Wind & Solar Versus Nuclear.
NetZero, W&S and green zealots are the MAIN reason why we have any energy crisis…..
The recent global disruptions to mid east oil supply would not matter at all if we had invested fully in our own local energy extraction.
And, if we had stopped wasting capital on useless unreliable wind and solar we would have already developed nuclear as an energy grid baseload and natural gas to manage any peak demand responses.
Just because our foolish western government policies focused on NetZero, sidelined nuclear and encouraged capital to flow to wind and solar to take advantage of the free government money and subsidies does not make it the right direction...
Wind & Solar is a huge mistake…..
It’s a lower density energy source and an unreliable solution requiring massive back-up and is reliant on imports via wasteful and unscalable supply chains controlled by foreign actors that will not support national energy security.
Look….. the only reason householders and businesses and some local governments are justifying putting solar on their roofs and wind & solar in green spaces they own is due to both foolish government funded ideological motives, and the fact that the local grid has become expensive due to the stupid installation of wind & solar!!…. it’s a silly self-fulfilling cost escalating death spiral.
If we stopped wasting capital on useless unreliable wind and solar and focused the funds on developing nuclear as a baseload and natural gas as a peak response we would have far lower energy costs.
Then, going forward we could over build advanced nuclear and divert off peak output to produce green hydrogen, and use it for industry, or as backup grid fuel, and this would eliminate any need for fossil fuels for electricity generation.
And you know what, we should not care if wind and solar on paper is getting cheaper, it’s the wrong direction, it’s like buying a cheap product that does not work and ends up as a bad buy.
We need to have a talk about engineering a future industrial capable grid.
Wind & solar may have a place off-grid at end user level as non-integrated supplemental power, or in support of remote location off-grid applications and such, but not for a central energy grid to support an industrialized society.
Wind and solar is mostly detrimental to the stability of an energy grid as it’s a wasteful parasitic technology that due to its intermittent state drags the grid further away from matching capacity to demand and forces additional backup resources that just add waste and cost and complexity.
In some locations with significant uninterrupted sunlight and wind then wind and solar may have a place, but weather does not want to sign up for that amount of stability in most locations.
Yes, purchasing and installing wind and solar can be a more incremental capital investment than say a larger gas or nuclear plant investment, but it does not mean it’s still the best long-term investment for a national level industrial capable grid.
And let’s stop this self-defeating nonsense about the costs and timeline for nuclear, as most of this has been due to unnecessary red tape, and its clear we can streamline nuclear introduction.
If we had put the funds wasted on wind and solar into nuclear development and manufacturing engineering for volume and cost reduced production and commercialization, we would be there by now. It’s the best energy density, and that’s the scientific law our policy and investments need to follow.
What we should have done was stay with existing energy technologies such as coal, gas, oil and existing nuclear until the correct nuclear replacement was ready. We were not entitled to go with such an unreliable source such as wind and solar, and the only reason we did was panic NetZero ideology rather than sound economics.
The good news is that some national governments have stopped listening to the green zealot dreamers and their so-called renewables fantasy and are starting to see that they have been on the wrong track, and that much more review of energy policy is needed.
Wind & Solar versus Nuclear & Gas
Here are the solid facts and real time lessons that point to why in a long-term policy decision wind and solar is NOT going to continue to be adopted as a cost-effective source of energy on an industrial grid compared with Nuclear & Gas.
It’s clear that Nuclear & Gas has far higher Reliability, Capability and Flexibility to match Capacity to Demand.
Reliability….
Not dependent on variable weather and day and night
No need for expensive storage batteries.
Capability…
Much higher energy density…
Takes up much less space.
Much less cost to connect to the grid.
No need for unstable and low inertia DC/AC conversion
Far less supply chain disruption and waste.
Can use local materials in North America avoiding imports from unreliable actors.
Mark Mills: The energy transition delusion inescapable mineral realities
Flexibility…..
Can build a parallel bank of reliable and full load capacity and switch on to the grid as demanded.
When not required on grid can produce green hydrogen from water to provide for the industrial level energy market or support grid transients and backups.
This real cost comparison was conducted for the Australian national grid that does favor wind and solar in some jurisdictions, but overall it’s clear that renewables (wind & solar) have no place on that national grid.
WATCH: Gerard Holland lays out the staggering cost of renewable energy at ARC Australia
The REAL Cost of Wind & Solar….
From research it’s clear after the key factors are better understood that Wind & Solar is more than twice as expensive compared to fossil fuels and Nuclear.
Using the UK as an example…
AR7a Results Expose Government Lies - by David Turver
Many believe that the UK Government ministers, government departments and government agencies like NESO and the Climate Change Committee are lying to their citizens about the true cost of renewables and Net Zero.
They bury all the hidden costs of W&S and add a carbon tax only to gas and also refuse to allow the UK to extract its own gas from the North Sea… so the UK citizens are forced to pay for expensive gas imports. And they have forced W&S products to be imported from China which reduces the ability to maintain national level energy security.
Many argue that if all this waste of funds on W&S had been spent on nuclear it would have been a far better cost of energy story and would have avoided the drastic reduction in UK industry and prosperity.
Many in the UK are asking for a way out of the mess with a new UK government as those in power appear to be either foolish or corrupt or just lack common sense.
Germany switched off all its nuclear plants that has made the recovery from the mess they are in much more difficult.
The result is that both the UK and Germany compete for who has the highest cost of energy in the western world.
It’s clear from these charts taken from presentations listed below that NetZero energy policies that have favored investment in renewables have driven up energy costs and forced deindustrialization in those economies, and we must lean from this huge mistake!
An Inconvenient Truth: Our climate policies cant save the environment. So what will? | Bjorn Lomborg
This Isn’t Science, It’s Ideology - Kathryn Porter
Different National energy strategies
Every nation will have a slightly different situation to face down energy security.
For North America Its NOT wind & solar other than maybe the sunshine states with natural gas and nuclear and hydro where possible being the correct solution across the nation.
For the EU and UK, they need to start to extract their own natural gas and focus on nuclear, and hydro where possible, as the best future options.
The best energy supply roadmap for emerging nations is from wood to coal to gas to nuclear and Hydro as a firm option if available…. They need to avoid wind & solar for on-grid, but it can be deployed for off-grid and optional but non-integrated grid supplements at the end user level.
Some emerging jurisdictions such as China that don’t have much oil, or gas must move to electrification using coal or hydro and eventually nuclear and will employ far more EVs to reduce oil imports and they will domestically use roof top solar where they have a sunshine intensive location. They may also have huge amounts of semi off grid rural areas that can be fed by W&S, but the nuclear capability and coal will drive their industrial economy and this wont change.
Always the rule will be to use the energy sources that provide the most affordable, reliable, available and abundant energy to ensure it will drive economic prosperity.
Energy Cost Disputes……
Dispute on the real costs of different energy sources continues to create confusion and expert debate continues about how to calculate the costs of the various solutions and the correct measurement tools to use such as LCOE and LVOE.
It’s far from clear if the real cost of the unreliability of such an intermittent source as wind and solar has been fully factored into the calculations.
Summary….
Wind & Solar Intermittency adds unnecessary complexity to a grid that has to be managed far more through forecasting, geographic diversity, storage, and flexible generation using unnecessarily duplicated fossil fuel capacity that adds operating costs and the use of this wasteful parasitic technology is proving from experience to be a disaster.
So, its clear many western nations are now having a rethink and heated debate about the direction on energy, and its about time for many, and too late for some that have already destroyed their industrial base and prosperity for no reason.
Further Information…..
An Inconvenient Truth: Our climate policies cant save the environment. So what will? | Bjorn Lomborg
WATCH: Gerard Holland lays out the staggering cost of renewable energy at ARC Australia
AR7a Results Expose Government Lies - by David Turver
This Isn’t Science, It’s Ideology - Kathryn Porter
Mark Mills: The energy transition delusion inescapable mineral realities
Europe’s going bust over Net-Zero (and the rest of the world doesn’t care) | Paul Marshall
Australia’s net zero scheme won’t work
http://www.nigelsouthway.org/storage/01JXSMEHD3DMQZXM1BF2KM7SN3.pdf
Why LVOE May Be a Better Decision-Making Tool Than LCOE for Power Companies
………………………………………………..
Nigel Southway is an independent business consultant and the author of Cycle Time Management: The Fast Track to Time-Based Productivity Improvement, a LEAN thinking textbook. He consults and educates worldwide on Business Productivity Improvement, Advanced Manufacturing Engineering, and Global Sustainability. He is a past chair of the Society of Manufacturing Engineers and the leading advocate for the Take Back Manufacturing Forum, and the North American Reshoring initiative in Canada.
More at www.nigelsouthway.org
Nuclear power will not be an option in Australia for many years and in the meantime we can burn coal to get heat and plant food at the same time. The plants will love it.
The futile attempt to go green wtih wind and solar is the worst public policy blunder ever, based on fear of warming caused by plant food. In fact the warming since the Little Ice Age has been unequivocally beneficial and we are well short of the best time in recorded history, the Roman Warm Period.
Trillions of dollars have been spent to make electricity more expensive and less reliable, with massive damage to the planet.
https://rafechampion.substack.com/p/how-much-would-you-be-prepared-to