In years of (futilely) trying to hold rational discussions with Climate Cultists, I’ve noticed two invariable reactions. The first is similar to Herman Wouk’s description, in The Winds of War, of trying to debate Nazis: the affectation of an air of sneering superciliousness, ‘Is that from a peer-reviewed source?’
The other is flat denial.
It’s really quite incredible to point out established facts, only to have a cultist huff and declare, ‘Well, I refuse to believe that.’
One fact in particular they refuse to believe – in fact, to even hear – is the sheer, mind-blowing cost of ‘Net Zero’. Instead, they sincerely parrot the Big Lie that ‘Renewables are the cheapest form of energy’.
It is too difficult for the average voter to fact-check these statements, so they are accepted as truth with a bit of help from the media.
The mainstream media are not just assiduous liars, they’re stupid. If you think that’s a harsh judgement, read anything that passes for ‘science news’ in the mainstream media. Listen, gobsmacked, as a politician claims a 40 per cent increase is ‘40 times more!’, with no correction from the innumerate journalists. Be bemused as the media breathlessly report that laser weapons work ‘at the speed of light’.
Even Scientific American, according to the American Council on Science and Health, has become ‘the headquarters for left-wing social justice warriors and others who felt bashing conservatives was more important than reporting good science’.
Recently, however, the media have begun to add the words ‘and batteries’ when reporting on new renewable energy developments. No fanfare, they just slip it in!
Battery storage units, which are used to maintain supply when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining, are a critical part of the renewable energy industry. They are used to balance the grid and cover the gaps during wind droughts, storms, hail damage, fire, cyclones, or mechanical failure.
Which is, as we’re rapidly finding out as ‘renewables’ spread like a cancer, far too often. Even when they do work, the very nature of wind and solar inherently destabilises grids. So, now the Cult suddenly pull ‘Big Batteries’ out of their hats, and proceed on their merry way, as if the cost (financial and environmental) of such batteries is of no consequence.
But the numbers (and the Cult hate having to deal in actual numbers) are very much of consequence.
There is a concerted effort to encourage investment in ‘The Big Battery’. Within this battery world, there are currently around 30 projects in operation or under construction. These projects will, when completed, provide 5 Gigawatts of clean power for a total of two hours without a recharge.
Sound impressive?
Only if you don’t do the rest of the maths.
Australia’s East Coast peak daily power consumption is currently around 65 Gigawatts.
Yes, 65 Gigawatts, not 5 Gigawatts…
And that’s assuming demand stays the same – which it won’t, if the Cult get their way and suddenly we have to find the electricity to charge 15 million electric cars. The current predictions (almost certainly low-ball) are for power usage to increase to over 160 Gigawatts by 2050.
So, the planned ‘Big Batteries’ will be just 155 Gigawatts short.
But the maths gets worse. Much, much worse.
Consider these facts:
Commercial solar panels are less than 20 per cent efficient on an annual basis. Their usable lifespan is 20 years.
A wind turbine (onshore) is around 30 per cent efficient on an annual basis. Their usable lifespan is 25 years. Wind tolerance of more than 12 km/hour and less than 90 km/hour. Ideal 60 km/hour.
A big battery capable of storing and supplying 700 Megawatts for two hours is currently costs around $1.1 billion to build with a lifespan of 15 years.
A big battery capable of grid supply for a day, or even longer (say 4–5 days) has not been invented yet.
As South Australians, Victorians and Tasmanians, have discovered in recent weeks, just one big storm is more than enough to knock out grids for up to a week.
To compete with a nuclear reactor, over an 80-year period wind and solar would be replaced four times for (solar) and three and a half times for (wind), at the then current day costs.
The batteries would need to be replaced every 15 years, which is over five times in the same period.
Do the maths, as the late, great Carl Sagan exhorted.
Compare a 1,400 Megawatt wind and solar system, and batteries, with a nuclear generator, over 20 years.
Total asset cost for renewables is $232.25 billion.
Total asset cost for nuclear is $2.375 billion.
At this point, your Climate Cultist friend inevitably simply says, ‘Well, I refuse to believe that.’
