skip to Main Content

Casualties on the road to Net Zero Emissions


20.1 When the Wind Fails and the Grid Dies.
20.2 Icebergs in the Path of the Net Zero Titanic
20.3 The Island Effect
20.4 A Warning to all Leaders.
20.5 Californian Blackouts
20.6 The AEMO Plan
21.1 The CSIRO Gencost study
21.2 Environment Impact
21.3  Australia is a Carbon Sink
21.4 Firming Wind Farms with Batteries
21.5 Firming Wind Farms with Pumped Hydro
21.6 Instability of the Wind Supply
21.7 Intermittent solar and wind power can DISPLACE coal but cannot REPLACE it
21.8 The real cost of RE with firming – over $400 per MWhour
21.9 Green Hydrogen Fantasies
21.10 The Massive Cost of Firming Solar Farms with Gas Turbines & Batteries
21.11 The Downside of Electric Vehicles
21.12 “Big” Batteries are not really Big at all
21.13 Indoctrination in School Science Courses
21.14 How is Net Zero really going Overseas?
21.15 No Green Energy Transition with Existing Technology!
21.16 The Collapse of Green Energy in Europe
21.17 Fake Climate Alarms
21.18 The Cost of Green Hydrogen




These items were originally written as briefing notes to politicians, with the format used in the NSW Department of Health to provide concise advice to the Minister. There is a short facing page that signals the purpose of the communication, the background, the critical issues and the recommendation. The briefing note proper follows, with a maximum length of three pages to convey essential supporting information to justify the recommendation. This could be as simple as “Note the information” or as significant as “Start planning a new hospital”. More supporting papers could be attached in the rare event that a major input of detailed information was required.

The first note 20.1 was sent in March 2020  and 21.1 is the first note in 2021.


Why Wind Power Won’t Work

 The road to net zero is a road to ruin of the environment, family budgets & the economy. Butchered wildlife, blackouts and bankruptcy.

All is not lost, the champions of energy realism are on the job

We are not from the government but we are here to help. We have people with lifelong experience in the power industry and related disciplines to offer informed advice to politicians as an alternative to the instructions that they take from green bureaucrats, industry lobbies and the wreckers of radical environmentalism.

In Australia we are uniquely situated to demonstrate the futility of the rush to unreliable energy. We are leading the world in the rate of growth of our solar and wind facilities but we have crippling disadvantages in the race to net zero emissions..

We have system planners committed to decarbonization regardless of other considerations.

We have no nuclear power and there is strong resistance to it in the Labor Party and the Greens.

We are an island nation so we cannot run extension cords to neighbours. We cannot offload excess power some of the time and obtain extra power at other times when we are short.

We have serious and prolonged wind droughts, but they are invisible to the planners who work on the average delivery from intermittent systems.

South Australia is the jewel in the crown of the Renewable Energy movement (RE). They set a new standard in virtue signalling by blowing up their last significant coal power station to show the world that they are serious. They are looking forward to generating more than 100% of their local demand from wind and solar power and to becoming a powerhouse in the hydrogen revolution.

South Australia is the wind leader, “the RE powerhouse of Australia.”  And the result? Practically every morning and evening they import power from Victoria where there is still enough coal power to provide over 60% of their requirements. Hot breakfasts in the wind-leading state depend on spare conventional power in Victoria and considerable local capacity from gas.

 A fire in a South Australian gas-fired power plant on the evening of Friday 12th of March 2021 provided a glimpse of the future for Australia without reliable conventional power.

 The Heywood interconnector, which links South Australia to Victoria, had only half of its supply available due to a planned week-long outage, while the combined contribution from wind and large-scale solar fell as low as 2 per cent of the state’s installed capacity.

 Several emergency generators were called into action and a hugely volatile period of pricing ensued over the following six hours to midnight, with 28 pricing dispatch intervals exceeding $10,000/MWh, according to data from consultancy GlobalRoam. The Australian, 15/03/2021

South Australia is bailed out by power from Victoria practically every day but the threat of early closure of the brown coal power plant at  Yallourn has advance the day of reckoning by some years. No doubt that is why South Australia is desperate for an interconnector to NSW to provide access to Queensland coal power. NSW is of little help because most of the time they have to import from Victoria and Queensland.

The Mission of the Energy Realists

Our mission is to explain why the rush to zero emissions in Australia cannot work with existing storage technology.

It really comes down to the reliability of wind power because the sun is off duty more than 12 hours out of 24. In the evening the power supply depends on the intermittent wind and the dwindling supply of conventional power as the coal plants reach the end of their working lives and are phased out.

At present South Eastern Australia has enough conventional power, overwhelmingly from coal, to meet demand almost all the time. But the situation has been precarious since Hazelwood power station closed in 2017. That was the latest  in a series of closures that progressively reduced our coal-fired power capacity by 25%. The situation will become critical when Liddell, a coal fired power station in New South Wales closes early in 2023. Then, for the first time the unreliable twins of wind and solar power will be required to make a serious contribution to meet peaks of demand on a daily basis.

Providing power at the peaks of demand

When there is no longer enough conventional power to serve the peaks of demand at breakfast and dinnertime the critical question is, can solar and wind power step up to keep the lights on? Little or no solar power is available at the start and end of the day, so it is essentially up to wind power to deliver.

There are several reasons why wind power cannot be guaranteed to provide the necessary contribution. We describe these reasons as “icebergs” in the path of the “Renewable Energy Titanic.” These are wind droughts, the “choke point problem”, our lack of nuclear power, inadequate grid-scale storage and the fact that Australia is an island.

Those issues and others including the environmental impact of carbon mitigation strategies and the rapidly emerging crisis of grid stability are being treated in a series of briefing notes for politicians, journalists and anyone else who is interested in the cost and security of our electricity supply.

Wind droughts

Everyone knows that no solar power is generated at night, except for a period in Spain when enterprising solar “farmers” shone powerful lights on the solar PV panels at night because the price of the solar power was greater than the cost of diesel generation to power the lights.

The phenomenon of wind droughts is less well-known. But the evidence is clear in the wind power data collated by AEMO, the Australian Energy Market Operator. Windless or near windless conditions can last for 24  hours or more. And of course when there is little or no wind in the night, there is next to no renewable energy supply.

In June 2020 the wind power generation across SE Australia dropped to a critically low level (under 10% of the potential or maximum production) on numerous occasions with the longest periods lasting 33 hours, 18 hours, 16 hours and 14 hours respectively. At the very lowest points the supply was less than 2% of the installed capacity of the wind fleet.

Wind energy production during June 2020

The “choke point” at the minimum level of wind supply.

Advocates of wind power talk all the time about the installed capacity of wind farms because we are leading the world in the rate of increase in the installed capacity of wind and solar power.

That is seriously misleading because the sustainability of RE depends on level of supply when the sun is off duty during a wind drought.
Think about the way our lungs need a continuous supply of air and when that is interrupted by choking or drowning then the result is usually fatal in five or ten minutes.

Similarly the electricity grid needs a continuous and reliable input of power to match demand and if the input is interrupted or seriously reduced the result if likely to be fatal for the grid or parts of it. That in turn will be catastrophic and in some cases fatal for people who depend on the stability of the power supply for facilities like electric trains, traffic lights,  lifts, ATM machines, petrol bowsers and supermarket checkout terminals.

The amount of installed capacity of wind power is a very misleading indicator because at the low point of a wind drought it is irrelevant, like the size of the petrol tank of your car when there is no petrol in it. Other images to capture the significance of the lowest point are the flood protection levee and the castle wall. In the case of the levee the water will enter the lowest point and similarly the enemy will walk through a hole in the wall instead of attacking the higher parts of the defences. As the old saying goes, a chain is only as strong as the weakest link.

No nuclear power.

Whilst nuclear power is “green” and we have massive reserves of uranium for export , Australia does not use it to produce power. The worldwide campaign against nuclear power in the 1970s and ‘80s was particularly successful in Australia and it was banned by Government legislation. Public opinion is moving towards acceptance of nuclear power but there are still misguided concerns about the safety issues in parts of the community. In any case it will be decades away even after it becomes legal.

The island effect.

We have no neighbours on the end of an extension cord to help when the wind is low and the sun is off duty. It tends to work office hours like most people😊. We are almost unique among developed nations because we have no nuclear power and no access to neighbours with mixed supplies of power, including nuclear power, to supplement our local supply.

Inadequate grid-scale storage.

So-called big or even humongous batteries are supposed to provide storage but their capacity is trivial compared with the amount of power required to fill the troughs between the peaks of RE generation. Pumped hydro is on the way but the Snowy2.0 is not a generator, it just recycles 60% of energy that is generated by other sources.

Modelling indicates that input from 8GW of wind power (the amount of capacity we have at present) could enable Snowy2.0 to almost replace one large power station with a steady flow of power. However that is only a very small step towards replacing all the coal power stations and there is nowhere that is suitable for another project on that scale.

Environmental impact.

This is not an obstacle like the icebergs but it should be a consideration if the people who want to save the planet with RE are prepared to demonstrate their credentials as environmentalists. For some strange reason the catastrophic damage that “carbon mitigation” strategies are inflicting on the planet is mostly “off the record”, downplayed or ignored. It took the renegade leftist Michael Moore and his associates to produce the searing indictment of RE in the highly controversial 2019 documentary The Planet of the Humans.

Overseas there is a growing number of high profile people who have turned against renewable energy on account of the environmental impact. The leading figures include Patrick Moore who was a co-founder of Greenpeace, Robert Stone (Pandora’s Promise on nuclear power), James Lovelock (father of Gaia), Judith Curry and James Hansen (leading climate scientists) and Bjorn Lomborg the environmental cost/benefit analyst. So far there does not appear to be any comparable movement among self-proclaimed environmentalists in Australia.

The Energy Realists

We are a team of independent experts and professionals with experience in the power industry and related areas. We are generating short, incisive and well documented briefing notes to circulate to 835 state and federal parliamentarians from coast to coast. These notes and the discussion papers that support them will ensure that no elected member can claim that they were not warned about the threat to energy security and the environmental damage that will result from the reckless pursuit of  zero emissions.

We are providing alternative advice to the instructions from commercial lobby groups, radical NGOs and green activists in the government service. This is a resource for journalists, commentators and the general public.

20.1 When the wind fails and the grid dies

Purpose: To signal the critical situation for power security and the implication of the lowest “choke point” level of input from the sun and wind.

The Critical Issues:

(1) After the loss of several coal fired power stations  we have virtually no spare baseload capacity. We are “running on the rims” with no spare tyre.

(2) Many times a year when the wind supply is critically low the system will “choke” unless  conventional power sources (dominated by coal) can provide 100% of the demand for electricity.

(3) That situation is rare at present but it will be a constant danger when Liddell closes in 2023 taking almost 2GW of supply out of the system.

(4) We are told that wind and solar power can replace  coal-fired power stations as they go out of service.  Due to the choke point problem that will not work until massive amounts of power can be stored. Batteries and pumped hydro are not feasible solutions in the foreseeable future


That all politicians be advised of the critical threat posed by the choke points.
That pundits on TV, radio and print media be advised and provided with supporting information so they can pass the message to the public.
That news and weather reports include the % of demand for power being supplied by wind at the time.

20.2 Icebergs in the Path of the Net Zero Titanic

 Purpose. To explain that the transition to renewable energy will be very difficult in Australia with existing storage technology

Background. All the major parties are in favour of increasing the supply of electric power from wind and solar energy.

Critical Issues.

Four features of the Australian situation will make the RE transition very difficult and impossible with existing storage technology.

  1. Wind droughts. There are frequent and prolonged “wind droughts” when there is next to no wind across SE Australia for many hours and even days at a time.
  2. The “choke point” factor. The grid needs a continuous input of power and the critical value of the input from intermittent sources is the lowest level. The RE transition is limited by the lowest points in the supply of wind, not the installed capacity, the high points or the average performance of the wind fleet.
  3. Australia is an island. Almost every other place in the developed world has access to neighbours to supply power from many sources when domestic RE is in short supply.
  4. The Chief Scientist has advised strongly that batteries do not have the capacity to store the amount of power required to even out the peaks and troughs in the supply of wind and solar power.


That these critical issues be discussed in the party rooms, in the media and among the public.


Wind Droughts 

Records from the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) show the amount of wind power delivered to the grid from every wind farm in SE Australia. Every month there are periods when the input is less than 10% of the installed capacity of the wind fleet and the input can fall below 2%.

In June there were three long periods  with the wind fleet under 10% of capacity   – 33 hours between the 5th and 6th, 18 hours on the 11th and 16 hours on the 17th.

The lowest points during those periods were 3.4%, 1.1% and 2.3% for the whole system.

Individual states experienced long periods at zero or even negative numbers when the turbines drained power from the grid instead of contributing to it.

The source

Wind energy production during June 2020Real time

The choke point factor

This means that the grid needs to receive enough input to supply 100% of demand 100% of the time. We are in the same situation because we need a continuous supply of air to our lungs.  If the supply is cut off by choking or drowning, we are dead in a few minutes.

At present wind droughts do not threaten to cut off the electricity supply because we have enough conventional power for our needs (almost all the time). This situation will change when more coal-fired power stations are closed, starting with Liddell in NSW in 2023.

Isolation from neighbours. As an island nation we do not have neighbours to assist with power when we have a wind drought. All the European nations and the states in the US can tap into massive continental grids with input from all the different sources of power including nuclear energy.

Wind power in Denmark can supply almost all their electricity on windy days but over the year they import almost half of their power. Similarly Germany can produce up to 70% of their electricity from wind power but over the year the average capacity factor of their 28,000 turbines is less than 20% and they recently opened a new coal mine to cover the impending closure of their nuclear facilities.

Limited capacity of batteries

Batteries like the Elon Musk Tesla facility in South Australia are supposed to even out the peaks and troughs in the supply of wind and solar power but they have virtually no capacity compared with the demands of the grid.  They are not used for storage, they are used as bandaids to counter the chaotic flunctuations in the voltage caused by the intrusion of expensive and unreliable wind and solar power. The Chief Scientist Dr Alan Finkel issued a very clear statement “…Maybe 20 or 30 years from now we’ll have new kinds of batteries, vastly powerful, more extensive batteries and we can do it with batteries.”

Moore’s law does not apply to energy storage. When people first started to talk about using batteries to support intermittent power there was a general expectation that the storage capacity would expand in the way that data storage increased by “Moore’s Law” – doubling every couple of years. This will not happen due to the fundamental difference between storing electronic data and storing energy.

The first Musk battery attached to the Hornsdale No 3-wind farm occupies a hectare, with a capacity of 129MWhrs and a $100Million price tag. The demand for power in SA ranges from 800 MW to 2500MW and the amount of power that the battery can deliver is negligible by comparison. It is not even regarded as storage; it is used to stabilize the supply from one wind farm for a few minutes while gas turbines pick up the load when the wind dies.

Recommendation 1: This this information be filed for reference when RE becomes a live issue again after the pandemic.

Recommendation 2: That everyone monitors the state of the wind supply.


Anyone can access these sites to become a windwatcher in their own right and monitor the wind supply  daily or even minute by minute. The information on wind resources in this brief should not be controversial because it is readily available on the site of the Australian Energy Marketing Authority (AEMO) and in a processed form on the Aneroid site and the Nem-Watch Widget.

The Nem-Watch Widget conveys the nationwide situation at a glance.

The length of the bars signals the amount of generation in each state and the green segments show how much the wind is contributing at the time. The cursor can be moved along the bars to find the precise value for each contributor (48MW for Wind in Victoria in the example shown). The total for the state can read on a scale below the bars (6,271MW) and the Demand is show at the bottom of the table (7046MW).

The difference between the production (6271MW) and the demand (7046MW) means that Victoria was importing power at the time, most likely from Tasmania. The 48MW of wind production was less than 1% of the demand at the time.

No solar energy appears because the time was 7.25pm, well after sunset at this time of year.

For the situation in SE Australia (the NEM) see the AEMO Data Dashboard and the Aneroid site that draws on it to provide a rolling 24-hour picture. Also be sure to visit the site of Tony from Oz to see how a real wind watcher does it. See the link below!

The Data Dashboard

The Dispatch Summary indicates the amount of demand and generation in each state. It also shows the amount of power flowing across state boundaries. It is updated at five-minute intervals.

The Fuel Mix is particularly interesting. There are several options, ranging from a scan of the year to the current situation. I like the 48-hour display to obtain pictures to display how quickly the wind can change from a high level to a choke point level.

Rooftop solar does not register in the fuel mix because the rooftops are not connected to AEMO data base like the registered generators and that means a lot of the power generated on rooftops during the day is invisible on the display.

Be warned that the AEMO fuel mix shows wind is the blue band at the top and hydro is a green band lower down. The Aneroid display shows the wind in green and the hydro in blue.

Aneroid Energy

The entry page of the Aneroid site is a rolling 24-hour display showing the sources of supply in various categories – coal, gas, water, wind, and sun.  It shows the daily demand cycle with twin peaks at breakfast and dinnertime.

On the entry page are buttons to access more detailed information about each source. Windwatchers of course go straight to

This shows the supply of wind with a rolling 24-hour display. There are buttons to access the % of installed capacity and the volume (MW). There are figures for each state and there are displays for whole months and an archive for past days and months.

Tony from Oz is a veteran wind watcher. He provides very helpful daily and weekly summaries of the power situation.

This is the Introduction to his comprehensive wind generation series.

Warning. Wind-watching can be time consuming and habit-forming.

Watch responsibly!

20.3 The Island Effect 

Purpose of this note: To explain why Australia, being an island, is seriously disadvantaged in attempting to achieve ambitious renewable energy targets.

Background. A previous briefing note described four obstacles in the path of ambitious RE targets (The Four Icebergs – attached).

Frequent wind droughts.

The need for 100% of demand to be met 100% of the time.

The island effect.

No grid-scale storage available from batteries or pumped hydro.

The Critical Feature of the Island Effect:  We cannot run extension cords to other countries to obtain power when we are short.

All the other places that have major RE installations either have access to power from neighbours with conventional power to spare or they have ideal topography for hydroelectric power (New Zealand, Norway)

What if California were an island? They import 30% of their electricity!

No state imports more.

A third of the Californian power mix is natural gas (10% imported). A third is renewables with. 20% of solar power is imported and a large amount of windpower is imported.

Imagine their situation if they did not have extension cords.

During the recent blackouts the states that export power to California were themselves experiencing the same weather conditions that slashed California’s domestic production of wind and solar power. Consequently they could not make up the shortfall of the power supply in California.

If those states run down their conventional power assets under the incentives of the Green New Deal then they will have even less capacity to support the Golden State. Household generators will become very popular!

Consider some of the other “wind-leading” nations.

Denmark can produce up to 80% of their electricity from the wind on a good day but over 12 months they import 45% of their power.

Germany has made a massive investment in the green energy transition and wen the wind is blowing strongly she exports power, often at negative prices.

Germany was a net exporter for many years but when the wind is not blowing she turns to nuclear power from France. In June 2019 she became a net importer for the first time since 2014.

The Netherlands has carpeted the countryside with wind farms and solar panels, but these  provide just 2.7% of final total energy consumption.

For electric power, wind provides 10% and solar 5%.  When the wind is off duty, power is imported from Germany and France.

Britain exports power when the conditions are favourable, (hence the French threat to undermine the trade by cutting the interconnector, but she also imports during the periods when there is little or no wind.

There is a power crisis across the whole of Western Europe at present thanks to a long spell with less wind than usual and France started to fire up some old coal power stations.


Small islands do not have smelters, heavy industry or electric trains.

Thursday island invested heavily in RE but still depends on diesel backup during the low-wind months of the year.

King Island. The Clean Energy Authority announced that some 20 million dollars were spent on King Island (population 1,600) for a “fully functioning RE microgrid”  with integrated wind, solar, biodiesel and battery storage. That is over $10,000 per head. Diesel generators still provide a third of the power on the island.

Flinders Island installed RE facilities but the 40% shortfall is covered by diesel. The Mayor is optimistic that the tidal power might be used to make the power supply 100% RE.

Rottnest Island is another showpiece for the Clean Energy Authority and as usual diesel backup is necessary.


  1. That the island effect be explicitly acknowledged as a major obstacle to progress towards RE targets.
  2. That planning agencies explain how the balance between supply and demand for RE in Australia can be achieved without the capacity to exchange with neighbours

20.4 A warning to all leaders.

The world depends on modern shipping travelling from country to country to support international trade delivering cargo. The ship in Figure 1 in 2019 was the largest in the world with a cargo capacity of more than 200,000 tons but even so it achieves a speed of a constant 21 kn. It is diesel fuelled which many claim should be curtailed because of CO2 gas emissions, but our modern economies cannot go back to sail.

It used to be that cargo was carried place to place by sailing ships. This all but ceased in the 19th century and it is obvious why. First there is the size, see figure 2 “County of Peebles”. It was launched in 1875 and was one of the very last sailing ships. At the time it competed with steamships which then were quite small. Its cargo capacity was about 1600 tons so to be the equivalent of the modern ship in figure 1 it is necessary to have 125. Certainly, this is not the only problem. Even at sea, wind is unreliable and frequently stops and this for the sailors of the 19th century was a massive problem. It was in this period the phrase Horse Latitudes was coined. The sailors on becalmed ships would throw the horses overboard since they consumed the water that was desperately needed.

History shows amazingly fast times for sailing ships up to 25 kn but that is variable, and the average is more like 8 kn for the fastest of the Clipper class. Sailing straight into the wind is not possible. You must tack. So, it is well recognised that sail was unreliable and slow. They were totally reliant on the vagaries of the wind, either that was too little or too much and it has not changed!

We are now in the 21st century and after 100 years wind as a source of energy has had a revival. It is quite possible the reasoning goes, to use wind to replace electrical energy generation. The wind varying from becalmed to a gale in very short periods of time is inconsequential apparently. Wind has an extremely low energy density and that too no longer matters. Surely this is a delusion so if you are a leader and have an interest in your legacy be warned that if you support wind as a source of electrical energy you will be damned for it.

The deficiencies of wind mattered very much in the past and it does matter now so you had better understand. “If you don’t know history, then you don’t know anything.

You are a leaf that doesn’t know it is part of a tree.”
― Michael Crichton

Already leading lights of the environmental movement see this and have abandoned it as a folly.

• Jim Hansen the founder of the climate change action initiative.
• James Lovelock author of the book Gaia which argued to save the natural world from humanity.
• Michael Shellenberger founder of “Environmental Progress”.
• Michael Moore a prominent filmmaker and activist who is very much concerned with climate change.
• Patrick Moore Greenpeace founder.
• David Mackay Chief Scientific Advisor of the Department of Energy and Climate Change, United Kingdom

This chart figure 3 shows the output of Loy Yang B and all wind stations on the eastern grid at that time.

Loy Yang B is a Brown coal station and has a capacity of 1070 MW. The wind stations at the time was a combined capacity of 4335 MW. The coal efficiency was 98% and the wind 15% for the whole month. Or another words 650 MW on average for the whole month. Loy Yang B output an almost unvarying 1070 MW except for a dropout on the 12th day. The wind oscillated between zero and 60%. There were many times it was near or at 0 MW.

To achieve a plate capacity of 4335 MW 1032 turbines each of a capacity of 4.2 MW are needed. To build that costs $8.67 billion. The modern coal-fired power plant of 1 GW capacity are $2.5 billion and will last for 50 years. Wind will only last at a maximum 25 years, so the comparable cost is $17.34 billion. Even at that huge cost wind is still not a replacement because of its variability. This is shown in the chart.

On the left we have Loy Yang B figure 4. True there are the open cut coal mines that need to be included. They are a few square kilometres. On the right is a photograph figure 5 of one of Australia’s latest wind power stations. In the picture you can see about 16 turbines of 4.2 MW each. Ever wondered why it is never the whole lot? The answer is wind power stations cover a very large area of land. In 2017 the area covered by wind electricity generation covered was nearly 2000 km². The average output over a year is 29% of the plate capacity. Every time 1 GW of fossil energy is closed another 1677 km² of suitable land is needed. At the end of 2019 fossil energy power stations had a plate capacity of 34.9 GW. To replace that with wind 120 GW covering an area of 54700 km² of suitable land is required. Or another way to think about it, an area five times the size of Sydney Australia. The installation cost for that will be $265 billion. These last 25 years so $530 billion across 50 years. A coal power station lasts that long.

Unfortunately, that will not be enough. Go back and have a look at the chart. Notice the line for wind. It is by no means steady. It varies from 0 to 60% and to have a whole grid which varies like that is untenable. What is shown is all the wind stations over an exceptionally large geographical area.

Modern civilisation must have electricity that is available on demand. That was the whole point of Snowy Mountains 2.0. Modelling it is a complicated process, but it has been done for the 7 GW of 2019 by hypothetically assuming it exists and computing whether it would support wind for that year and produce a dispatchable energy source. If it does produce reliably 336 GW hours as designed, then yes it will support 7 GW of wind. That is using 7 GW of wind with it is equivalent to a 2 GW fossil station. The last estimate of cost I have seen was $5 billion. If this were applied to all extra wind needed that is 120 GW, then 17 replicas at least of that pumped storage facility would be needed. If you could do that that would be $85 billion. Snowy Mountains 2.0 is pumped storage so the upper reservoir must be a considerable height above the lower one. Suitable terrain would have to be found or constructed. That means a lot more than $85 billion.

So, this is what my warning is about. If any leaders of our nation managed to achieve such a thing or even only a substantial part, their immediate reputation and legacy will be damned for it as time passes. Wind energy was abandoned in the 19th century for exactly the same reasons as it should be now. It is unreliable and because it has low energy density it is just not fit for purpose.

This folly comes from the belief in climate change. The case is renewable energy is not fit to change anything about the climate. In fact, it is quite detrimental environmentally in many cases.

Mike O’Ceirin

20.5 Californian Blackouts

Heatwave conditions in the USA and wildfires in California have recently precipitated a state of emergency with rolling power blackouts. California’s conventional power capacity has been run down in recent years while they promoted renewable energy from the sun and the wind.
California will not go completely black because they have extension cords running into several adjacent states.
In Australia we cannot turn to neighbours for power when we are short. This means we will have to maintain 100% of our conventional power sources to avoid outages whenever the wind is low and the doesn’t shine.
This applies especially at dinner time when the demand for power peaks. The NemWatch widget shows that hot dinners depend very much on conventional power supplies.
On the evening of Thursday 23 July the contribution from the wind (green) was very small in South Australia and almost invisible in Victoria. Wind power was providing less than 3% of the demand across the whole of SE Australia.

The picture tells the story: RE is not sustainable with existing storage technology, as explained in the “four icebergs” briefing note (attached).

The Federal Opposition and most of the states have ambitious targets for the penetration of RE into the grid. As explained in the briefing note, this cannot possibly work in the near future but the Labor Environmental Action Network has called for an end to gas to decarbonize the power supply! This is not good news for all the people who use gas for hot water, cooking and heating.

The Labor leadership has a golden opportunity to serve the nation by adopting a bipartisan stance with the Coalition to keep Liddell power station in service until there is an adequate substitute to provide baseload power.
Depending on the sun and wind to provide baseload is suicidal in our island situation.
PS. A fifth “iceberg” is the environmental damage inflicted by the wind, solar and biomass industries that are being developed to decarbonise the power supply.

Download PDF

20.6 The AEMO Plan

Purpose: To explain the purpose of the ISP, its scenarios and assumptions

The Critical Issues:

  • Scheduled retirement of scheduled generators (coal, gas, battery), with construction of intermittent wind and solar:
Period Retired dispatchable MW Built dispatchable MW Intermittent MW
2010-2020 2,500 7,100 built
2020-2030 5,800 2,400 (incl Snowy 2) 10,500 underway
2030-2040 14,000 39,000 announced
2040-2050 12,000

(2) The ISP is the official National Electricity Market transmission network plan. It requires network operators to begin planning the transmission projects that AEMO wants. It is designed to encourage more wind and solar into the network.

This is central planning at its worst – many network companies are privatised with foreign ownership. Because of the regulated cost recovery, network companies earn more from more assets. Every km of network adds to Australian consumer power bills and makes the country less competitive.

(3) Despite the massive amounts of wind and solar being built, the grid still requires investment in dispatchable generation. The ISP cost benefit analysis for transmission projects relies on modelling that includes a carbon price (CSIRO GenCost) and assumptions that are unfavourable to coal and gas. The taxpayer funded Snowy 2.0 is the only dispatchable generation planned apart from AGL‘s 250 MW gas peaker in Newcastle and some minor upgrades to existing plant capacity. Much more will be needed.

(4) No allowance is made in the ISP for replacement of coal fired power stations, despite Australia’s ready access to high quality thermal coal as fuel. This can only be described as ideology, not economics or science.

Key features of the situation. (Briefing Paper follows)


That all politicians and media be advised:

  • The National Electricity Market network is becoming centrally planned, with accountability being removed from the states
  • The ISP assumes massive amounts of wind and solar will be built, and is planning to build new networks not only to accommodate wind and solar, but to expand it beyond the bounds of open market competition
  • The ISP deliberately applies unfavourable assumptions to economic modelling of coal and gas
  • A larger more complex network costs more to build and maintain – foreign owned transmission network companies recover these costs at regulated profit margins – this is incentive to build more transmission networks
  • CSIRO GenCost mentions “renewables” 70x, “carbon price” 52x, “reliability” 1x, “intermittent” 0x 

21.1 The CSIRO Gencost study 

Purpose : To challenge the view that electricity generated by wind farms is less expensive than coal fired generation.

Background: Governments and other agencies have generally accepted the advice in the CSIRO publication GenCost 2018 (updated in 2020) that the cost of wind and solar power is less than that of coal fired power stations.

Critical Issues:

1.The GenCost study does not include the costs to ‘firm’ (balance) wind farms when the intermittency of wind causes their power outputs to reduce dramatically.
2. Wind farm output intermittency is currently masked by the availability of coal fired or gas fired power stations to compensate. These coal fired power stations will be progressively decommissioned, which means that alternative firming generation must be constructed to prevent NEM wide blackouts.
3. The cost of electricity generated by wind farms is marginally less than coal fired plants. However, when the cost of firming generators is taken into account, the cost is greater than coal fired generation.


1. Should review their electricity strategies and immediately implement a life-extension program for, for example, the five operational NSW coal fired power stations.
2. Should immediately implement construction of additional units at existing coal fired power stations where these were to be provided at a future date. For example, Mt Piper in NSW.
3. Should plan to replace coal fired power stations with modern HELE coal fired plants at the completion of their extended lives.
4. Should ensure all renewable energy (RE) generators must be dispatchable at nameplate rating and be economically viable without subsidies and/or preferential treatment before being
connected to the transmission network.
5. Should ensure transmission infrastructure required by such a connection must be funded by the RE Generator prior to connection.


Wind Farm Intermittency
It is well known that the total output of all wind farms in the National Electricity Market (NEM) rarely approaches their nameplate rating and is often less than 10% of capacity that we regard as a wind drought. Weather dependent wind power is unreliable and non-dispatchable.

CSIRO Admission that Firming Costs are not Included in GenCost 2018

Section 4.1 of GenCost 2018 states;

‘While the capital cost projections are primarily designed to be included in Australian electricity modelling studies as scenario inputs we recognise that some stakeholders require access to levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) data for comparing technologies outside of models. On the other hand LCOE estimates, in their current form, can be misleading if they apply the same discount rate regardless of exposure to climate policy risk and inherently do not recognise the additional balancing technology that is required by variable renewable generation as its share of the generation mix increases. Given the variable renewable share is expected to increase in most Australian states, towards or beyond 50%, this is an issue that needs to be solved. This report provides some advice on what comparisons are and are not appropriate using current methods and describes a process
by which future updates will seek to solve this issue with new approaches.’

Section 1.4 of GenCost 2020 states:

“In 2020, we have prioritised extension of Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) estimates to include the costs of balancing variable renewable energy. This research is not included in this report but will be shared with stakeholders during 2020.

NSW Coal Fired Power Plants Commissioning

As an example of the need for immediate action, the following table illustrates the age of the existing fleet of NSW coal fired power stations.  It is evident that action must be undertaken to replace them to ensure that NSW continues to generate reliable, affordable and dispatchable electrical energy.

Plant Commissioning period Age
Eraring 1982-84 36 years
Bayswater 1982-1984 36 years
Liddell 1971-73 47 years
Mt Piper 1993 27 years
Vales Point B 1978 42 years

Costs per MWh for Firmed Wind Farms

An analysis has been undertaken where the capital, operating and maintenance costs were calculated for a scenario consisting of a HELE coal fired plant, an independent wind farm (not firmed), a wind farm firmed with open cycle gas turbines and a wind farm firmed by combined cycle gas turbines.  The analysis was conducted for a 50-year period which is the expected life of a properly maintained HELE coal fired power station.  The results are tabulated as follows.

Generator Cost per MWh
HELE coal fired plant $53.10
Windfarms unfirmed $48.87
Windfarms firmed with OCGTs $121.15
Windfarms firmed with CCGTs $70.53

It is evident from the data above that the energy generated by a modern HELE coal fired plant is
significantly less expensive than energy produced by firmed windfarms. Whilst the electrical energy
generated by unfirmed windfarms is less expensive than coal, unfirmed wind is not an option unless
blackouts are accepted as routine.

21.2 Environment Impact

Clearing a park for a solar farm in Spain

 Purpose. To indicate that the expansion of RE will have serious environmental impacts.

The Critical Issue. All the major parties are in favour of increasing the supply of electric power from wind and solar energy but the environmental impacts of wind turbines and solar farms have not been adequately taken into account.


“Most of the world’s rare earth ores are extracted near Baotou, Inner Mongolia by pumping acid into the ground, then processed using more acids and chemicals. Producing one ton of rare earth metals releases up to 420,000 cubic feet of toxic gases, 2,600 cubic feet of acidic wastewater, and a ton of radioactive waste.”

“This report documents the hazardous conditions in which artisanal miners, including thousands of children, mine cobalt in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.”

– Amnesty International Report – 19 January 2016, pdf page 92)

“Throughout the solar PV manufacturing process all of the materials and products must be shipped to and from more than a dozen countries around the world in large barges, container ships, trains or trucks – all powered by non-renewable oil.”

“Building one wind turbine requires 900 tons of steel, 2,500 tons of concrete and 45 tons of nonrecyclable plastic. Solar power requires even more cement, steel and glass—not to mention other metals.”

“The destructive nature of renewables is illustrated by the abandonment, on environmental grounds, in 2017, by Michael Schellenberger, 2008 Time magazine Hero of the Environment, of his previous support for solar and wind power and the rejection, on environmental grounds, of solar and wind power in Michael Moore’s 2020 “Planet of the Humans”.

“The problem of solar panel disposal “will explode with full force in two or three decades and wreck the environment “because it is a huge amount of waste and they are not easy to recycle.”

 “The International Energy Agency (IEA) forecast that Australia will have one of the most significant accumulated PV waste streams in the world.


That these critical issues be discussed in the party rooms, in the media and among the public.

21.3  Australia is a Carbon Sink

Purpose.  To pose the question, do we need to pursue “net zero” if we are already a carbon sink?

Background. According to the Climate Council “Net zero emissions refers to achieving an overall balance between greenhouse gas emissions produced and greenhouse gas emissions taken out of the atmosphere.”

Proposal. It is time for the Government to stop playing the “net zero” game for two reasons.

  1. Australia is probably already a carbon sink.
  2. The push to eliminate fossil fuels in favour of RE is not sustainable with the storage technology that is available at present or in the near future.

By comparing Australia’s annual CO2 absorption with the total Australian emissions, we may conclude that Australia has negative emissions of 523,800,000 tonnes per annum (940,800,000 – 417,000,000) which means that Australia is a CO2 sink.

The data and calculations.

  1. Australia contains approximately 147 million hectares of Natural Forests (addition to this we have 1.82 million hectares of planting estates and around 440 million hectares of grasslands. With an estimated 4% of the global forest estate, Australia has the world’s sixth-largest forest area and the fourth-largest area of forest in nature conservation reserves.
  1. The mechanism for carbon sequestration in trees and plants is photosynthesis, the conversion of atmospheric CO2 into plant material using energy from the sun, releasing oxygen in the process. A single hectare of mature trees absorbs approximately 6.4 tonnes of CO2 per year.

A simple calculation demonstrates that the total CO2 absorption is 147,000,000 * 6.4 which equates to 940,800,000 tonnes of absorbed CO2 by Australia’s forests per year.

  1. According to ‘Our World in Data’, CO2 emissions in Australia in 2017 due to the burning of fossil fuels for energy production and the industrial production of materials such as cement were 417MT.

Caveat. These calculations will be contested by people using different assumptions about the treatment of grasslands and forests. We will modify our conclusion if convincing evidence and counter-arguments are presented.

 Conclusion. Given that we generate less than 1.5% of the worlds CO2 emissions and we are already doing better than “Net Zero” does the Government still need to impose policies designed for carbon mitigation and “decarbonization” of the economy?

  21.4  Firming Wind Farms with Batteries 

March 2021

Purpose. To explain that battery storage is not a feasible method to “firm” or support the intermittent energy from wind farms.

Background. The NSW Roadmap towards green energy includes a Renewable Energy Zone in New England with a capacity of 8GW that matches the current capacity of all the wind farms in SE Australia combined.

Critical Issues.

Wind droughts. There are frequent and prolonged “wind droughts” when there is next to no wind across SE Australia for many hours and even days at a time.

Firming. To maintain the supply of power that is required to match demand, the intermittent input from the wind has to be firmed, that is, supported by “dispatchable” power from reliable sources that can be switched on as required.

The main kinds of firming power are gas, pumped hydro and battery storage

Gas is not acceptable to Greens and pumped hydro will not be available in bulk for some years.

The cost of battery storage.

This study explains the cost of battery storage required to firm up the power supply from a typical wind farm. The cost is astronomical and this means that battery storage  cannot be expected to provide feasible and affordable firming power to support the Australian wind industry.


That these critical issues be discussed in the party rooms, in the media and among the public.

  21.5  Firming Wind Farms with Pumped Hydro 
April 2021

Purpose. To explain that pumped hydro is not a feasible method to “firm” or support the intermittent energy from wind farms.

Background. The NSW Roadmap towards green energy includes a number of Renewable Energy Zones with wind farms to substitute for the coal fired power stations that are expected to close by 2035.

Critical Issues. 

Wind droughts. There are frequent and prolonged “wind droughts” when there is next to no wind across SE Australia for many hours and even days at a time.
Firming. To maintain the supply of power that is required to match demand, the intermittent input from the wind has to be firmed, that is, supported by “dispatchable” power from reliable sources that can be switched on as required.
The main kinds of firming power are gas, pumped hydro and battery storage
Using gas is not consistent with the net zero emissions policy and the Briefing Note 21.4 demonstrated that batteries are not financially feasible for the amount of storage required.
The cost of pumped hydro storage. This study explains the cost of and the technical issues that arise with pumped hydro to conclude that modern HELE USC coal fired plants are an economically and technically superior solution to the supply of power to replace the old plants as they close.


That these critical issues be discussed in the party rooms, in the media and among the public.

21.6 Instability of the supply of wind power

May 2021

Purpose. To signal that short-term fluctuations in the wind supply will create more problems for grid control as the installed wind capacity increases.

Background. As long as we have enough conventional power capacity to satisfy our needs, the vagaries of solar and wind power do not threaten the supply, just the stability in the grid.

It was known from the start that wind inputs would be intermittent but there was an expectation that the supply would become more even as the number and geographical extent of windfarms increased.

In 2012 Paul Miskelly published the first major analysis of the system with 2GW of installed capacity and he warned that the problem of wind droughts and rapid fluctuations in the wind supply might not be mitigated with more installed capacity.

Recently “Tony from Oz”, a long-term wind-watcher released a detailed report on fluctuations in the wind supply.

The most important observations.

Over the relatively short period of the study, significant falls in the supply of wind power, equivalent to the size of a typical coal-fired generator, became more prevalent, larger in size and the power loss occurred more quickly.

Over the two years of the study there were 107 separate entries for power losses of 500MW or more within one hour. The highest fall was 980MW on 09May 2020; that is equivalent to two coal power generators going off line in the hour. There were 16 occasions when the fall was 700MW or greater.

Comment. Frequent outages of coal-fired turbines would be regarded as a serious scandal and receive headline treatment in the media. Similar falls in the wind system pass without comment.

Recommendation. That the significance of short-term fluctuations be noted for further investigation and public discussion.


The data are sourced from the continuous record of output from all the registered generators that is kept by the Australian Energy Market Operator. Each wind farm is registered as a generator, likewise the individual generators, often four in number, in coal-fired power stations.

The observations cover 800 days from May 2018 to the end of June 2020.

The number of short-term falls of 500MW or more were counted in periods of one hour or less and in one to three hours. A separate report covered larger falls over longer periods.

The 500MW figure corresponds to the most common capacity of coal-fired generators, so the fall of 500MW can be compared with the impact of a coal-fired generator going off line.


Miskelly 2012

Introduction to the study of fluctuations.
Short-term fluctuations.
Previous briefing notes.

21.7 Intermittent solar and wind power can DISPLACE coal but cannot REPLACE it
Purpose: To explain that unreliable energy from the sun and the wind is not sustainable as a replacement for conventional power sources (coal, gas and hydro).
Increasing the penetration of unreliable energy from the wind and the sun into the electricity supply can make coal power stations uneconomic and drive them out of business but cannot replace them.
All the states and the Commonwealth government are aiming for net zero emissions from the electricity sector.
Significant progress has apparently been made towards that target with wind and solar power penetration above 20%. On good days the penetration approaches 50% for some time and for some very short periods in South Australia it has been 100%.
We can boast that we lead the world by a wide margin in the rate of increase in our wind and solar installed capacity.
Critical Issues
Statistics on the average penetration or the highest penetration on good days do not mean that ever-increasing penetration is sustainable.
The limiting factor is the near-zero output from wind and solar installations on windless nights.
This is analogous to the lowest point of a flood protection levee.
As long as prolonged periods with effectively zero solar and wind power persist, the march towards net zero is futile. 100% backup from conventional power will still be required, assuming that we want security of supply. That means we will be stuck with a hybrid power system for the foreseeable future until the problem of grid-scale storage is resolved.

The “holy trinity” of transmission lines, batteries and pumped hydro will not keep the system up through periodic shortages of unreliable energy from the sun and the wind.

Transmission lines cannot distribute spare wind power to places that are short because during wind droughts across the whole of SE Australia there is no spare wind power anywhere.
“Big batteries” attached to the grid do not have the capacity to provide grid-scale power for any useful length of time. They provide some stability under the impact of short-term fluctuations in the wind and solar input.
Pumped hydro is too expensive to provide the amount of storage required to support the grid through prolonged wind droughts. It depends on power generated from other sources and it wastes 30 to 40% of the power in pumping and transmission.
The connection of unreliable energy sources to the grid was a mistake in the absence of grid-scale storage.

Coal can be DISPLACED BUT NOT REPLACED by unreliable energy. This is not yet apparent because there is still enough conventional power available to provide 100% of demand most of the time.

The crunch will come when more coal power is displaced.

Additional wind and solar capacity will not help during the windless nights. Governments will have to fund additional gas and/or coal power, or alternatively, we can all adjust to a regime of major load shedding and more rolling blackouts.
Recommendations: That the point and purpose of the RET and subsidies for unreliable energy be reviewed and subjected to thorough public discussion.

21.8 The real cost of RE with firming – over $400 per MWhour

Purpose. To provide a more accurate estimate of comparative costs than the CSIRO GenCost study that is being used as a basis for energy policy and planning.
The aim of energy policy is to provide affordable and reliable electricity with reduced emissions. We have been assured that this can be achieved by replacing coal and perhaps gas with wind and solar power.
The people of Australia will pay a bitter price if these assurances are based on false assumptions and wishfull thinking.
The CSIRO GenCost study supports the push for intermittent energy because it concludes that wind and solar power are now cheaper than coal, even taking into account the cost of providing reliable power to bridge the valleys (the windless nights) between the hills of wind and solar generation on sunny and windy days.

The cost issue. Our briefing paper 21.1 challenged the accuracy of the GenCost study

In November 2020 a group of consultants tabled a report in the NSW Parliament with the results of some elaborate modelling work to generate the total System Levelised Cost of Energy (SLCOE) which is defined as:

“…the average cost of producing electric energy from the combination of generation technologies chosen for the system over its entire lifetime, discounted back to today at 6% per annum.“

The models include additional transmission costs for various options including replacing brown coal with nuclear energy, replacing coal with gas and 100% RE with hydro and storage.


The best policy option to control costs and minimise emissions would appear to be to replace coal generation with nuclear power.

Case 1. This is the current situation, with over 70% of power generated by coal the estimated cost is $68.87/MWh.

Case 2 shows the effect of introducing 3,000 MW of nuclear power capacity into the Case 1 mix to replace brown coal. This raises the cost to $72.48/MWh while reducing emissions by around 23%.

Case 3 shows the effect of replacing all coal in Case 1 with nuclear power. Emissions fall by some 93%, with the cost increasing to $90.23/MWh.

Case 4 shows the effect of the combination of generation technologies projected by the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) to 2040, as shown in its Integrated System Plan (ISP) of July 2018. The cost is in the order of $250/MWh.

Case 5 shows the effect of replacing all coal in Case 1 with CCGT. This shows an increase in cost to approach $100/MWh.

Case 6 shows a 100% renewable mix comprising solar PV, wind and hydro with support from pumped storage and some battery storage. Because of low capacity factors, solar PV and wind require a combined total of 110,000 MW of capacity. There is also a need for 30,000 MW of pumped storage capacity for 3 days. To this must be added high-cost additional transmission to get the power to points of high consumption where it is needed, making a total SLCOE of $415.50 I MWh.

All key technology performance data, costs, and other relevant information are listed in the Power System Generation Mix Model website .

A short report in PDF form.
Barry Mur_ Reliable and Affordable Electric Power generation

Recommendation. That an independent expert committee be convened to compare the assumptions, the methods and the results of the GenCost study and this alternative cost study.


1. Wind-up subsidies for intermittent power generation
2. Add a capacity market component to the National Electricity Market
The current NEM is an energy-only market, which does not give clear signals when more or replacement dispatchable generation investment is needed. This weakness has been a key factor in the current absence of new dispatchable investment, i.e. power which can be delivered at the time it is needed by customers.

3. Remove the ban on nuclear power
This ban is the result of a political deal done 20 years ago. It has no scientific merit, and is now an obstacle to much-needed decisions for the longer-term future. It prohibits by law the development of emissions-free, reliable, affordable nuclear power for Australia . The removal of the ban would allow more competition between various technologies to supply our future electricity needs.


This modelling shows that Base Case 1 (existing NEM approximation) has an average base load of 18,368 MW of constant electricity demand. This load plus daily peaks must be reliably supplied at all times. At present this is done using a system of 78% coal, plus combined-cycle gas turbine (CCGT), open-cycle gas turbine (OCGT), wind, solar PV, and hydro. Some battery storage is available for the provision of ancillary and other services as needed. The estimated cost is $68.87 /MWh.

Case 2 shows the effect of introducing 3,000 MW of nuclear power capacity into the Case 1 mix to replace brown coal. As expected, this adds+$ 3.61 / MWh (0.36 cents/ kWh) to the System Levelised Cost of Energy (SLCOE), making a total of $72.48/ MWh while reducing emissions by around 23%.

Case 3 shows the effect of replacing all coal in Case 1 with nuclear power. Emissions fall by some 93%, with SLCOE increasing to $90.23/MWh.

Case 4 shows the effect of the combination of generation technologies projected by the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) to 2040, as shown in its Integrated System Plan (ISP) of July 2018.

Case 5 shows the effect of replacing all coal in Case 1 with CCGT. Note that this shows an increase in SLCOE of + $ 6.49/MWh versus Case 3 above, plus a substantial increase in emissions.

Case 6 shows a 100% renewable mix comprising solar PV, wind and hydro with support from pumped storage and some battery storage. Because of low capacity factors, solar PV and wind require a combined total of 110,000 MW of capacity. There is also a need for 30,000 MW of pumped storage capacity for 3 days. To this must be added high-cost additional transmission to get the power to points of high consumption where it is needed, making a total SLCOE of $415.50I MWh.


For the longer-term, the existing ban on nuclear power development for Australia must be lifted. Given our role as an important supplier of uranium to the world, current national policy in this area appears confused. A bipartisan agreement in the Australian Parliament to lift this ban is now a matter of urgency, so that proper examination of this option can be undertaken.

21.9 Green Hydrogen Fantasies
May 2021
Purpose. To suggest a realistic view on the prospects for “green hydrogen.”

There is a worldwide push to achieve large-scale commercial industries based on so-called ‘green’ hydrogen produced by splitting water (electrolysis powered by wind and solar) instead of the usual method (steam reforming using natural gas) that generates CO2 as a by-product.
The Commonwealth government has nominated green hydrogen as one of the five lanes in the “Technological Highway” towards a green energy transition. Some $300Million has been allocated for grants to private enterprises to pursue research and development.
State governments are contributing on a smaller scale.

Critical Issues.
Despite the media hype for green hydrogen around the world, there is still virtually no significant volume of green hydrogen produced. Almost all the hydrogen in use comes from the traditional hydrogen extraction method relying on steam and natural gas. And for good reason – this is the cheapest way of extracting hydrogen.

It is currently used as a feedstock for many industrial processes and the hope is to use it as a “green” energy carrier to replace fossil fuels for many purposes including creating steel, generating electricity, fuel cell electric vehicles, shipping and aviation.
Huge amounts of electricity are required for the electrolytic process and states that are struggling to keep the lights on will have to upgrade their nuclear capacity and/or expand RE exponentially.
Most of the energy is lost in the chain from production, storage and transport to final use.
“As a chemical feedstock, of course, hydrogen is irreplaceable. However, as an energy storage medium, it has only a 50% round-trip efficiency – far worse than batteries. As a source of work, fuel cells, turbines and engines are only 60% efficient – far worse than electric motors – and far more complex. As a source of heat, hydrogen costs four times as much as natural gas. As a way of transporting energy, hydrogen pipelines cost three times as much as power lines, and ships and trucks are even worse.” [] It depends on vast quantities of very cheap electricity and other developments to drastically reduce the cost. According to the latest edition of the JP Morgan Energy Review this is most unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future.
The US Department of Energy released a study on the potential for green hydrogen production based (a) varying the price of electricity, which is by far the largest component of electrolysis costs, and (b) assuming 30%-60% declines in upfront capital costs as production scales up.

The study concluded that without a substantial carbon tax, further electricity and capital cost reductions are required for green hydrogen costs to converge with fossil-fuel hydrogen costs. In addition, for green hydrogen to penetrate the market, existing turbines, engines, heating systems and other industrial equipment that now uses natural gas would need to be replaced or upgraded. [See item 2 in the extract from the JP Morgan report in the references.

Another factor that is particularly significant in Australia is the need for large quantities of very clean water for the process. This may not be an issue for the small pilot projects that will be funded by these grants but it will probably preclude large-scale commercial production.
Positive recommendation on green hydrogen are based on projections of the production cost falling substantially many years in the future. This relies on significant technology breakthroughs, and the big public spending is primed to occur now, when there is no possibility of recouping costs.
The subsidies are not recoverable like the WA gas industry, which invested $8b over 30yrs, and has seen economic returns in the many tens of billions of dollars since.
Conclusion. The decision to allocate substantial funds to such a “long shot” would appear to be based on a combination of wishful thinking among green advisors in the bureaucracy and the electoral imperative to be seen to be doing something to keep up with the rest of the world in the quest for “net zero.”

Grants for developing green hydrogen should be subjected to cost-benefit analysis over short to medium terms in the light of experience around the world.

Bloomberg Outlook. BNEF-Hydrogen-Economy-Outlook-Key-Messages-30-Mar-2020
Australia’s National Hydrogen Strategy (COAG and Finkel).
National Hydrogen Roadmap (CSIRO and Finkel).
Grattan Institute – Start with Steel (green steel made using hydrogen).

21.10 The Massive Cost of Firming Solar Farms with Gas Turbines & Batteries

May 2021 

Purpose: To challenge the view that solar farms firmed with gas turbines are an economic substitute for coal fired power generators.

Background: The NSW Government’s policy reflected in ‘The NSW Electrical Infrastructure Roadmap’ advises that four of its five coal fired power stations will be decommissioned by 2035.  The Roadmap’s strategy is to construct large Renewable Energy Zones (REZ) consisting of wind and solar farms firmed with some combination of gas turbine, batteries and pumped hydro plants.

Critical Issues: 

  1. If solar farms are selected to replace the coal fired power stations, approximately 75, 270 MW solar farms will need to be constructed to replace the energy lost through decommissioning the four coal fired generators.
  2. Solar farms do not operate after sunset.  If Open Cycle Gas Turbines are selected as the firming technology, approximately 16, 549 MW plants will be required to compensate for the 12 hours of darkness.
  3. The solar farms and the gas turbines will need to be constructed before 2035 at a capital cost of approximately AUD 81.9 Billion.
  4. The four decommissioned coal fired plants could be replaced by nine modern HELE USC 1050 MW coal fired plants at a cost of approximately AUD 22.5 Billion.


The NSW Government should fund and own the replacement HELE USC coal fired generators and contract their operation and maintenance to private industry under a profit-sharing incentive arrangement.
Should that strategy be adopted, the following advantages would accrue:

  1. The capital cost is significantly less, thus better serving the financial interests of the NSW electricity consumers.
  2. NSW would be provided with reliable, affordable and dispatchable electrical energy which is not weather dependent.
  3. The HELE USC coal plants could be constructed in the same location as the existing coal plants, thus providing easy access to fuel, water and transmission facilities.
  4. Absence of insolation ceases to be an issue.
  5. The requirement to construct firming gas turbine assets would be obviated.
  6. The requirement to construct the 11,000 km of transmission lines identified in the Roadmap would be obviated.
  7. The requirement to compensate landowners for the construction of solar farms would be obviated.

The paper supporting this note provides the analysis that demonstrates the disastrous economic and other outcomes of the flawed NSW Electricity Roadmap.

Michael Bowden; IEng(Electronics-UK);CPL;CQP
Craig Brooking; MBA; BE(Civil); FAIC, Dip; formerly FIEAust; CPEng

To obtain a copy of the paper, contact

21.11 The Downside of Electric Vehicles

To signal the downside of electric vehicles before governments waste taxpayers money to promote them.

Governments around the western world are competing to adopt the most EV-friendly policies and the most aggressive legislation to drive conventional cars off the road.

There is a long list of problems with the rapid introduction of electric vehicles, especially if governments provide subsidies and other incentives.

Spare a thought for the road safety aspect of soundless cars that can accelerate like rockets. Consider the situation of pedestrians who are elderly or hard of hearing, and young children who may be careless crossing the street.

People who have experienced collisions and close calls with cyclists will appreciate the danger of missiles that do not make any noise to warn of their approach. This will be aggravated when the ownership of evs extends from the elite who drive them at present to the whole population including “hoons” and people under the influence of drugs and alcohol.

Fires in EVs are notoriously difficult to control.

Social justice
Like the subsidies and the feedback tariff for rooftop solar, public funding of subsidies for the purchase of evs and providing charging infrastructure is a form of redistribution from people  who are often less well off than the beneficiaries who can afford to buy evs.

Road construction and maintenance are funded by the tax on petrol and diesel. EV drivers avoid those taxes and this amounts to a subsidy for the wealthy.

Human rights
Major issues including child labour and toxic working conditions have emerged in connection with the mining and processing of minerals in Third World countries.

The additional electricity required
A study of the likely cost of supporting 100% EVs turned up astronomical numbers for the increased demand for electricity and the amount of additional installed capacity of wind and solar power required to provide it.  Refer: How Much More Electricity Do We Need To Go To 100% Electric Vehicles 

For example, in Germany, replacing 44 million cars would call for 30% more electric power and 40% more installed capacity  at a cost of  $US 230 Billion. Replacing 60GW of coal and nuclear power would call for some 140GW  of additional wind and solar power at a cost of 650 billion.

In the Netherlands replacing 8 million cars would require 21% more electricity and 24% more installed capacity at a cost of 27 billion.

In the UK, with 26 million cars the numbers are 36%, 50% and 140 billion.

For the US, 260 million cars, 30%, 44% and $1.4 trillion.

China, 154 million cars, $750 billion.

One of the hopes is to use the cars as mass storage facilities in addition to their transport function. Assuming 100% conversion, all the cars in the UK could store 100 times the amount of power in the Dinorwig pumped reservoir but that is only enough to power the UK for about a day. So after a couple of windless and sunless days the whole fleet would have dead batteries in the absence of conventional power.

In addition to the cost of power, who would dare to estimate the cost of replacing or renovating the current system of service stations to provide charging stations? That would have to include the extra wiring and underground cabling.

Grid issues
There will be major problems of grid disruption in suburban streets when numbers of Teslas start to fast-charge. That will be on top of the increasing problem of grid stability caused by the loss of inertia and the fluctuations of wind and solar input.

The volume of resources required.
The International Energy Agency calculated that the needs for “energy transition minerals” such as lithium, graphite, nickel and rare-earth metal would rise by 4,200%, 2,500%, 1,900% and 700%, respectively, by 2040. Refer The Role Of Critical Minerals in Clean Enery Transitions

In cautious and bureaucratic language the report noted that the world doesn’t have the capacity to meet such demand and there are no plans to fund and build the necessary mines and refineries. 

The agency received a lot of publicity for their recommendation about putting a stop to coal and gas projects but there has been less attention to their 287-page report on The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions.

Environmental impact
Upstream there is the impact of mining, process, transport and construction. As noted above, staggering amount of minerals is required, for instance to meet some ambitious targets the Netherlands alone would absorb all of the flow of rare earths and related minerals that are being mined around the world at present.

Check out this 5-minute video for a reminder of the volume of eathmoving required.  

Downstream is the disposal of millions of batteries in addition to the loads of waste from decommissioned windmills and solar panels.

Geopolitical implications
Consider the security implications of long supply chains from states that are political unstable or run by controlled by potentially unfriendly regimes.

All the issues listed above call for investigation and cost-benefit analysis before public funds are committed to provide subsidies and other incentives to increase the ownership of electric vehicles.


21.12 “Big” Batteries are not really “Big” at all

June 2021

Purpose. To explain that even the biggest “big batteries” cannot provide grid-scale dispatchable power.


We are informed by AEMO that the energy transition is inevitable. “This system is now experiencing the biggest and fastest transformational change in the world.”

At least 15GW of coal power is expected to close by 2040, to be replaced by some 36GW of wind and solar power.

The intermittent input from wind and solar will have to be “firmed” (backed up) by “dispatchable” power from some combination of gas generation, storage in batteries and storage in pumped hydro reservoirs.

A Wood Mackenzie survey found that Australian companies have plans to build 9.2GWh (gigawatt-hours) of battery storage but only 4% of these projects have started construction. In other words hardly any battery storage is operating or under construction at present.

Critical issue.  The capacity and the cost of “big” batteries.  A previous note estimated the cost of battery storage for a single wind farm.

The dual function of big batteries

One of the planned functions of big batteries is to provide almost instantaneous inputs to counter sudden falls in the supply of wind or solar power that were signalled in this note on fluctuations in the wind supply.

The other function that is (hopefully) planned is to provide substantial amounts of power to cover periods of high demand (dinnertime) and periods when there is little or no wind and solar power (windless nights.)  This proposal is not realistic due to the limited capacity of “big batteries’ compared with the amount of power required in the grid.

The limited capacity of “big batteries”

Consider the amount of power stored in the Hornsdale Power Reserve, the official name of the Elon Musk Big Battery installed at the Hornsdale wind farm in 2017. It was billed as the biggest battery storage unit in the world at the time and it occupied a hectare with a cost of $90 million for 129 MWh of power. In 2020 the second phase added 65MWh at a cost of $71 million. That is $1.1 million per MWh compared with $700,000 per MWh for the first phase. This is surprising, assuming that most of the infrastructure supporting the battery (land, cabling etc) that was purchased and constructed during Phase 1 is common to Phase 2. That should reduce the cost especially as we are assured that the price of storage is “plummeting.”

Big battery capacities are often reported in MW and not MWh. The difference is critical because the MW figure indicates the depth of the flow  or the size of the pipe if you want to think about it like that and the figure for MWh indicates the quantity or the amount of power that flows through the “pipe.”

There are reports of two-hour, four-hour and even eight-hour batteries and we need to know the depth of flow in MW in addition to the period of the flow in hours to know precisely how much storage capacity can be delivered.

To be clear about the limited capacity of big batteries, compare the 194MWh of power stored in the Hornsdale Power Reserve with the amount of power consumed in the state of South Australia. The depth of the stream of power in the grid varies over the range of 1000MW to 2,500MW depending on the time of day and the season. Allowing 1,500MW for the purpose of estimation, that translates into a daily flow of 36,000MWh. That is equivalent to the capacity of 185 Hornsdale batteries.

With the cost apparently in the vicinity of $200 million per unit, that amount of battery storage is clearly out of the question even when the number of units is reduced to take account of solar power during the day. Many more would be required to allow for wind droughts that exceed 24 hours, as occurred in June 2020.

In the whole of the National Energy Market covering all the states in SE Australia the “depth” of the stream of power in the grid varies from 18GW (18,000MW) to 37GW (37,000MW) at the peak of demand during summer heatwaves. The figure below shows how the demand rises from the low point in the small hours of the morning to meet the demand at breakfast time, then settles during the day to rise again to the daily peak at dinnertime. The peak of demand lately did not exceed 30GW and so the calculations underestimate the amount of required at the peak of demand near 37GW.  It is not necessary to be more precise to make the point about the relative amount of power in “big” batteries compared with the grid.

Allowing an average flow of 25000MW for the 24 hour day, the total amount of power required is 600,000MWh, that is 3000 Hornsdale units.

It is an interesting academic exercise to calculate the cost of batteries to cover wind droughts of varying duration up to (say) the 33 hours experienced on the 5th and 6th of June 2020.  Forget it, even if the cost plummets to half or even one tenth of the cost of Phase 2 at Hornsdale!

Recommendation. Stop talking about batteries providing dispatchable power at grid-scale.


21.13 Indoctrination in School Science Courses.

Purpose: To call for a Parliamentary Inquiry into the teaching of science in schools.

Background. It is clear from a growing number of reports that there is widespread circulation of false and misleading information about climate science in schools.

Steps to introduce common courses across the nation have contributed to this situation.

Misinformation is provided by teachers functioning as green activists and some is taught by teachers who do not know any better.

The critical issue. Public debate on climate and energy issues will only be helpful when everyone has access to reliable and diverse information and there is civil discussion of competing ideas.

This debate cannot be helpful while cohorts of students emerge every year from the school system after K-12 exposure to misleading information and politicized science.

This must be a matter of serious concern for all politicians and other people who are concerned about the way the common curriculum is being used to promote radical and politically correct views.

Recommendation:  That the Commonwealth government initiate a Parliamentary Inquiry into the teaching of science in the schools.


The most recent account of the teaching situation comes from the author and journalist Tony Thomas in June 2021 reporting the launch of a handbook by the National Primary-School Teachers’ Association.

Notes to the manual say, Chapter 9 is a call for action. Without students taking personal action to mitigate climate change, there is no point to this book.

An extract from the Tony Thomas story

It’s an error-ridden 174-page blueprint that quarantines kids from any acknowledgement that costly wind and solar farms must be backed up by 24-7 baseload power.

The blueprint would have kids chanting North Korean-style “an Earth-focused school or class ‘anthem’ at assemblies. (This) is a great way to build emotional attachment to the planet”. The authors suggest such lyrics as

Earth is getting warmer, oceans rising higher
Storms are growing stronger, floods and fire
We know about the dangers, know there must be changes
The future is in our hands

The blueprint is called Teaching the language of climate change science, and is issued by the Primary English Teaching Association of Australia (PETAA) for its 3500 members and teachers generally. One author is Julie Hayes (left), retired principal of Cowandilla Primary School, SA, which has been “a Climate Change Focus School” for the past 20 years. The co-author is Dr Bronwyn Parkin (right), a literacy-linguistics specialist at Adelaide University. Both are listed as PETAA directors.

The indoctrination was  vetted by a 20-person academic panel. Its only card-carrying climate scientist was Professor Chris Turney of UNSW.[1] Turney’s wife, Annette, a tutor and PhD student at Wollongong University, was a co-panellist. , is famous for leading the  expedition to the Antarctic in 2013 to spruik global warming there. The ship got stuck in the ice that wasn’t supposed to be there and the climate scientists and joy-riders had to be extricated by a series of rescue vessels at huge expense and disruption to real science down there.

The authors excuse their simplified claims on the ground that kids are too young for hard science. But they are happy to indoctrinate kids with nonsense about climate-caused starving polar bears etc.


Articles by Tony Thomas.

Primary English Teachers Association launches global-warming activist manual for kids 5-14yo

Federal and State Education Ministers sponsor green/Left biased resources portal (“Scootle”) for schools nationally

At least 550 schools are promoting an error-ridden Green propaganda film/fantasy “2040” by Damon Gameau

Green/left lobby Cool Australia’s teaching templates are now being used by 52,540 teachers in 6,676 primary and high schools (71% of total schools). 3.2m students used the material in 2020.

More on Cool Australia here

and here – which includes WWF Earth Hour nonsense for schools

Australian Academy of Science school material (ca 2014) demands teenage activism and promotes anti-mining agenda. From  2013-2015 the Academy’s Science by Doing (SBD) site went live in mid-2013, about 9300 secondary science teachers, or 37% of Australia’s 25,000  science teachers, signed on for the free course, along with 50,000 students.

Schools and teachers nationally and by State promote Bruce Pascoe’s debunked thesis of pre-contact Aboriginal settled agriculturalists

Reconciliation Australia introduces racial politics to pre-schools and kindergartens

Recommendation:  That the Commonwealth government initiate a Parliamentary Inquiry into the teaching of science in the schools.

21.14  How is  Net Zero really going Overseas?

Purpose: To explain that Australia cannot be accused of underperforming in the quest for net zero.

Background. When overseas national leaders make verbal commitments to move towards net zero, many commentators think that this means we are making progress.

Almost the only evidence of progress is the statements themselves.

Countries world-wide are failing to live up to their self-imposed obligations under the Paris agreement – where the goals are often nominal – let alone the tougher requirement of net zero.

Not everyone is convinced that we need to be alarmed about CO2 emissions and  that is a topic for another note. This note is about the difference between the alarm that is expressed and the actions, or lack of actions, that follow.

The 2015 Paris Agreement came into effect in 2020, allowing each country to nominate its own emission goals (Nationally Determined Contributions.)  Many countries, notably top emitters India, China and Russia, set their Contributions too low to make any difference.

The goals are not legally binding. The only obligation is to nominate goals and to lodge updated goals every five years or so.

See the Supporting Information for commitments (NDCs) and the emission reduction efforts of major emitters.

In the real world.

In 2019 the Climate Action Tracker group looked at 32 countries which together  account for 80 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions. Only seven were doing enough to meet the Paris goals. India was the only one of those countries in the top ten of CO2 producing countries.

The Tracker group was impressed by the fact that India has already met a major Paris goal with 40 per cent of its installed electricity capacity being “clean” power. But the country was almost there before Paris!

Tracker group has an updated climate action map on its web site

The standout success in emissions control appears to be Morocco, with a very small manufacturing sector.


Compared with the rest of the world Australia has done very well in reducing emissions. The increasingly urgent talk about net zero both at home and abroad

comes from those who have no idea what it means or what it entails.

They ignore the fact that many countries are only making token efforts.

Declaring support for the concept of net zero as far away as 2050 or 2030 is convenient because next to no current leaders will be in power in 2030 and none in 2050.

Similarly business leaders can signal their virtue while knowing that they may never be held to account for what they are saying now.

Recommendation. Australia has done well by world standards, so stop accepting that Australia deserves to be a target for international ridicule.


List of top emitters (share of CO2 produced annually)

China (28%) – President Xi Jinping’s announcement in September of 2020 that China would aim for peak emissions by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2060 would be more believable if the country was not building so many coal fired power plants. The Green group Global Energy Monitor estimates that China commissioned 38.4 Gigawatts worth of new coal plants in 2020; more than three quarters of new plants world-wide.

 USA (15%) – American President Joe Biden signed the Paris treaty as a presidential agreement, not as a treaty binding the country. The wording on the document, negotiated when Obama was president, was changed so that it could not be considered a treaty under American law. President Biden has a climate agenda to match his rhetoric and the states are pursuing their own agendas which vary all the way from California which intends to ban the sale of petrol cars by 2035, Texas where the legislature remains opposed to passing any environmental plans.

India (7%) – set up its NDCs so that it could meet them easily. Another part of its pledge is to “cut greenhouse gas emissions intensity of its gross domestic product by 33% to 35% by 2030”, but this is meaningless as the intensity is declining anyway.

Russia (5%) – Russia’s NDC, updated in 2020, pledges that by 2030 emission levels will be limited to 70 per cent of the levels of 1990. This sounds impressive but so much inefficient and polluting old plant has been replaced in the meantime  that Russia doesn’t have to do anything to meet its Paris goals.

Japan (3%) – In October 2020 Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga declared that Japan would achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. Fine words but Nikkei Asia reported that the country still has 150 coal fired power plants and it may help to make them more efficient but that is nothing like the drastic action required to achieve net zero.

Germany (2%) – Like the UK, Germany is struggling to keep the lights on during the regular wind droughts that occur across western Europe. It is not possible to see how they will survive the closure of their remaining nuclear plants in the next year or two and the end of coal power by 2030 (advanced from 2038).

Iran (2%) – One of the few countries not to have ratified (confirmed that it will comply, as opposed to signed) the Paris treaty, the country has many other matters to contend with besides emission reductions.

South Korea (2%) – The promise is to cut emissions by 24 per cent from a 2017 baseline by 2030 by buying green credits from overseas and possibly by increasing the carbon absorbed by forestry and land use. Experienced observers of the climate action scene may suspect that the country may simply fiddle with assumptions for carbon absorbed by forests and land use to find extra credits, as other countries have done, notably in meeting obligations under the earlier Kyoto protocol. No need to bother industry or voters.

Saudi Arabia (2%) – The goal declared under the Paris treaty involved cutting emissions and increasing the use of nuclear energy and renewables but this was made dependent on “a robust contribution from oil export revenues to the national economy”. Oil prices are down so not much is happening.

Indonesia (2%) – Listed as a major emitter because of its treatment of forests and carbon-rich peatlands, the country has promised to clean up its practices in this area, which includes doing something about slash and burn farming. Farmers will clear an area for, say, a palm oil plantation, by burning it out. This practice can cause major fires, as occurred in 2019 – fires which produce more carbon dioxide per day than the entire American industrial output.

21.15  No Green Energy Transition with Existing Technology!

August 2021

Background.  The Energy Security Board is preparing recommendations for market reforms to make the green energy transition as quickly as possible

The Problem.  The fundamental problem is the gap in supply of wind and solar power on windless nights. Very high levels of installed RE capacity provide no power in the absence of wind and sun.

Windless nights are the limiting factor in the process, in the same way that a chain is only as strong as the weakest link and the flood protection wall is only as effective as the lowest point. For information on the depth and duration of wind droughts see note 20.2

Grid-scale storage is the answer but neither pumped hydro nor batteries will be feasible or affordable at that scale in the foreseeable future.

For the limitation of pumped hydro see note 21.5 

For the very small capacity of the so-called “big batteries” see note 21.12

It seems that extensive development of RE capacity cannot work in the absence of adequate storage and further waste of resources should cease until storage is available. The process has been done the wrong way around.

Conclusion: Further investment in RE capacity will be wasted until the storage issue is resolved


21.16      The Collapse of Green Energy in Europe

September 2021


To signal the failed energy policies of the UK and Europe.


Currently the UK House of Lords is conducting an inquiry into the cost of Net Zero.

The Critical Issue

John Constable of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has questioned the UK Government’s cost of achieving Net Zero, claiming that is significantly underestimated, citing former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Lawson’s suggestion that the cost will be 2 to 3 times the estimate of 1.4 trillion pounds.

Constable confirmed that the GWPF is currently undertaking a detailed analysis of the Government’s calculations and he noted that many of the assumptions are not supported by empirical evidence and indeed fall well short of the audited financial accounts of 350 wind companies.

From Fortune 11 September 2021 –“ Europe’s ambitious net-zero pledges hit home—with eye-watering energy bills”.

Running out of gas as the cost of energy hits record highs – Europe is facing a “power crunch”— one that has been years in the making. As the global demand for gas soars, Europe’s uptake of intermittent renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, combined with its aggressive shutdown of coal and heavy EU carbon taxation, has caused its electricity supply to tighten. 

The continent’s gas crunch is causing extreme volatility, with the U.K. on Thursday seeing its electricity price jump 10-fold during one seven-hour period, to a record high of £2,300 ($3,180) per megawatt-hour (MWh), as Ireland, which regularly exports wind energy to the U.K., itself faced supply shortages. 

They’re not alone. 

This volatility has brought higher prices, hitting record highs across Spain, Germany, and France. Residential users, meanwhile, bear the brunt of the cost.


We have a lot to learn from the European failures of their push for renewable energy.


There is still time for Australia to focus on the use of the abundant, high quality coal and uranium resources we are blessed with to deliver reliable, affordable and dispatchable electricity to meet the needs of its citizens and businesses.

Reliable, affordable and dispatchable electricity is fundamental to a prosperous future for our children, grandchildren and beyond.



John Constable – evidence to the House of Lords Costs of Net Zero Inquiry.


Fortune – 11 September 2021 – “Europe’s ambitious net-zero pledges hit home—with eye-watering energy bills.”

21.17      Fake Climate Alarms
October 2021

The release of the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has triggered an explosion of bad news stories about the impending disasters that will be caused by global warming.

The Critical Issue is that fake news is circulating regardless of the best available evidence.
Much of the bad news comes from the 41 page Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis , Summary for Policymakers that is released for the benefit of politicians and journalists who are too busy to read the report.
Frequently the alarming news in the summary is contradicted by the scientific papers in the 4000 pages of the main report
Some of the bad news is not even in the summary, like the widely reported “Code Red” warning that was invented by the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres.

Human activity is changing the climate in unprecedented and sometimes irreversible ways, a major UN scientific report has said.

IN THE LOCAL PRESS. An article in The Australian 25 Sept, reprinted from The Times in London reported Children born last year will, on average, endure seven times more extreme heatwaves and more than twice as many droughts as their grandparents, a global study has found.

THE FACTS OF THE MATTER. Claims of increasing episodes of extreme weather have been repeatedly debunked, year after year, using the best available records for the last century, but the journalists who write the bad news stories take no notice

Steven Koonin served as an undersecretary in the Energy Department during the Obama administration; professionally he is a decorated physicist with a special interest in climate models.
In a detailed video presentation he showed the reliable historical evidence that refutes the alarming claims about trends in extreme weather events.



Koonin’s Presentation

21.18 The Cost of Green Hydrogen

This note explains the very high cost of electricity generated by burning green hydrogen instead of natural gas in turbines.

Background. There is worldwide enthusiasm for producing ‘green’ hydrogen by electrolysis of water using electricity generated by wind and solar farms. This does not generated CO2, unlike the current commercial methods that extracts hydrogen using coal or gas.

The objective is to use hydrogen as a form of green energy storage.

One of the end uses is to generate electricity in gas turbines using hydrogen as the fuel instead of natural gas.

Critical Issues. The major issue is the cost of production. All the plans for green hydrogen at present are hopes and wishes that depend on major technological advances and practically unlimited supplies of very cheap wind and solar power.

The Facts of the Matter. The paper below uses current data to provide a realistic estimate of the cost of producing green hydrogen and then using it to generate electricity.

The process is wasteful due to the number of stages in the process to convert wind and solar energy into hydrogen gas and then back into electricity.

The most important figures in the calculation are:

The efficiency of the electrolysis (this indicates the amount of energy lost at that stage of the process).

The efficiency of conversion of the energy in the hydrogen to electricity from the generator.

The anticipated selling price of the hydrogen compared with the price of natural gas (the alternative fuel).


  • Electrolyser efficiency – 55.25%
  • Hydrogen fuelled system efficiency – 33.26%
  • Minimum selling price of hydrogen – $39.34/GJ
  • Cost of natural gas – $11.30/GJ.
    There is clearly a significant price difference which, in turn, will result in higher electricity prices fed back to the NEM grid.

It is also evident that the hydrogen fuelled system efficiency of 33.26% compared with a natural gas fuelled gas turbine efficiency of 60.2% (combined cycle mode) is wasteful of energy.

Conclusion. Unless there is a dramatic reduction in the cost of renewable electrical energy and the capital and O&M costs for electrolysers, green hydrogen is not competitive with natural gas as a fuel for gas turbines.


Efficiency of Hydrogen Fuelled Gas Turbines Version 1.5

Back To Top