Energy Production in Australia: Renewables, Challenges, and Global Comparisons
Energy Production in Australia: Renewables, Challenges, and Global Comparisons
China has quadrupled its CO2 emissions in the last 30 years, and, like India, plans yet more coal-fired power generation
Updated Monday September 11, 2023. at 10:30 am
As global warming concerns grow, the relevance of non-polluting electricity sources and their associated costs continues to increase. Yet, it appears that crucial decisions are often influenced by emotions rather than practical considerations.
As electricity rates soar, the pressing question emerges: will renewable energy lead to reduced bills?
Australia's climate, natural resources, and vast space offer a wealth of options. In addition to the conventional choices of solar power and wind turbines, we can explore geothermal, hydro, and biomass solutions.
In choosing, we need to balance the cost of backup power, the redesign of electricity grid, the different life expectancies of each option, and the downsides of each system. These options have to compare renewables with coal, gas and nuclear electricity generation.
Figures for 2018 show still over 50% of electricity produced in Australia is from coal fired power stations (down from 80%, 20 years ago), 20% from gas, 7% from hydro, 7% from wind, 5% from solar (the highest rate in the world).
Renewable energy in the US accounts for 17% of electricity, in China around 26% (mainly from hydro), all G20 countries, except Australia, have a substantial energy component from nuclear. Worldwide 87% of electricity is still generated by coal, gas and oil. The cost of renewable subsidies in the OECD countries was estimated at $215 billion in 2018.
Geothermal, or “hot rock” technology in this country showed some initial promise but this has faded; others countries, like Iceland, Norway and, to a lesser extent New Zealand, have abundant geothermal heat sources rising to the surface.
Australia has no volcanic sources but has numerous heat-bearing granite rock formations several kilometres underground which could theoretically be tapped. Water is pumped into these structures and recollected at a temperature of around 300C for energy generation; South Australia’s Cooper Basin is an example structure.
Sadly, this simple approach has proved too expensive because of isolation of the sources, limited water availability, the need to establish expensive, lengthy power lines, and electricity leakage over long distances.
Hydro has restricted use in a country with limited rainfall and irregularly running rivers, Tasmania, the most impressive power generator is the Snowy River scheme, finally completed after 25 years in 1974. It has 16 major dams, 9 power stations, 33 turbines, 2 pumping stations and over 200 kilometres of pipeline and tunnels.
Although an epic feat of engineering its financial viability has been questioned and attempts to sell it to private enterprise have failed. Increasingly the destruction of river and habitat has to be balanced against its “Nation building” electricity capacity of over 4,000 MW.
Snowy 2.0 was approved as an additional renewable energy source with exploratory work commencing in 2019 and the construction phase starting in late 2020. At completion, it will add another 2,000 MW of backup generation but, because it will use 30% more electricity (pumping water uphill when there is electricity excess) than it generates, it will produce expensive electricity, as well as significant further habitat destruction. Currently around 90% of the NSW State’s energy comes from coal and gas, with gas providing an increasing proportion.
With its more predictable rainfall and terrain, Tasmania is an ideal source of hydro power and has some 30 dams, supplying 80% of the State, and exporting power to the mainland via an inter-connector. There are around 100 other small generators, mainly in the South East of the continent.
Attempts at building other power generation dams have regularly been obstructed by environmentalists’ concerns, the other significant problem is methane production from stagnant water with its rotting content. Dams are equally important for water security but the same activist complaints mean that, as our population expands, water shortages are increasingly likely.
Dams and fossil fuel power stations have a life expectancy of around 50 years. Other sources of electricity, such as solar and wind turbines have a shorter use, good quality manufacture lasting for around 20 years, cheaper quality lasting only a few years, with a steady annual decline in efficiency.
Installation has also proved problematic, with house fires, resulting from the estimated 4% of unsafe installations, causing an estimated 400 deaths per year, (how many are lost from nuclear events?). Then there is the problem of disposal of panels.
The (subsidised) explosion in solar photovoltaic panel installation has produced an estimated 1.6 million roof top solar systems feeding into the electricity grid. An estimated $2 billion a year was spent annually by State and Federal subsidies over 4 years to 2015, reaching $3 billion by 2019.
With this explosion the cost of solar has declined, from an average of $50,000 for a 6KW home system in 2010, to around $20,000 in 2020. Despite regular commentary about solar being the cheapest electricity, subsidies for panels and now batteries, remain in place; the Victorian Government gives $3,500, the NSW Government up to $14,000.
Often undiscussed in the solar debate are the problems of their reduced efficiency due to lack of maintenance, and degradation of efficiency over time. The use of solar panels for electricity generation in isolated communities has obvious advantages for remote Australia and our neighbouring Pacific Islands.
Many solar panels are now reaching their end, and it is becoming apparent that these supposed renewables result in a significant disposal problem. Unlike the energy source they utilise, they themselves are not so renewable; they contain many toxic substances and recycling is yet to commence, currently they end up as landfill.
The inverters needed to convert the power to the grid have a life expectancy of around 10 years, and also end up in landfill. Apart from the poisonous chemicals used in manufacture, silicon panels contain toxic and environmentally unfriendly items as gallium, arsenide, copper, indium, and cadmium.
The activists, at their worst, also advocate distribution of panels to remote areas of third world countries, such as India. Bill Leak’s cartoon summed up the idiocy of this suggestion.
Despite subsidies, the cost of solar electricity and the electricity network restructure after coal-fired closures (one third were shut down between 2012 and 2017, removed over 5,000MW of generation, out of a total of 50,000MW), this resulted in a huge leap in electricity costs, the average annual bill rising from $900 in 2006 to 1,900 in 2016.
Liddell power station in NSW will close in 2022, removing a further 1,700 MW of generation, with another expected electricity price rise: Yallourn in Victoria will close in 2028 with the loss of a further 1,500 MW.
These closures are expected to be associated with a rise in renewable energy generation, but the problem remains reliability of supply. The closure of Liddel is supposed to be balanced by a 150 MW battery, and Yallourn a 350 MW battery, enough to power the state for 4 hours; apart from cost, unreliability will increase.
The Australian Energy Market Operator now wants to accelerate total closure by a decade; this will require a 9- fold increase in renewable generation, as electricity demand is expected to double by 2040 and again by 2050.
Large scale solar has the problems of the area it takes up, again needing significant habitat destruction; maintenance is also required to clean the panels to keep them at maximum efficiency.
The recent storms in the US have revealed another problem: they don’t work when covered in snow! One expert estimated an area twice the size of Australia would be required for full replacement solar!!
The planners believe that Snowy hydro 2 and a new gas — powered plant of 750 MW at Kurri Kurri, will compensate and push prices down. Bizarrely, it is now becoming necessary to subsidise coal as the backup for the intermittent renewable intermittent supply.
The increased cost of electricity adds onto manufacturing costs and results in jobs lost overseas, to countries using cheap coal electricity generation, with no benefit to world CO2 reduction.
The domestic problem of intermittent electricity generation at night is being addressed subsidised battery storage, in the event of failure, a battery would power the home for 36 hours. There is a limited life expectancy to these batteries, typically 5 to 15 years and, whilst this may be sufficient for those who can afford it, it adds cost to those homes or businesses who currently depend on power stations for their electricity supply.
Wet batteries, used for boats and cars, are mostly recycled, standard batteries in devices (in the US around 3 billion a year) end in landfill, where they eventually rupture and leak cadmium, nickel and aluminium. The new storage batteries, weighing anything between 300 and 600 Kg, also contain cobalt, copper, manganese, steel and plastic; again, despite their cost and limited supply, only around 10% are recycled.
There are similar problems with wind turbines. They take a lot of electricity to manufacture, they require a large area of deforestation to be efficient, a typical large turbine needs 25-50 acres of clear space.
They weigh 1700 tons and, access roads are needed and new transmission lines built, they require maintenance checks 3 times a year - damage caused by wildlife collisions affects performance.
They kill the apex predator bird species, and have sonic effects on the health of those who live nearby. Each turbine has a maximum output of around 3 MW, but typically operate for around half the time, equating to 1.5 MW. One estimate is that an area equivalent to half Tasmania, and 33,300 turbines, would be necessary to provide Australia’s electricity needs.
Wind turbines only work within a limited wind range — not enough and they won’t turn, too much and they shut down. When the “wind don’t blow” electricity costs can double, with reducing coal generation this can now lead to blackouts. They have a life expectancy of 15 to 20 years, and are not recyclable.
The BOM postulates that future global warming will lead to more high- pressure systems, which are associated with less wind, hardly a useful outcome; certainly, the result of less wind in the UK this winter has been to quintuple the wholesale cost of electricity, and double the retail cost.
A standard turbine costs between US$2-3 million, higher still offshore. There are at least 12 projects for offshore wind farms on the Australian South and Southeast coasts; a proposal to build 70 turbines in the Bass Straight, to power a projected hydrogen plant, is already running into problems with conservationists and aboriginal groups.
As has been demonstrated in the recent Northern winter, they don’t generate electricity when their lubrication oil freezes (they require up to 60 gallons of oil), they can also catch fire. They are made of energy intensive concrete (around 1300tons) and steel (around 500 tons), also iron, fiberglass, and rare earths praseodymium, neodymium, and dysprosium.
They cannot be reprocessed, thereafter adding to landfill, along with the renewable solar panels and batteries from solar and electric cars. Another unintended consequence is the pollution from turbines and solar panels and their associated switching gear; sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) is used to make them, and leakage of SF6 has now been shown to have a greenhouse gas potential 23,500 times more than CO2, it also stays in the atmosphere for an estimated 1000 years; levels are rising.
The Australian leader in renewable energy is South Australia, there have even been days when solar and wind have supplied all the State’s electricity needs. But the reality is that, without an inter-state electricity connector to coal-fired supply from other States, the blackouts that occur when the connection goes down would be a regular occurrence. The 60 % reliance on renewables means grid instability ‘til a second interstate connection is installed.
The ideologically motivated giant Tesla battery installation, costing $90 million, can supply 30,000 homes for 8 hours. To install a battery to power the state for 1 and 1/2 days would cost an estimated $6.5 trillion. Similarly, plans to replace the Liddell coal fired generation (due to close in 2023) would require 93 million solar panels, covering 17,000 hectares and costing $20 billion – even without back-up power costs.
The ACT, like California claims to be self-sufficient in renewable electricity production. The reality is 80% of its power comes from East Coast coal and gas power stations; they claim this is balance by carbon credits! That won’t help when these sources are shut down.
Biomass has become perhaps the most misused term in the renewable energy.
In many parts of the world wood, is used for heating and cooking, the resultant pollution within and without the home causing loss of life, estimated worldwide at one million annually.
The burning of wood for electricity generation (as opposed to old wood, coal) has now become an egregious renewable energy source, as trees can theoretically be planted to compensate for those felled. Mature trees do not take up CO2, only absorbing it as they grow, the planting of trees is an ideal way to improve the planet environment whilst absorbing CO2.
This simple relabelling of wood as renewable and carbon neutral, is not just using up leftovers from forestry but is now resulting in massive deforestation. Another example of sleight of hand is the EU’s proposal that nuclear power and gas should now be relabelled as green power.
The UK has its own problems. Wind turbines, both on and off shore are supported by massive subsidies for wind and solar, estimated at 10.8 billion pounds annually in 2020. Subsidy for electric cars was reduced from 3,000 to 2,500 pounds earlier this year, the country will ban the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles in 2030.
Gas heating installation was to be banned in new houses from 2025, this folly was cancelled after a public backlash. A major interconnector to France has failed, meaning limited back-up electricity will be available; the cost of gas has gone up by 50%, shutting some companies, petrol deliveries are running out – perhaps they should pray for a warmer and windier winter.
As was the original intention with biomass, there are options in this country to use sawmill waste as another source of energy generation. The Australian Renewable Energy Agency has a project to convert fast-growing eucalypt trees into woodchip, at the moment on a small scale but with a view to commercial production.
Advertising to fund new projects is already occurring — again big Government subsidies will be required. This approach, inappropriately labelled renewable, will destroy habitat, increase particle pollution and do nothing for CO2 levels – even The Greens Party recognise this as a bureaucratic scam.
Electricity use continues to rise worldwide, in developed countries the advent of electric cars will demand still more power as vehicle prices fall. Despite the fact electric cars currently cost double standard vehicles, there were 6,000 sales of hybrid or fully electric in Australia in 2020, to balance this, running costs may reduce by around $6,000 over 10 years.
Australia has a low uptake compared with others, Scandinavian countries have annual sales of 10% and they now make up 50% of the total, compared with 0.2% here. Some Green states may reduce the significant increase in price, by cutting import duties, this may be offset by the huge increase in cost of lithium needed to make the batteries.
Each car requires an average 30KWH to fully charge. This takes between 7 and 12 hours at home, occurring at night when there is no solar input; with minimal charging facilities outside the home this limits a typical vehicle to a range around 300K.
New, and more expensive, home batteries can be used two ways, to store electricity, and feed it back into the grid or house if needed. Ultimately ultra-rapid charge facilities, capable of refuelling in 30 minutes, will become available at petrol stations, these increase the risk of catching fire; the faster the charge the greater the electricity demand, equating to a standard home’s daily electricity use.
An estimated 30,000 charging stations will be necessary around Australia by 2040, requiring yet more subsidies.
Projections are that 60% of vehicles will be electric by 2050, if we plan to ultimately have 12 million electric vehicles the demand will skyrocket to 45 TWH by 2050 (1 terawatt is a million megawatts). New South Wales is leading the charge with concessional taxation arrangements for fleet vehicles, this will lead to increased road user charges as electric vehicles will not pay petrol tax.
There will be resultant reduction of atmospheric pollution in cities but overall cost and CO2 reduction will be dictated by the method of electricity production, cost will go up and emissions will be minimally affected. Currently most electric cars are powered indirectly by coal, and the concept of zero carbon by 2050 is only achievable if our electricity use goes down!
The Germans push to subsidised renewables, as it shuts down nuclear power, has now resulted in the country taking over the mantle of the world’s most expensive energy from Australia; its electricity is now twice as expensive as neighbouring France.
As with the rest of Europe, it is also now dependent on Russian gas which provides over 40% of its energy, a source increasingly vulnerable to political pressure. Meanwhile the EU is planning to improve its environmental credentials by building new nuclear power stations, and changing their designation (along with gas) to green power.
In summer 2021, the UK had a lengthy period without using coal power generation, failing to mention CO2 emissions resulting from burning gas and biomass, nuclear power, or energy (including its coal origin) imported via the interconnector from Europe.
The renewable supporters fail to mention days where as little as 2% of electricity in UK comes from solar or wind, most of the rest of the generation produces CO2. Doubling, even quadrupling the number of wind turbines, adds nothing when the wind does not blow.
The European Union plans to spend 25% of its budget on climate mitigation. The US under President Biden will spend $500 billion each year for 4 years to cut out fossil fuel use. Current legislation to limit fracking has meant less local oil production and an explosion in the cost of imported oil.
In addition, the developed countries are expected to give $100 billion annually to fund new energy sources in developing countries. China and India have cheap electricity for manufacturing and continue to build more coal and nuclear power stations, currently their 20% renewables come mainly from hydro with solar providing only 2%. Meanwhile they use polluting energy to build the world’s renewable energy.
Subsidy measurement is difficult, activists somehow suggest that tax credits and “negative externals” mean the fossil fuel industry is even more subsidised than renewables. Australia’s total bill for renewable subsidies has crept up to between 30 and $60 billion, and world- wide over $5 trillion.
Many people, such as Swedish commentator Bjorn Lomborg, suggest this money should be better spent on developing new technology such as carbon capture and hydrogen production, and making our homes and agriculture more adaptable to the temperature change. His organisation, the Copenhagen Consensus, estimates the cost of becoming carbon neutral by 2050 at worldwide at least 4% of GDP, and for China at least 7% of GDP.
This compares with the estimated loss of productivity caused by warming resulting in a 2.6% loss of GDP. The Indian power minister realistically described the concept as “pie in the sky”.
Hydrogen fuel is an example of the new technology, it has safely been used as a fuel for buses for many years (not so safely with airships in the 1930’s). Japan has been a leader in research but, after 50 years, is still unable to find a cost- effective solution. It can be produced from methane, coal or gas, but requires energy that results in increased CO2, alternatively it can be produced from water by electrolysis, using renewable energy.
There are plans to use renewables on a grand scale to achieve hydrogen production, requiring solar farms the size of cattle stations. The Federal Government plans to set up seven development hubs in Tasmania, SA, NT, NSW and Queensland.
Currently the cheapest option is using gas or brown coal as a starter; “green hydrogen” from electrolysis powered by renewables, is more expensive but does not produce CO2. Unfortunately, around 30% of energy is lost in this process. When burned, hydrogen combines with oxygen to produce water.
Production methods, CO2 containment and costs need to improve; and there are safety matters, but, as an energy source three times more efficient than oil, it has a potential future for Australia. Advocates suggest a production of 15 million tonnes, supplying 10% of domestic consumption, with an export income of $1.7 billion, by 2030 (this compares with $50 billion for coal). The gas is converted to ammonia (with more energy use on the way in and out) for safer transport.
The Latrobe Valley hydrogen development is advanced, using brown coal for “brown hydrogen” with as yet unproven carbon capture and “offshore storage”, Queensland is also developing similar projects. Exports to Japan have now commenced, “shipping sunshine, as that country struggles to keep up with electricity demand after the knee-jerk closure of its nuclear facilities.
There is also the possibility of drilling for hydrogen, some old oil well records revealed an 80% hydrogen content, what is being labelled “gold” hydrogen.
The next step in the development of solar energy comes with a solar paint which can absorb the sun’s energy, currently 3 different processes have been identified. A team from Melbourne’s RMIT has developed a method using the sun’s energy to convert water vapour to hydrogen.
The University of Toronto has a different system which captures light and turns it into an electric current. A third group at the University of Sheffield has researched a different compound with a similar future. Although years away from commercialisation, the ability to turn any surface into energy collecting has great potential.
Ultimately, the holy grail of energy production is nuclear fusion, a process which can, in theory, release limitless amounts of energy without the radiation associated with nuclear fission. The large experimental ITER reactor is under construction in France, and will start its investigation in 2025.
A recent OECD report compared the cost of electricity per megawatt at $100 for commercial solar, $70 for onshore wind and $50 for nuclear. These cost comparisons are problematic as some leave items like backup power, subsidies, life expectancy and decommissioning cost out of the equation.
As costs have fallen, even with backup generation included, some surveys suggest renewables, although less energy efficient, may now be cheaper than coal — if that is the case how are we still exporting massive amounts of coal and why are renewables still subsidised — to the tune of $3 billion annually?
The end result is distortion of supply by a subsidised solar into a network that at times cannot cope with the load. The Australian Energy Market Commission is proposing it may, at times, become necessary to prevent solar customers sending energy back to the grid, or charge them for doing so, it recently found that renewables provided 130% of demand, a few days later this reduced to 4%.
The market is now so distorted they are proposing to subsidise coal fired generation to ensure stability of electricity supply. We have a choice between affordable, reliable and renewable electricity; current technology means we will be lucky to have any of these three. The base cost of electricity halved between 1955 and 1995, it is back to that original level again.
Apart from the cost, should we attempt to provide all our power by solar, an estimated 34 million square kilometres of land would be needed – bigger than the whole country. Should we endeavour to use wind, an area of 126,000 square kilometres would be needed, twice the size of Tasmania.
A single 100MW producing gas generator can supply 75,000 homes, the equivalent would require 20 wind turbines and an area of habitat destruction of 10 square miles. The gas generator, the size of an average house would require 300 tons of iron and 2000 tons of concrete; the wind farm would require 30,000 tons of iron, 50,000 tons of concrete, 900 tons of plastics and 1,000 tons of minerals such as copper, zinc, chromium, cobalt — all needing energy to mine and process.
The alternative of solar panels, would require even greater use of materials and land area. Both alternatives, of course, are not recyclable and would need 10,000 tons of batteries as backup, also non-recyclable. Should these be the only options considered, estimates are that the amount of minerals needed would be greater than the world’s known reserves.
According to the Greens, Australia is the pariah of the world because of its poor climate change commitments, the reality is somewhat different. Australia cut its per capita emissions by 29% between 2005 and 2018, this compares with the US 19%, New Zealand and Germany 16%, Canada 15%, Japan 7%, and a global average of 3%. We are spending massive amounts to achieve minimal outcomes in CO2 reduction. The latest figures from Canada show fossil fuels made up 80.2% of world energy production in 2019, compared with 80.3% in 2019 despite trillions of dollars spent.
The 11% worldwide contributed by renewables consisted of biomass 4.2%, hydro 3.6%, with wind and solar contributing around 2.5%. The International Energy Agency continues to demand more investment in renewables, this year $1.1 trillion US, then an annual $3.4 trillion US ‘til 2030. In addition, it demands that large sums are paid into a fund for third world countries. This is unachievable wishful thinking.
The realistic figures are that overall, there will be an increase in CO2 levels, rising by at least 16% between 2010 and 2030 as China and India (who are exempt) build more coal-fired power stations.
In the unlikely event all signatories to the Paris Accord were to fulfil their 2030 commitments, something most have so far failed to do, the predicted temperature change would be 0.05C by 2100.
In the unlikely event that IPCC projections prove correct, economic consequences of warmer temperatures have been estimated between pessimistic projections of 0.3% decline in world GDP and optimistic 2.3% benefit by 2050. The projected temperature rise by early next century are predicted to have negative effects of between 3 and 4% of GDP, but this is nothing compared with the enormous cost, estimated at between 12 and 25% of GDP, of attempted mitigation.
The prospects of any change in coal use following the COP26 meeting, were predictably diminished by the non-appearance of two of the main emitters, Russia, and China, India also failed to follow the script. To save face the meeting concentrated on methane production and farting domestic animals.
There are two basic questions: firstly is the level of CO 2 important and secondly, if so, what is to be done? With only the US of the major emitters (at 14%) attempting to reduce CO2, increasing output from China (doubled in the last 20 years to 30%), India (7%) and Russia (5%), means the rest of the world’s attempts are meaningless; certainly, Australia’s small and slowly falling contribution (down 38% from 2005, and 1.3% of the world total) is meaningless. Enormous expense and job transfer are the only certain outcomes.
The major thrust of this latest meeting has been to close coal fired power-generation. A tall order, as numerous third world countries are increasingly building them. As developed world countries, with a population of 1.3 billion people, reduce their CO2 output, developing countries, with a population of 6.5 billion increase their output; China has quadrupled its CO2 emissions in the last 30 years, and, like India, plans yet more coal-fired power generation.
The anticipated 50% increase in energy demand by 2050 will be met primarily by nuclear, gas, coal and oil which will continue to provide around 80%. The plans for CO2 reduction by developed countries will achieve no CO2 reductions, but will ruin economies.
With little progress on CO2 generation, activity has now switched to a methane gas and its sources; ignoring the vast natural production from rotting vegetation, volcanoes, agriculture and wild animals, attention has focussed on domesticated livestock, with greens and animal rights activism coming together to demand an end to meat farming.
Figures quoted (of dubious authenticity) suggest Australia’s agriculture accounts for 11% of its total greenhouse gas emissions, with 70% coming from livestock. Having excluded New Zealand’s sheep and cattle (which account for nearly 40% of its emissions) from the country’s plan, Greens darling, Jacinta Ardern, failed to show at COP26. World -wide estimates for methane production include rice cultivation 10%, waste water 9%, landfills 11%, coal mining 5%, manure 4%, oil and gas 20%, gut fermentation (sheep and cattle) 29%, other sources 7%.
The clock has now ticked down on what has been another climate change dismal failure; there has been no agreement on lowering emissions and the developing countries still don’t get the cash they want.
The IPCC’s solution is to have a further talkfest in 2022 at COP 27 in Egypt. This organisation has, like the UN, WHO and other world bodies, become an expensive, self-serving bureaucracy which has little to show to justify its existence.