Where did all the money go?

I sometimes see claims like this, “renewables are the cheapest and most reliable form of power – they’re already driving down power bills…”—Premier Jacinta Allan, Victoria Australia Premier.

Please keep in mind, I chose Capital cost. Good luck finding two sources that agree on the cost of any given source of energy. Lazard can’t even agree with itself.

So, maths…

It is sometimes claimed that “renewables” (wind & solar) have an expected lifecycle of 25 years. And although solar is not really a meaningful source of energy, we get that 25 year average by assuming that under ideal conditions, without being destroyed by a weather event, and with ever diminishing efficiency, a solar panel could operate for up to 40 years. And by averaging that in with the expected 20-year lifecycle of onshore wind and the 10-year lifecycle of offshore wind we can fudge a 25.

It seems likely that a new, modern nuclear power plant may be in service for up to a century before it needs to be rebuilt. But lets be conservative and say 80 years.

So, to get the same energy capacity over the same time frame we have to multiply the costs for onshore and offshore wind by 4 and 8 respectively. For onshore wind that gives us a $/MWh range of $108–300 and for offshore wind that is $536–1168 $/MWh.

But that assumes that these 2022 numbers from National Renewable Energy Laboratory are even current.

From last November. “Lazard says the “average UNSUBSIDIZED levelized cost of energy” for wind is $50 USD. It is harder to find, but for offshore wind they give a range of $66–100 USD. But the UK has just proved that the minimum subsidy alone is $94.51 USD. And in light of the UK government’s rich subsidies, please note Lazard’s use of the word, “UNSUBSIDIZED!””

If we take that November ’23 expected subsidy figure, offshore wind capacity costs at least 756 $/MWh.

But that is literally not the half of it. These figures are always given for “capacity” not actual generation. Nuclear electricity generation has a capacity factor 2–3 times that of wind. For onshore wind that can be as much as 5 times. Meaning you have to multiply the $/MWh capacity figures for wind by at least 2–3 again to get the same actual generation of usable energy.

And it starts to become ridiculous. Over the lifespan of a nuclear power plant we start getting to ranges of cost for “equivalent” onshore wind per MWh of $216–900 (or $1500 with 18% CF). And for offshore wind that balloons to $1072–3504. Even if you think I am being unfair and half the onshore figures, or quarter the offshore figures, these are not competitive costs.

But that is just Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE). Renewables incur a cost of storage as well (LCOS) which can nearly double the base capacity cost. And that is not taking into account that we do not actually have a real way of storing grid-scale electricity for hours, let alone the entirety of a 27-day dunkelflaute.

Wind and solar are by no means and in no sense the cheapest or most reliable source of energy. It is not even close. And I despair of people who can go on pretending otherwise in the face of the contrary information.

Published by

Dave

I am an experienced freelance graphic artist and sometime canoeist. I feel strongly about the quality of professional work and like sitting by a remote lake on a sun-warmed rock.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *