Killing Conventional Power
Remember the crux of this issue. The theory has been falsified and without correlation you cannot have causation.
Introduction
Western civilisation has a cancer that has its citizens making important decisions based on; labels, personalities, emotions and irrationalities, using beliefs, feelings, dreams, views and factoids – instead of facts – in an attempt to arrive at the truth.
Not surprisingly they fail to find the truth.
On this page of the website, examples of such corrosive traits will be discussed. Mimicking the above thoughts, Robert Byrce [1] introduces us to the woolly thinking that is being used to dismantle conventional power by saying;
“The romance of renewable energy is such that we are ignoring logic common sense as well as hard facts and figures. We must bring more depth to the discussion, more reasoned analysis, more evidence-based decision making, and less emotion and biased thinking’
He went on to say that’
“Energy realities are not dictated by ideologies of the Left or Right. They are determined by the laws of physics and the brutal realities of big numbers.”
CONVENTIONAL POWER
For thousands of years, humans had used renewable water and wind energy, and these were still used at the beginning of the industrial revolution. However, these sources could not compete with newly developed coal, oil and natural gas. Hydrocarbons produced huge increases in power availability that were free of all geographical constraints.
The increasing availability and flexibility of power allowed us to do ever greater amounts of work in less time.
In the energy industry we use hydrocarbons not because they were fashionable, popular good looking or that we liked them. They were chosen because they produce lots of energy (heat), from small spaces at prices we can afford and in the quantities that we demand.
They meet the four imperatives of energy production [2] which are; energy density, power density, cost and scale. In looking for alternate energy sources you must consider all four of these metrics to make a sensible decision. Each metric is discussed below.
For example the cost of “fuel” for wind and solar is free, but these sources fail miserably short when considering energy density, power density , scale and in all the other cost areas. How miserable is miserable? For example energy density.
Petrol is ten quadrillion times more energy-dense than solar radiation, one billion times more energy-dense than wind and water power, and ten million times more energy-dense than human power [3]. Petrol has eighty times more energy density than the very best lithium-ion batteries. That is quite a large handicap to overcome before we look at the other three metrics.
Energy Density means the amount of energy that can be contained in a given unit of volume, area or mass. Two metrics used are BTU per gallon and joules per kilogram. The higher the energy density the better.
A 40 kilogram battery that stores 10Kwh of electricity is better than a 40 kilogram battery that stores 5Kwh. A 10 litre container of petrol has a greater energy density than the same container filled with dry leaves.
Every fuel we burn has a different energy density.
Energy density can be considered as ‘bang for buck’ for the same weight of the fuel.
When we see in the table above that solar and wind energy density is measured in micro joules rather than Mega joules of energy, the lack of competitiveness with conventional power become obvious.
Power Density means the amount of power that can be harnessed in given unit of volume, area or mass. Metrics used are; horsepower per cubic inch, watts per square metre and watts per kilogram.
For more than a century we have been developing better devices to produce the same amount of energy in smaller and smaller areas.
Better engines have been designed to quickly and efficiently convert the energy found in coal, oil and gas into power. This increase in power density has resulted in ever greater amounts of power generated from smaller and smaller spaces.
For example, in 1908 a Model T Ford had a 2.9 litre engine that produced 22 horsepower or about 7.6 horsepower per litre. One hundred years later the Ford “Fusion” car was equipped with a 2.5 litre engine producing 175 horsepower or 70 horsepower per litre.
Ford’s engineers had made a nine fold improvement in the engine’s power density.
Watts per square metre is the best measure to compare renewables with coal, oil, gas and nuclear power as shown in the table below.
Once again, the table above shows how handicapped alternate power sources are with the following example making power density easier to understand.
In order to supply either Germany or the UK with their total power needs by using wind power, the wind farms would cover half of their total land mass. If biomass was needed to supply all the power, every square metre of the land of those countries would need to be used. There would not be enough land in either country if ethanol was chosen to meet the their total power needs. Coal uses 1400 times less land than ethanol to produce the same power
Renewables are not a realistic option.
Cost. In Australia wind power is 2-3 times more expensive than conventional power. Solar power is 4-6 times more expensive than conventional power. The significant differences in these costs are caused by the different subsidies granted to renewables in different States and Territories. The final expense to be paid by the consumer depends on the mix of solar and wind power used in each geographical location.
The costs differ all around the World. For example, the renewable costs and mix in Spain requires the consumer to pay eight times more for power than the power from a modern conventional power station.
The greatest lie of the Green leadership is to tell us that renewables are either cheaper or close to competitive with conventional power. They aren’t – not even close. Renewables are very, very expensive.
If the Greens’ assertions were correct, there would be no need for governments to coerce power companies to embrace renewables. Nor would there be the need to pass legislation forcing power companies to buy the renewable energy whenever it was available irregardless of the price.
When nuclear power was discovered the benefits were embraced by power companies without coercion, as any other new source of energy would be IF it made sense to do so. Because it is not sensible to use renewables, this source has to be forced on both the power companies and the consumer.
Scale becomes an important metric whenever power demands change – which normally means increases. Because conventional power sources have significantly higher power density metrics than renewables, it is far easier and less expensive to increase power to meet increasing demands.
Trying to reclaim a quarter of the total land area of Germany or the UK so wind farms could meet a 50% increase in demands for power becomes problematic. And this is before you have to buy an extra thousand wind turbines (generators) that are larger than a jumbo jet standing on it’s tail – or taller than the Sydney Harbour bridge. It is far easier to buy and house an extra dozen generators in a conventional power station.
Conclusion
After studying the four imperatives of energy production [2] which are; energy density, power density, cost and scale, even “Bind Freddy” could see how foolish and expensive it is to replace conventional power with any source of renewable power. Yet here we are doing it.
One would hope that there was a very good reason for doing so. The suggested reason was to prevent humans from becoming extinct because of the carbon dioxide being released from conventional power stations. That might have been a good reason – if it was true.
Unfortunately, we are going to find in the next section there wasn’t a sensible reason for doing so.
Notes.
- Bryce, Robert, “Power Hungry – the myths of “green” energy and the real fuels of the future”, Public Affairs (Member Perseus Books Group), New York, 2010, page xvi.
- Ibid, page 4
THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST CONVENTIONAL POWER
The campaign against conventional power had two distinct phases which were deliberately conflated by the Green PR machine.
The first phase was the aim to reduce carbon dioxide because of the irrational belief that it would cause ‘runaway global warming’ resulting in all life on the planet becoming extinct.
After twenty years, when all the predictions made by Green scientists based on their falsified theory were failing on a monthly basis, there was a subtle shift away from carbon dioxide to one of reducing pollution.
In the Beginning There Was Carbon Dioxide
From day one of this campaign, anyone with an open mind who spent a few minutes reading about past concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would have realised that, once again, the Greens and their scientists were feeding us nonsense.
In 1980, the Green scientists correctly predicted CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere would rise from 380ppm to 400ppm by the year 2000. They then incorrectly predicted that this 20ppm rise in concentrations would cause global temperatures to rise by 3-5 degrees. In reality there was only a natural warming rise of 0.3oC by the year 2000.
In the past the maximum level of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere was 6,000ppm – fifteen times higher than the present day of 400ppm.
Using a conservative 2oC rise in global temperatures with a 20ppm rise in CO2 concentrations, we can calculate the global temperatures in the past. Increasing the CO2 concentrations from 400ppm to 6,000ppm should have increased the global temperatures by 560oC – that is from today’s temperature of 15oC to 575oC .
In reality, past temperatures were very similar to today’s temperatures, not hundreds of degrees different. So from day one, a person with an open mind and some critical thinking skills knew the claims being made by the Greens and their scientists were laughably wrong.
Now, let us assume that we did not have an open mind or the ability to think critically and believed the Green leadership – how should we have reacted.
Obviously, conventional power generation had to be replaced because of the amount of CO2 that was being vented into the atmosphere. Although marginally more expensive, the obvious replacement candidate was nuclear power with its respectable energy density, power density and its ability to increase scale cheaply.
Because it would take some decades to transition to nuclear, in the interim, the best candidate to replace coal was natural gas which released significantly less CO2 into the atmosphere and had a significantly higher energy density than coal which countered its poor power density .
With the loss of our ability to have an open mind and critically think about this issue, western citizens blindly and unthinkingly accepted the Greens proposal to use alternate energy. Possibly the worst decision that could have been made.
As explained in the previous page (Our Response Page 2) we end up with a triple power system, where we use the most expensive electricity (solar) first, followed by the next most expensive electricity (wind) and use the cheapest electricity as a gap filler when the other alternate power sources are misbehaving. However, to add insult to the self inflicted injury, this system will only reduce CO2 emissions by 15%. Why is that?
Because alternate power sources are uncontrollable and unreliable there has to be a conventional power station included as a back up system when the alternate energy sources cannot meet the demand for power. As there is no warning of this power shortfall, the conventional power station has to burn coal 24/7 to make steam to be ready to fill the gap.
In the perfect situation when alternate power provides all the power, the conventional power station burns 85% of its coal to keep the steam supply ready – but produces no electricity. When it is used, it will burn 100% coal, so it will be still producing nearly the same amount of CO2 emissions on idle or operating efficiently.
Have we lost sight of the primary goal of reducing CO2 emissions while quadrupling the cost of electricity?
Did this design come from a mind that considered the “laws of physics and the brutal realities of big numbers.” or a mind lost in “a romantic vision, ignoring logic, common sense as well as hard facts and figures“? That is what irrationality and a lack of critical thinking does for us.
After twenty years (2000), when it was obvious that the theory was flawed and CO2 emissions were not a threat, the Green PR machine subtly changed the goal posts and justified replacing conventional power as it was “dirty” and “belched out” tons of pollutants. For those who still believed in the threat of CO2 emissions they assumed that the label “pollutants” included CO2 emissions.
In the End There Was Pollution
This was disingenuous as both the Green leadership and their scientists knew that through their own efforts, thirty years earlier, legislation had forced conventional power stations to filter out all the pollutants. So for the past twenty years, the Greens and their scientists have been lying to the public about the need to introduce alternate power.
CO2 emissions were no longer a threat and there were no pollutants being released into the air.
This did not stop the campaign against conventional power. The Greens, scientists, and their PR people have spent the past twenty years lying and deceiving the public on this issue using every deception tool available (e.g. Language deception, definitional deception, visual deception, and lies)
What was worse, was the Media, the politicians, all the scientists and the “rent seekers” who were to benefit financially from alternate energy all remained silent about these lies and misdirection.
An example of such long term lies and deception is discussed in the next section about cooling towers.
Conventional Power Cooling Towers
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Western governments required all conventional power plants to filter out any pollutants that were being vented into the atmosphere. For the past forty years, conventional power stations have, in effect, not emitted any pollutants. The only visible “emission” is steam which passes out of cooling towers. On reaching the cooler air outside the cooling towers this steam condenses and forms a “white cloud”. On further cooling a hundred metres away, this “white cloud” disappears as the steam reverts to water vapour which is invisible.
The Green Movement and a compliant Media wish to vilify conventional power generation as dirty, filthy or use any other weaponised word to convince people that the plants needed to be shut down. For years, article after article discussed how conventional plants were ‘belching out’ millions of tons of pollutants every day accompanied with photographs of cooling towers, in reality, only releasing steam.
After a decade, some citizens were realising this deceit, so then photographs of the plants were then taken ‘backlit’ (i.e. looking past the plant into the sun). This gave the impression the white steam was black supporting the idea that it must be smoke filled with pollutants. That deceit didn’t last for too many years either, so the Greens decided to “Photoshop” the photos of the plants and ‘paint’ into the picture black soot filled smoke coming out of the “chimneys” and then forming a dark cloud over the plant.
Initially, the public thought the Media had made an innocent error. However, after hundreds of complaints were made to the Media and no corrections were made it became obvious the Media was also lying to us. That lying, by both the Greens and the Media, has now gone on for forty years.
The left hand column of the photographs below shows three clean conventional power plants operating normally. The right hand column of photographs are the same plants with the ‘doctored’ changes added to show that they are dirty. All these photographs were published by the Media.
Most of this deception was undertaken by the Greens and uncritically published by the Media. However if they did not have a doctored photograph, Media personnel photo-shopped their own pictures – sometimes very crudely.
The last photo in the right column was doctored by a Melbourne newspaper. You might note that the black smoke starts where the steam disappears rather than at the top of the “smoke stack” – which, in reality, is a cooling tower.
In May 2020, the Hazelwood power station was demolished and our wonderful Media couldn’t help themselves as they continued to deceive us. Most decided to describe the eight cooling towers being demolished as “chimneys”. A chimney is a “pipe which conducts smoke and combustion gases up from a fire or furnace and typically through the roof of a building“. A cooling tower is not a chimney.
Use of the word “chimney” evokes the idea of smoke, soot, pollution, black and dirty, which helps sell the Green’s incorrect view of conventional power being ‘dirty’.
So after forty years of misidentifying cooling towers the Media continue to deliberately deceive us. Would you expect the Media to call transmission towers, telecommunication towers and the Eiffel Tower a chimney? No.
So why call a cooling tower a chimney? To mislead us because we are so gullible.
So here we have the outcome of a “Marriage in Hell” where, for their own survival, two organisations have to fabricate alarming stories to ensure money flows into their coffers. Ironically, the Media who tells us that they always “seek out the truth and are the only organisations in our society that can be trusted” has lied to us about this for forty years.
The Green Movement is the Media’s ‘golden goose’ producing alarming stories. You will rarely, or never, hear the Media criticise their golden goose irrespective of how badly their goose is behaving.
Clean and Dirty Labels
In our irrational society, we no longer discuss issues. We prefer to use labels, and illogical and emotional thinking. In the power issue, the labels being used were “Clean” and “Dirty”.
Figuratively, a ‘mother figure’ stood in front of us waving two labels and said “Children what do we want?” lifting up the clean label accompanied with positive visual imagines and pleasing music. Or “Dirty” she said in a disgusted voice accompanied by loud booing and hissing. All the children erupted, leapt to their feet and shouted “We want clean, we want clean”. So our wonderful rational society made a decision.
Did anyone ask “How much is this going to cost us?” On being told more than a billion dollars a year, did we ask “What exactly are we getting for that significant cost?” On being told we would be receiving the same electricity as before, did we ask “Where is the dirt and can we clean it up for less than a billion dollars a year?” We only have 20 power stations in Australia – so we can buy a lot of cleaners for a billion dollars.
No such questions entered the discussion as the issue was not discussed in any depth. Having been repulsed by the “Dirty” label, we were more than happy to stop thinking and go with our emotional response. We weren’t even interested in trying to find the “Dirty”.
So Reading 4.3.1 searches for the “dirty” in a conventional power system to find out how “dirty” is “dirty”, and see if the billions we are paying for “clean” power is worth it. And, not surprisingly, we find that our emotional and irrational response was flawed.
How Sensible Have We Been?
Not very sensible at all.
From day one of the global warming campaign, anyone who had a slightly open mind and a small amount of critical thinking skills who was willing to spend ten minutes reading about past CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, would know that CO2 was not a threat.
Anyone who talked to the power generation industry would have also found out about the legislation that forced companies to filter out pollutants.
Without the threat of CO2 and the idea that power stations were “belching out millions of tons of pollutants” there was never any sensible reason to replace conventional power with alternate power where consumers would pay four times more for exactly the same electricity.
So why did we do it?
After irrationally deciding to replace our conventional power system – how sensible have we been?
Not very sensible at all.
We now have a triplicated power system working in parallel which is very expensive, increasing electricity prices by four fold. What benefits are we getting for this extra expenditure?
We are getting exactly the same electricity. We are not reducing air pollution as the pollutants had already been removed. We are not removing all the CO2 emissions because we need a conventional power backup for the uncontrollable and inefficient double alternate power sources. This backup has to be burning coal 24/7 so it can respond to any power shortfalls. We might have reduced CO2 emissions by 5-10%, but remember these emissions were not causing a problem.
The icing on the cake of all this irrational decision making is the idea that we will give preference to using the most expensive electricity first, the next most expensive electricity second, and only use the cheapest electricity as a last resort. This has already meant that Australia has moved from the top five countries producing the cheapest electricity in the World, to the bottom 20% of countries producing the most expensive electricity.
Without being too harsh a critic, it could be argued that we would have had a better replacement power system if it had been chosen by a blindfolded four year old child.
Yet most of us still believe we are rational and use logic and facts to make decisions.
Does It Matter?
Yes it does. We are spending billions of dollars extra to get the same electricity and no other benefits. We should not be swept away with the dream and say “Alternate power is high tech, new, looks good, out with the old in with the new and it is free”. No it isn’t.
Every dollar that we spend on the dream means we have to give up a dollar that we were spending on a real problem. If you haven’t read Reading 4.1.4 you should read it now as Reading 4.3.2. We can never be cavalier in our spending in one area – it will hurt us in other areas
This Mess Might be Sensible for the Green Leadership
Any modern industrialised Western society is driven by electricity. Without electricity it would collapse. The Green leadership wants to reverse/destroy the industrial revolution, so why not damage it by driving electricity prices up two to four fold, and make the generation unreliable, uncontrollable and inefficient?
The Green leadership has been telling us for decades (and we have not been listening) they don’t want our society to have cheap, abundant reliable energy. Does that mean they want expensive, scarce and unreliable electricity? See the quotes below. Have we asked them?
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
Although we have been working for some time on fusion energy, it is still a dream – but a promising one. Apparently, that promising dream is considered a threat to the Green leadership – even today. See the quote below
“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.” – Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation