A response to Keith De Lacey’s article in the Australian last week.
The Australian recently published an opinion piece by the Director of an oil shale company and former Chairman of Macarthur Coal, entitled, “Solar And Wind Power Simply Don’t Work – Not Here, Not Anywhere“.
This was surprising because the solar panels above my head are producing electricity right now. And since I know exactly how much I paid for them I know they are definitely economically worthwhile. Also, because I know exactly how much the STCs I received as part of Australia’s Renewable Energy Target were worth I know the rooftop solar system would still pay for itself even without subsidy.
The 26% or so of Australians who have installed rooftop solar might also have been surprised to learn their systems don’t work. But don’t worry, it is the author of the piece, Keith De Lacy, who is confused, not you. A properly sized rooftop solar system is still the cheapest source of electricity available to most Australians, and this can still be the case even without subsidy.
De Lacy is convinced it is impossible to meet Labor’s target of 50% renewable electricity by 2040 as he wrote,
“On the basis of evidence everywhere we could easily double the price of electricity and get nowhere near the 50 per cent target.”
I find that to be quite a bizarre statement which makes me think he should get his eyes checked because he appears to have a massive blind spot preventing him from seeing that South Australia already meets 40% of its electricity consumption from rooftop solar and wind power. An achievement that demonstrates Australia can meet a 50% renewable electricity target quickly and cheaply.
Queensland Treasurer, Coal Chairman, Oil Shale Director
One fact the article got right is Keith De Lacy was once Labor Treasurer of Queensland. Twenty years ago. But for some reason it doesn’t mention his possibly more relevant current employment as Director of Queensland Energy Resources, which is a shale oil company. That is, a fossil fuel company that wants to extract oil from rocks. They also neglected to mention he used to be Chairman of Macarthur Coal. A piece of background information I think would have been useful to know.
De Lacy’s 1% Figure For Solar And Wind Is Too Small
One reason Keith De Lacy is not impressed with new renewable energy is because he says wind and solar provide less than 1% of Australia’s primary energy use, which includes all energy use including heating and transportation. But the Australian Government does not agree with him on this.
The Department of Industry and Science reported that in the 2014-2015 financial year Australia obtained 1.16% of its primary energy from wind and solar and this amount has only increased since then.
It is possible to get the figure for 2014-2015 below 1% by leaving out solar hot water, but it would be plain wrong to leave out a source of solar thermal energy when comparing wind and solar to Australia’s primary energy use because primary energy use consists almost entirely of thermal energy and not the more valuable electrical energy that wind turbines and solar PV generates.
Markets Determine How Much Electricity Is Worth, Not De Lacy’s Opinion
De Lacy says solar and wind provide low value power. But we have a method of determining the value of electricity in Australia that disagrees with him on that. The method is called an electricity market. One would think a former Treasurer of Queensland would know this. According to Australian electricity markets power from wind or solar within a pay period is worth exactly as much as electricity from any other source.
De Lacy may not approve of using markets to determine the price of electricity. Maybe he has a better method in mind. But he had his chance to turn Australia into a communist utopia back when he was in politics, so it’s a bit late to try to change how electricity is valued now.
Oil Shale Provides 0.00012% As Much Primary Energy As Solar And Wind
De Lacy did get the percentage of Australia’s electricity that solar and wind generate correct. For the financial year before this one. He says we could shut down that 6.1% of generation and,
“…it would make no difference to supply.”
Personally, I do think it would make a difference. But do you know what we could shut down right now and it would make absolutely no difference what so ever? Oil shale. It only provides around 0.0000014% of Australia’s primary energy use. So clearly De Lacy must think it is completely useless.
After all, oil shale exploitation in Australia began all the way back in 1865 and it still doesn’t even provide anywhere near 1% of our primary energy. The government subsidized shale oil production for 35 years but after all that time it still wasn’t able to support itself and when subsidies were removed shale oil production stopped after 1952 for decades before a tiny amount of extraction started up again.
If De Lacy thinks solar and wind power are useless because they have gone from providing a small fraction of 1% of our electricity 10 years ago to over 6.1% today, then logically he must believe the prospects of oil shale are completely hopeless because after 150 years it still supplies an insignificant amount of Australia’s energy. In order to remain logically consistent I expect him to immediately announce that Queensland Energy Resources have been completely wasting their time and will immediately cease all oil shale production.
But of course I don’t expect him to make this announcement over the internet because not that long ago less than 1% of people had the internet, so obviously nothing ever came of that. The same goes for mobile phones, television, radio, landline phones, and literacy. Clearly none of them could ever have amounted to anything since they all provided less than 1% of our primary communication at some point. I expect him to make the announcement through grunting and possibly interpretive dance.
South Australia’s Electricity Is 40% Rooftop Solar And Wind
De Lacy wrote,
“On the basis of evidence everywhere we could easily double the price of electricity and get nowhere near the 50 per cent target.”
And I honestly don’t know what the hell he is talking about. It is not that De Lacy and I have a difference of opinion on this matter, we have a difference of reality. I have three words to say to him – South bloody Australia.
Around 40% of South Australia’s electricity consumption comes from wind and rooftop solar and the new renewable energy capacity did not cause electricity prices to double. While grid electricity prices have greatly increased in Australia this decade, they have gone up in all states regardless of their amount of wind and solar capacity. And because wind and solar have no fuel cost and always produce electricity when the sun is up or the wind is blowing they have lowered South Australia’s wholesale electricity prices below what they would otherwise be.
South Australia Shows 50% Renewable Electricity Is Easily Achievable
It took South Australia 10 years to go from next to no renewable energy to obtaining 40% of its electricity from rooftop solar and wind power. This process put downward pressure on wholesale electricity prices and required no increase in the need for spinning reserve to keep the grid stable.
The cost of renewable energy is now much cheaper than when South Australia started expanding its capacity, so we know it is quite possible for the nation to quickly and cheaply reach 50% renewable electricity within the next 13 years.
As the other states already get an average of around 15% of their electricity from renewable resources, if they expand their renewable capacity at the same rate South Australia did 10 years ago the 50% renewable target could be reached in around 7 years.
Australia has “Zero Tolerance” For Hydro And Nuclear Power?
De Lacy says Australia can reduce fossil fuel use in electricity generation with hydroelectricity and nuclear power. But he says we are not doing that because we are intolerant of these two forms of power.
That is a very odd thing to say about a country that has utilized almost every economically viable hydroelectric source it has. I suppose it would always be possible to squeeze 180 megawatts out of the Franklin River, but I really doubt it would be worthwhile given today’s low cost of rooftop solar and wind power.
De Lacy Thinks Australia Can Build Massive New Hydroelectric Capacity
Ever since the Renewable Energy Target was introduced back in 2001 under Liberal Prime Minister John Howard, new hydroelectricity has had exactly the same incentive to be built as wind power. Small scale hydro has been constructed as a result, but nothing large because there are no good sites available.
As examples of nations with plenty of hydroelectricity, De Lacy gives Canada with 60% and Switzerland with 54%. Can you spot the differences between those two countries and Australia? I’ll give you a couple of hints. Imagine dry. Double it. Imagine flat. Now double that. Combine the two and you get Australia, the driest, flattest continent there is. The only reason we have as much hydroelectricity per capita as we do is because we have a lot of space and we don’t have many capitas.
So I wonder if De Lacy thinks that if Australians had more tolerance towards hydroelectricity it would cause rainfall to increase and mountains with good hydroelectric sites to rise up from the continent’s ancient bedrock? Because that’s not what tolerance does.
De Lacy Says Nuclear Is A Workable Alternative For Australia
De Lacy also says we don’t have nuclear power because we are intolerant of it. But I think the reason we don’t have nuclear power is because Australians are capable of telling if one number is bigger than another number.
We were going to have nuclear power in Australia. Back in 1969 the government decided the country should have a nuclear power station. Work was even started and you can still see the hole they dug at Jervis Bay on Google maps. But in 1971 they performed a cost analysis, looked at the result and said, “No thanks”. Things have not gotten better for the cost of nuclear power since then.
Let’s look at my motherland, the UK. If the Hinkley C nuclear power plant goes ahead the electricity produced will cost around 18 Australian cents per kilowatt-hour. And that is not the retail cost of electricity, that is the wholesale cost. As a comparison, wholesale electricity prices in Australia average around 4 cents a kilowatt-hour.
Unfortunately, the high cost of new nuclear power in Britain is not an exception. It has also turned out to be very expensive in other countries including the USA, Finland, and France – all countries with existing nuclear power industries that wouldn’t be starting from scratch as Australia would.
Nuclear power can supply safe, low emission energy, I know this intimately because my first job was a Control Engineer at Heysham 1 Nuclear Power Station. But there is no point in building nuclear where renewable energy can do the same at a much lower cost.
Future reactor designs may be so cheap that all they’ll require to light up your world is a bottle of cheap wine and a packet of crisps, so I’m all for Nuclear R&D. Just be sure to let me know when the first one is in operation and beating renewable energy on price. But be sure to tell me right away because I don’t think this old body of mine is going to last for much longer than a couple hundred more years.
De Lacy Needs To Check His Facts
Anyone can look up how much a rooftop solar system costs, how much subsidy it receives from the Renewable Energy Target, and then work out if unsubsidized solar can pay for itself. But he did not appear to do this despite living in a state where over 30% of households have rooftop solar. He doesn’t even seem to be aware that an entire Australian state gets around 40% of its electricity from rooftop solar and wind power, which is something he claims simply doesn’t work.
I find it hard to understand how the Director of an oil shale company could get so much wrong about renewable energy. I mean everyone makes mistakes. But for Christ’s sake, not this many.
About Finn Peacock
RSS - Posts
You’re surprised that “…the Director of an oil shale company could get so much wrong about renewable energy….” ?!
There’s NO FRACKING WAy these shale miners* could acknowledge the benefits of clean renewable energy while they’re threatening Australia’s clean water reserves.
* We held stocks in a mining company a decade or so ago. When they started talking shale, we objected. Eventually they became _uranium stocks!_ We sold the day we realised things had gone from very bad to even worse… .
Keith de Lacy is yesterday’s man, trying to be relevant and profitable in today’s world. He was always a right wing element within the Labour party and he will never change. Like a lot of recent ex ALP politicians, they find another life in the ‘private’ sector and completely change their views or finally express their real ones.
Couldn’t have put it better, rj.
Gold Mr Finn Peacock, simply Gold!
Keith De Lacy’s opinions, as demonstrated in this article as based on fallacies, aren’t surprising given his current and previous positions. All it shows is that his opinions are able to be purchased.
What’s truly frightening is that he’s been given a platform to spruik for his own profits by a newspaper. Is the “article” labelled as advertising? Did QER pay for the privilege?
It’s in the Opinion section. I fear that ‘opinion’ is synonymous with ‘advertisement’.
It should be made law that scientific articles, newspaper articles or any other form of written piece needs to display the author’s background so readers can make up their own mind whether there is a conflict of interest. Claptrap like this from mr de lacy does not help the ignorance of the general population.
To say that South Australias power is ~40% rooftop solar and wind. No doubt true – after all SA has sun and wind above the average capacity related factor of ~ 30%. SA I believe also has radioactive decay geothermal ( nuclear in otherwords ) resources to be envious of. However SA has only perhaps 8% of Australias population etc. So what about the rest? It is a simple fact that it is not possible to rely on solar or wind, because it is dependent on those resources. Something like ~30% is the world average capacity factor. Yes, you can get to something like 24/7 with storage schemes, but then you throw cost and any pretense at low lifecycle carbon footprint under the bus. A responsible national solution requires an intelligent combination of solar/wind/geothermal/nuclear functioning in combination to deliver low carbon footprint but strategic baseload assured power.
Bob, you won’t get 30% capacity factor from rooftop solar. Getting 20% or more is possible. But all of Australia is a good location for rooftop solar. Brisbane, Perth, Darwin, and Canberra all receive around the same or more sunshine than Adelaide. An otherwise identical rooftop solar system will generate about 92% as much electricity in Sydney as in Adelaide and around 91% as much in Melbourne. And there is no shortage of excellent onshore wind resources throughout Australia either. So there is no reason why the rest of Australia cannot do what South Australia has done. And it will be easier because the cost of renewables has fallen and most other states have hydroelectricity while South Australia has almost none.
All Australia needs to do to reach the 50% renewable electricity target is expand solar and wind capacity. This does not mean other forms of renewable generation could not also be used, but solar and wind are sufficient.
The way to get to 50% renewable electricity nationally, at low cost, is clear. The best way to get to completely greenhouse gas emissions free electricity generation is not so clear at the moment, but I am sure we will have a pretty good idea by the time we reach 50% renewable electricity.
Well, the planet certainly needs more no-go zones… sacred areas so irradiated that humankind cannot venture into these regions for tens of thousands of years… .
Nuclear is the answer? What the fukushima is the question?
I think we can all agree the current climate situation is serious, and progressing more rapidly, in terms of human impact, than probably was imagined. There is therefor not that much time for a response. If we hit thermal runaway, massive methane releases and so on, the world might end up looking like something out of a mad max movie. So, to nuclear. All technologies advance, as has nuclear. Subcritical reactors are possible – so catastrophic failure is just not possible. Similarly, small modular reactors which are thermal reactivity self moderating – ie – runaway impossible, have also been innovated. In terms of current harm, nuclear has done an insignificant amount compared to our use of fossil fuels – whose impact is clearly global and catastrophic. As for Solar PV/Solar thermal, its lifecycle carbon footprint is perhaps 300% that of nuclear ( IPCC figures – I tend to believe them ), and as pointed out carbon footprint is the issue. As for wind/solar, all good and well, but society/industry/healthcare requires 24/7 power to continue to function. That means if you are only restricting yourself to a wind/solar solution you have to implement storage. Much has been said about batteries. Li ion batteries are used in your typical vehicle – the pollution/carbon footprint of the production of the materials for these things is to be seen across China. In fact so severe, the Chinese government, not known for being green, has been forced to impose restrictions. So a serious problem requires a sober reflection in regards a solution, and how to implement it with minimum harm. Nuclear is at this time perhaps the only compact low carbon power source that can sensibly meet the outstanding requirement.
Bob: “…the world might end up looking like something out of a mad max movie. So, to nuclear.”
You may have missed the very point the second Mad Max movie made, Bob.
Given the shift of tectonic plates, a certainty… and the history of (known) nuclear disasters… and the persistence of nuclear filth, even sureties of billions of dollars put up by power companies gambling with our children’s futures wouldn’t be enough, Bob.
No Lessor, I did not miss the point – it was a metaphor for what is currently happening courtesy of a non nuclear driver, namely the carbon cycle. I have been around some time ( not necessarily a good thing ), and have lived in Africa and the Americas. I like to walk on the beach. What I have noted is the starkly obvious decline to vanishing of natural beach life – all those little mulluscs and that sort of thing. Compared to my youth, one is already almost looking at an extinction event. And that obviously is the tip of the iceberg. Whole communities in Africa have been laid waste by drought. This is global, on a scale that renders anything nuclear insignificant, and is nothing to do with nuclear. So to conflate nuclear with this process is to do a disservice to the objective of progress in dealing with the substantial immediate threat. Anyone who is not prepared to consider a low carbon ( a collective of means such as solar/wind/nuclear/hydro ) solution to the problem, because they do not like one aspect of it, is indeed gambling with our children’s future. The facts are: solar and wind, and perhaps a few other means might get you to 50% capacity factor in Australia, but probably no further. Achievable capacity factors in other parts of the world may well be even less favourable. Without a viable low carbon 24/7 solution to pick up the rest the pressures of industry/society will ensure that good old fossil fuels endure on to our great dismay. No matter how good your intentions, one will be stuck with the ongoing problem, and a progression of the climatic disaster which will threaten your children. As for nuclear filth, just remember it is these days in many ways part of everyday life in the form, amongst other things, of the numerous related medical procedures/imaging which save so much life.
Bob, it is very clear that building nuclear reactors is not currently Australia’s lowest cost option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Our cheapest options are currently (1) Improved efficiency, (2) Rooftop solar, and (3) wind power. This is not to say there aren’t other measures that could also be very worthwhile, but those are the big three.
If building nuclear reactors ever does become our cheapest option, or even in the top three, we can consider building them then.
Basically, that is what I am getting at. All viable options which can contribute to an effective solution supportive of society/industry need to be on the table. Implementation of this or that, depending on questions of cost benefit to an overall effective solution, is rational. Rightly or wrongly, I believe climate change is this centuries existential threat, almost overwhelming all other considerations. We either succeed or we fail. That depends on how we approach it.
As a RTW traveller, I suspect you’ve seen no more evidence of climate change than I have. I’m also aware that there are many places you haven’t lived… or travelled… because nuclear accidents have occurred, making vast areas of the planet uninhabitable…. now… and possibly until the very limit of humankind’s existence here.
Like you, I’ve owned shares in uranium stocks. In my case, unknowingly, when Julia Mining first went shale, then even worse, into DYL. It’s our view that proponents of the nuclear (non)option often own these penny-dreadfuls, or work in the industry, or hope to… . Residents of areas now nuclear wastelands were no doubt advised by scientists they had nothing to worry about… this latest technology was safe… .
It’s laughable for us, observing this new trend… that nuclear power will save us all from the effects of climate change(!) Those affected by nuclear accidents aren’t laughing. The earth, seas and air on which they depended are poisoned for millennia…
Pitch your nuclear snake-oil somewhere else, son.
Sad to say, I have no nuclear stocks – so you commence with a false premise and therefore totally incorrectly assign an intent to my interest in this. As for your identification of vast areas of the planet as being uninhabitable courtesy of nuclear accidents – I suggest you take a pencil, and see if you can even designate them on your standard world globe. However, take a pencil and draw in areas which have essentially been under crippling drought for a decade or more – it is easy to draw in. One area is the nation of Syria, said drought playing no small role in the instability that arose. As for the seas, global acidification has nothing to do with nuclear – it is CO2. Nuclear pollution of seas is minimal compared to junk/fertilizer and effluent. So carbon cycle, followed by related human impact, and very lastly nuclear as a complete outlier. I suspect you have shares in solar, wind or something like that, perhaps even a solar business – as that explains your narrow religious like zeal. Your dogmatic approach will merely perpetuate the problem, and not contribute to a solution which actually presents with near 100% acceptance, and would thus serve to arrest the problem we all face. It is notable that I have not anywhere reject solar/wind etc renewables, I in fact embrace them. I do however not choose to blind myself to reality when considering a solution.
Ronald: “If building nuclear reactors ever does become our cheapest option…”
Our cheapest option? (How) do we factor in the ma$$ive, ongoing cost of a nuclear clean-up?
Open the door to this persistent poisonous slime and it will make frack us forever. It makes CSG look _pretty_ in comparison.
Well, in an episode of Mork and Mindy, Mork from Ork said on his planet they use Nuke-Away.
Yes… . It’s also been claimed that the US rids itself of nuclear waste as a component of hotdogs… .
The fact is that, as yet, there’s no safe way to dispose of this persistent, poisonous filth.
Over forty years ago, my wife and I lived ‘out in the middle’… that ‘safe’ zone which nuke proponents deem ideal for their contamination. This community had suffered a cholera epidemic because human waste was ‘safely’ dumped in gnamma holes thirty kilometres or so from where drinking water was tapped.
Unlike cholera, illnesses associated with nuclear waste don’t come in fits-and-starts. Even AO and its dreadful toll in Vietnam pales to total insignificance compared to the nuclear filth some consider might be ‘$afely $tored’ in remote locations… for the temporary benefit of bank$ter $cientists chasing a quick two bobs worth of filthy lucre… .
Bob: ” I suspect you have shares in solar, wind or something like that, perhaps even a solar business – as that explains your narrow religious like zeal.”
Your suspicions are suspect… although I don’t object anyone promoting or selling solar as the most feasible clean option for Australia. Nor do I have a financial interest in wind power, hydro or tidal power, all of which we’ve seen successfully operating overseas.
But we _have_ equipped nearly all our rentals with solar electricity panels (as well as other clean energy initiatives.) We are successful lessors because our tenants all recognise not only the environmental benefits, but also the financial windfall. Most pay zero for energy. Some receive regular cheques-in-the-mail.
Some actually _buy_ our homes, as tenancies mature.
Despite your fanaticism for the nuclear (non)option, you haven’t yet explained how you will dispose of either the persistent filth reactors create daily, or the enormous, ongoing filth _including marine pollution_ when they fail.
I now look forward to reading your suggestions, given the earth’s perpetually shifting tectonic plates, Bob.
Nuclear waste in hot dogs? That is kind of pushing the envelope. I will certainly agree that one does not want to know what is in them ‘meat’ wise – but waste, no. My comment in regards your shares/business etc in solar or wind was merely a window of your notion that I may have shares, or any other interest in nuclear – which I do not. Good to hear you also do not and therefor speak from conviction. Fanaticism for nuclear? Incorrect. I have a fanaticism for a viable low carbon solution, no doubt comprised of a number of component technologies, that will indeed be societally and industry wise acceptable – and therefor subject to broad uptake internationally, hopefully arresting the problem before it spins out of control. “You haven’t yet explained how you will dispose of either the persistent filth reactors create daily, or the enormous, ongoing filth _including marine pollution_ when they fail.” Well, first off I believe I placed that possibility in the context of the current carbon cycle scale of damage. I think I also mentioned e for example PV/Solar thermal are not without pollution/carbon footprint themselves – I would refer you to the IPCC study on lifecycle carbon footprints of various energy sources. In regards mitigation of risk, I believe I mentioned subcritical reactors which cannot runaway, and SMR types which are thermal reactivity self moderating. That would eliminate meltdown or any type of related risk. As for dealing with waste, there are the actinide series ( fast neutron fission ) waste burners, which reduce radiotoxic lifetime of waste from a geological age ( 1000s of years ) to that of several hundred years – while extracting more energy from them. Essentially we would usefully utilize existing waste while massively reducing the storage required. Finally, there is a technology concept for an induction-rail hybrid accelerator ( capable of accelerating macroscopic objects to earth escape velocity of ~ 24km/s. One such device, with utilizing a third of the output of an existing powerstation, would be able to eject the entire US current waste storage into sun impacting orbits within ~ two years. It has been my experience that the road to failure is paved with restricted views of what a solution should look like, whereas the road to success has been paved by a coldly rational, and thus inclusive of any and all possible solutions, solution orientated evaluation. That is from my perspective, realism versus often what borders on faith. As I have said, I believe a sensible saleable approach is the only way to get this done world wide – and saleable means for sure meeting the needs of the broader society/economy.
Bob: “…the road to failure is paved with restricted views of what a solution should look like, whereas the road to success has been paved by a coldly rational…”
Coldly rational? Well, that certainly explains Chernobyl and Fukushima (and possibly the Third Reich).
You know, I almost hoped you might suggest firing nuclear waste at the sun. It’s the kind of ‘that-can’t-go-wrong’ madcap proposal that might actually make the earth inhabitable in record time.
Nuclear power societally acceptable, Bob? I really doubt your fellow voters will back you on this. Your backyard first… .
Aahh, the perpetual response of the intellectually barren. Weak ridicule, ridiculous conflation of the third reich and so on, as a deflection from a base inability to conduct a debate centered on something serious and with technological solutions more complex than the rubbing of two sticks together to make fire. Your zealot like narrow approach centered on say solar/wind etc, which cannot provide 24/7 power at 100% of the requirement I am afraid will not be accepted by the world. It will remain however an important part of the solution. It is worth reflecting on the latest Tesla powerwalls specs, which more realistically lay out the inherent performance parameters of Li-Ion battery technology – you could also look elsewhere for just how polluting their production is. All of which should lead you to wonder if that is a sensible route to 24/7. I suppose you could consider zinc bromine batteries. Well if you do not like nuclear, I sure as anything would not want that horribly toxic chemical anywhere near me. Maybe you do, or maybe you simply do not require 24/7 power. In the latter case, good for you – but the rest of the world does.
Ahhh, the self-righteous indignation of a verbose buffoon who believes the filthiest solution is the best.
Go preach to the citizens of Chernobyl and Fukushima, Bob.
Lessor, you can’t argue that what happened in the past predicts what will happen in the future. Resorting to personal abuse only reveals your inability to conduct an argument based on evidence.
Setting aside the nuclear bombardment of Japan, a surprisingly small number of people were killed or injured by reactor accidents. Do some research into the newer self-limiting reactors before embarking on an ignorance-driven rant.
Nuclear-generated power would be my last choice. But being able to ramp up renewable energy provides a breathing space to make the new reactors even safer. A lot of science can occur over 20th years or so.
tH: “Nuclear-generated power would be my last choice.”
Mine too.
Let’s put everything else into place before we even consider what we both agree should be the _last_ choice.