CSIRO manipulate assumptions to make wind and solar look cheap

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Politicians often point to a CSIRO document called GenCost22 that claims wind and solar are the cheapest forms of energy. In reality however, their model has more holes than a block of Swiss cheese.
/35 Comments/by
You might also like
No Basis for Extreme Weather Predictions No Basis for Extreme Weather Predictions
Coalition Complain Labor’s Renewable Target is Behind Schedule Coalition Complain Labor’s Renewable Target is Behind Schedule
Natural Carbon Dioxide Experiment Proves the Real Inconvenient Truth
One Nation’s Plan to Restore Australian Farming : End Net Zero Madness One Nation’s Plan to Restore Australian Farming : End Net Zero Madness
Climate Bureaucrats Squirm When Questioned in Senate Estimates Climate Bureaucrats Squirm When Questioned in Senate Estimates
Hunter Valley Workers to Labor – you no longer represent us. Hunter Valley Workers to Labor – you no longer represent us.
35 replies
  1. Andrew Darby
    Andrew Darby says:

    Senator Roberts – Thank you for raising awareness of the ignorance of our elected government officials that are attempting to introduce critical changes to our country using under-analysed data. What a ridiculous statement “… it’s a well-established scientific fact…”. It’s embarrassing to think these people are our elected representatives and appointed public servants.

  2. john
    john says:

    Well stated Andrew. Were these people truly elected? Would be interesting to find out what vehicle these people drive.
    If they believe the climate change crap then they should all be driving electric cars which will be powered by electricity from coal fired power stations.

  3. Megan Knight
    Megan Knight says:

    I want solar personally but do not believe it is anywhere near ready for regional and national use. Thank you, Senator Roberts

  4. Warren Hart
    Warren Hart says:

    This report shows that wind turbines are a never ending money pit. They constantly break down and the leading edge of the blades break down within five years attracting high lifetime maintenance and a change out/disposal every 15 – 20yrs.
    It is dangerous and illegal to try to recycle the blades, therefore they can only be buried in landfill.

    https://stopthesethings.com/2022/09/03/toxic-blade-time-bomb-new-study-exposes-scale-of-wind-industrys-poisonous-plastics-legacy/

  5. Brian
    Brian says:

    Models are useless as they can be fed flawed data to make them seem valid. The whole renewable energy concept has been pushed upon the people of Australia by another unelected organisation that lives in a fantasy world. What they are selling is doomed to fail leaving the general population to suffer the most. By all means a better cheaper energy solution for our country, but a sustainable one that is born in this country, for this country.

  6. Michael Spencer
    Michael Spencer says:

    Sir Humphrey Appleby would have been very happy with the waffle from these bureaucrats, all of whom would be far better employed in filling potholes in our roads!

    The obfuscation and failure to answer Senator Roberts’ specific and logical questions are clearly bureaucratic waffle to disguise the fact that they do not have the slightest clue about what they are talking about! A statement such as “The science is settled” – or something like that – makes it quite clear. Time for a clear-out at C.S.I.R.O. it would seem!

  7. RickWill
    RickWill says:

    Please keep up the good work.

    If China can keep burning their own coal to make turbines, solar panels and batteries while continuing to buy Australian iron ore, bauxite and met coal, Australia might achieve Net Zero electricity.

    Should China run out of coal and cannot make the conversion to nuclear in time then Australia has no hope of getting to NetZero. Manufacturing in Australia is already on life support. Another decade of foolish decisions and Australian Manufacturing will be dead.

  8. Anthony Cox
    Anthony Cox says:

    Thanks for your work senator.

    Only in pixie land do ruinables become cheaper than reliable energy sources like fossils, nuclear and hydro. The reason why CSIRO gets away with this pea and shell trick is Levelised Costing: defined as the cost of the power source divided by the amount of energy produced during the power source’s lifetime. On that simple, narrow basis wind and solar win every time. They win because very other relevant cost item is ignored. Those items include:

    1 Ruinables receive $13 billion in DIRECT government subsidies PA. Fossils get no subsides; they get tax deductions for the costs of running their business which are offset against the profits they make. Wind and solar do not get tax deductions because the income they get is from those direct subsidies, preferential access to grid sales when they are running -about 30% of the time – and Large-Scale Generation Certificates (LGC). LGCs are paid by the fossil energy companies and indirectly by the taxpayer, to the wind and solar when they are producing, about 30% of the time. So, wind and solar get paid by their competitors to sell the limited amount of electricity they produce!
    2 Backup. Ruinables require vast amount of backup because they only produce power for 30% of the time. That backup is usually fossils because batteries do not produce power only store it inefficiently. The cost of that backup is not included in the Levelised Costing comparison.
    3 Ruinables produce the WRONG sort of electricity; wind and solar produce Direct Current, DC, instead of Alternating Current, AC, which is what the grid runs on. The DC produced by wind and solar must be changed into AC. This is done like rooftop solar, by using an inverter. The large inverters for wind and solar farms are condensors are very expensive and have to be replaced much more often than the solar panels or wind towers.
    4 Raw materials. Solar and wind farms use enormous amounts of raw materials, including COAL. This cost is not included.
    5 Wind and Solar need to be located in the best positions and these are far away from the grid. The cost of moving the grid to these remote locations, which is vast, is not included. The grid also has to be changed to accommodate the DC electricity produced by wind and solar.

    When all of these costs are included not only are wind and solar much more expensive than fossils but they also have an Energy Return on Energy Invested, EROEI, less than 1; which means the energy produced by wind and solar is LESS than the energy produced by wind and solar.

    In no sane Universe are ruinables cheaper than fossils.

    • Col
      Col says:

      Hi Anthony,

      Paragraph 5
      The grid remains as AC.
      The DC produced by photovoltaic systems is converted to AC by inverters as per your comment in Paragraph 3.

      Your comments on costs and costing are interesting.
      Have you any numerical data to support your claims?

      Cheers,
      Col

        • Col
          Col says:

          Hi Anthony,
          Thanks I have two questions.
          1) Who is Dr Alan Moran and which institutes is he associated with?
          2) I have checked Dr Michael Crawford on Google And there appears to be about three by that name.
          Which Dr Michael Crawford is the author of the article?
          Incidentally, in my opinion, any writer who starts any document in the manner of your second reference needs to be considered with extreme caution.
          I have not yet had time to read both articles but hope to read them soon and provide my answer.
          Cheers,
          Col

        • Col
          Col says:

          Checking the opening and closing paragraphs of the second suggestion (letter to Alan Finkel) leaves me with dismay.

          Both paragraphs are rather dismissive and derogatory which, to me, causes the thought that maybe the writer knows their arguments are very weak and is trying to cover this weakness with abuse.

          Further reading of the document (the whole 10 pages) reveals no improvement in the tone or quality of writing.

          Please note, I asked for numerical data to support the allegations re costs etc and the nearest in the document is a graph.
          The graph in itself is faulty with two unrelated variables on the same time axis, there appears to be no relationship between the two vertical axes. What is more, the writer’s interpretation of the graphs is seriously in error.

          With all due respect, Anthony, the document as supplied does not support your allegation and does not provide any numerical data as requested.
          It appears rather useless.

          Cheers,
          Col

  9. Anthony Cox
    Anthony Cox says:

    “which means the energy produced by wind and solar is LESS than the energy produced by wind and solar.”

    I’ll just correct that:

    “which means the energy produced by wind and solar is LESS than the energy needed to set up wind and solar.”

      • Anthony Kenneth Cox
        Anthony Kenneth Cox says:

        GenCost 22 is complete junk. It pays lip service to LCOE and then uses it. It ignores Ultra SuperCritical, Gen 1V and IFR nuclear plus SMRs. Any report which even entertains Hydrogen is beyond redemption. CSIRO must now be regarded as a completely green outfit with no interest in Australia’s best energy future.

  10. Howard Dewhirst
    Howard Dewhirst says:

    When you were told that they had heard you ask these questions many times , presumably this because they never answer?
    AND
    When they said there is a consensus – there isn’t

  11. Warren Oram
    Warren Oram says:

    ‘Everyone knows’. ‘It’s a well established fact’. ‘The overwhelming agreement within the scientific world supports this’. ‘Obvious to all but the ignorant and intellectually challenged.’ ……..

    Even the distressed ‘look’ which reads ‘I would explain this if I thought you could understand’.

    How does the song go? ‘Don’t talk of clouds flying above, don’t talk of love, SHOW ME’.

    I’m 83 y/o. Not quite back to dinosaurs, but alive long enough to notice changes (?) Changes that are claimed to have, still are and soon will….. unless.

    Two solid non disputable, every day, available to all to inspect that are the same now as they were back to when A/ I was 2 y/o and started visiting Sydney’s Bronte beach boggy hole, and B/ When in and after 1946 we moved to Brisbane and started frequenting Scotts Point beach near Redcliffe.

    Since, I have visited both intermittently, (It’s not like living with, not noticing your children grow compared with seeing a nephew once every Christmas.) so with around 80 years visiting, I see NO difference. NO change. NO deepening water.

    Back to the song ‘Don’t tell me, show me’.

    • Col
      Col says:

      Sorry Warren,

      BUT
      In appropriate measuring instrument.

      Check sea level records for fort Dennison (approx 1860 to 2006)

      Cheers,
      Col

    • Anthony Kenneth Cox
      Anthony Kenneth Cox says:

      Hi Michael, the senator has passed on your request. Mate, I’m flat out and can only make occasional comments like I’m doing here. Keep up the good work. Despite the excellent work by the senator and a few other politicians the lies of Alarmism and ruinables have a way to go because the grifters and green commies really have infested the halls of power.

      This is a fight which has been going for a long time; this may be of interest: a paper I co-authored in 2009 which completely contradicted the myth world temperatures have been increasing due to human emissions of CO2:

      https://arxiv.org/abs/0907.1650

      All the best.

        • Col
          Col says:

          Dear Michael and Anthony,

          I have downloaded and reading a copy of “Renewables or Ruinables”.
          As stated previously, my consideration of the quality a document depends on the overall tone of writing and the level of ridicule / denigration employed.
          The above document fails miserably in this respect and leaves me thoroughly dismayed.
          Does the writer subconsciously or otherwise acknowledge the weaknesses in his arguments?

          A few questions related to paragraphs 3 and 5.
          Why is the grid predominately AC?
          There are a few cases where feeders to the grid are DC. Why?
          Where are Hydro and Thermal generating stations located?
          Obvious answer, the best location for these generating systems.
          The GRID is connected to these locations and extended to any further generating locations as necessary.
          In this case there is no difference with the early extensions as the grid system was/is built and upgraded.

          The above is sufficient for today, other comments will be available if necessary.

          Awaiting your comments with interest.

          Cheers,
          Col

      • Col
        Col says:

        Anthony,
        You will probably not like this reply.
        I have read your contribution from 2009.

        Analysis of data to support a pre concieved concept usually leads to erroneous conclusions.
        In this case Global Temperatures have continued to RISE in the 14 years after your co-authored paper.

        This continued rise clearly indicates the erroneous conclusion.

        May I suggest you perform a Google search of the following.
        1) Global use of fossil fuels.
        2) Global rise of CO2 levels
        3) Global temperatures.

        Here you will find an increase use of fossil fuels leading to increased atmospheric CO2 levels which, in turn, leads (via the Greenhouse effect) to increased Global temperatures.

        If I have reached the wrong conclusion please show where I am mistaken.

        Michael, do you have any comment?

        Cheers,
        Col

  13. Col
    Col says:

    Folks,

    I have sent a copy of the URL for this costing comment to the CSIRO.
    I may or may not receive a reply but will forward their reply if received.

    Cheers,
    Col

  14. Timothy Little
    Timothy Little says:

    Wouldn’t it be more beneficial to harness the power from the tides and the resources we have to produce ample electricity. I am sure that there are better more sustainable options out there that can be harnessed. Even discovering our own uranium resources may lead to better sourced and powered nuclear power plants. Possibly sourced and placed away from high population areas incase of a fallout.

    • m
      m says:

      Timothy, if you follow this little thing that I’ve assembled – http://www.galileomovement.com.au/media/SaveThePlanet.pdf – you will find that it leads on to introducing nuclear energy in a gradual way. I’ve done this deliberately so as not to ‘blow brains’ at the outset.

      I think that you might also discover just how much has nuclear technology progressed, including its safety aspects (to say nothing of efficiency!).

      Perhaps let me know what you think – my email address will be quite visible!

      • Col
        Col says:

        Dear M.
        ie. Michael.

        Just a few questions.
        What is the time line for designing, building and finally commissioning to full output of a nuclear PS?
        What is the expected life time of such a PS?
        What length of time is required to FULLY decommission a nuclear PS at the end of its lifetime?
        What about storage of the spent fuel? How many years and what are the isolation requirements?

        Cheers,
        Col

          • Col
            Col says:

            Sorry Michael,

            There appears to be some error on the website Galileo movement etc.

            My computer informs me the website is suspended???

            How long before it is up and running again?

            Cheers,
            Col

    • Col
      Col says:

      Timothy,

      Is there something we are not being told?.

      Reading all the comments on these websites one could be excused for thinking nuclear power generation is safe.

      To Quote your comment.:
      “Possibly sourced “and placed away from high population areas in case of a fallout”

      Are they not safe?

      Col

  15. Col
    Col says:

    Malcolm,

    I have just read the report as above

    “Bureau of Meteorology: Report doesn’t link humans and climate change”

    The report does not set out to claim such a link as stated below

    To Quote,,

    “The purpose of the report is to report on observations that we are taking on or around a range of parameters in Australia’s climate. That’s all it does.”

    In effect the report presents observations leaving others to interpret the data depending on their level of scientific understanding.
    Nothing more nothing less.

    Cheers,
    Col

  16. Barry Rogers
    Barry Rogers says:

    What an arrogant person. Clearly biased. One more time.. no, provide the information he seeks not consensus reports.

Comments are closed.