementing fission.

        If fusion became practical on Monday the same political forces that oppose fission now would oppose fusion by Thursday. At the moment it’s a useful distraction from fission, because it doesn’t work. The moment it works, it will be a threat to be buried.

        Anyway, I was quite enjoying this article and respecting the author until he wandered off onto fusion.

        Fission works now with real benefits. Fusion is nothing but a time and resource sink and a distraction from implementing things that work.

      • Now explain to the class how nuclear fission was discovered/developed/perfected as an energy source; hint, there was no such thing before WWII. Once the lights go out – and they soon will in Australia – watch the howl for nuclear energy of any description.

      • Jeff Walther says:

        I totally agree that Australia (and the rest of hte world) need nuclear energy right now.

        I just don’t think fusion has any place in the discussion, in the same way that I don’t think magic batteries, magic micro-grid management, or magic macro-grids belong in the discussion.

      • The reason for developing fission processes was the making of plutonium for weapons. Energy from fission heat was a logical extension, not the original reason. Much of the early decision-making was based solely on the development of weapons by the US. I watched it happen since 1956, the glory days of all the fission research.

Leave a 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 )

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: