Renewables vs. Fossil Fuels: The True Cost of Energy

Considering that the program ignores the fact that solar and wind have a heavy material demand that our mines today cannot meet....and therefore material prices will skyrocket and be another factor.

Great video lady...though you do make me feel like a bit of a dunce.

Why aren't the end of life disposal costs considered in these calculations?

The perfect energy technology is here; it saves biodiversity as it operates, absorbs CO2 as a byproduct, produces food, creates arable land, can lower sea level rise, is beautiful, and produces limitless water. If only we could open our minds to it. The book Pluvicopia shows the details and asks for discussion and help in doing a complete numerical modeling of the concept. Please read it before you say impossible. The energy the planet is dissipating via the water cycle dwarfs our needs, and it is easy to harness with all the benefits of rain and more because we work it where the most significant benefits are found. Pull LH from Pakistan and India to stop flooding and dump it into the Aral Sea area. Take it from Oklahoma to stop tornadoes and dump it into the Colorado and Rio Grande.

Good vid!

Curious what year thoughts are on wind power in particular and the effects it has on birds. Supposedly there has been a large effect on the bird population from wind turbines?

And then, of course, I have heard an argument on how while solar is easy as far as accessibility. Had a side effect to it is that the more solar panels there are put out. And it’s actually just causing a reaction and our heating up of the atmosphere from the reflection of course. Though this is said to be from solar panel fields, that are very large .

I don’t personally have any deep study on these things. These are just things I have heard that definitely should be cautioned and looked into. If they have not already.

Min 13: yes you can put energy produced by sun in a bucket its called a battery and its capacity is amp hours there are costs that must be considred here too as inverters, batteries,... and all wasted energy in between, the system is not as good as they make it seem

With more solar power plants installed it might be better to have them face eastwards or westwards. Though the overall yield will decrease, most of the power comes during high-price times. So the ROI will be better.

To date the worlds dams are all fitted with only one bank of turbines the thinking is any more and turbine surging will happen. This was right but in Australia in 2016 a proof of concept unit was tested by RDP Marine it can be retro fitted to all dams and give 5-10% more power from the same volume of water. So you have missed at least one form of power generation in this blog

I think the true cost should be calculated of things that we burn and their climate impact. We ‘re in a position, thanks to corrupt politicians and big fossil fuel industries running after profits for over 50 years knowingly that we end up in the situation where we put all species at jeopardy, where we can’t effort to burn anything unpunished. Trillions are spend for warfare, if that budget was put in renewables, transforming animal agriculture to precision fermentation and cell based meat (for those who want to kill themselves prematurely, oh yeah animal protein kills you!) and reforesting crop - and grazing land (because you simply need way less land), you would solve this issue in a decade. Stop sending tax money to fossil fuel companies and animal agriculture! Invest that money in innovation, education and technology. The agriculture sector needs education, this sector doesn’t know how to do their job without destroying the environment with pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, manure and tilling land that puts co2 in the atmosphere. In the co2 charts you CAN SEE when they till the land for their livestock!

To me, the decision is easy: solar, solar, and solar.... in a well-connected global network for exchanges, and with constant reductions of each and every energy footprint in everything we do. We literally get 1000 W PER SQUARE METER in sunny conditions. If we did not exploit that, we would be a very very dumb race!Luckily, the solar transformation of the world is happening, with hundreds of GW of new solar capacity being installed every year. In my country (Spain), it is a common occurrence that Solar+Wind produce over 50% of our energy demand. A BIG BONUS: Let us cut fossil fuels and we will also cut the money to dangerous regimes, dictators, and absolutist rulers in the world!

Rosie, as an engineer (and economist) i love your videos. Keep up the great work!

I would like to know meg a watts , per hour or total , bet you are total for solar and wind not coal...

Have you factored in the life cycle on average of wind and sea turbines? The affect it has the kW price compared to coal/gas when replacing a turbine every 30 years for example?

If you don't understand much of this there is a good reason for that. This video is intended for engineers and financial planners. Not for us poor folks.
This problem was identified by Einstein years ago. He said:
“We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them.”

The truth is that the engineers and the billionaire energy magnates who built our society have no interest in actually solving this problem. They don't care about you, or me...at ALL.
To solve the problem of anthropogenic climate change we need human beings who approach the natural world with a deep sense of awe, humility, compassion, and intelligence. We don't need bean counters who are focused on huge profits for the ultra-wealthy.
This video fails to define the problem in a useful way. There is nothing here that will be of use to people who really care about this problem.
Just a thought.

1. Hydrogen is subject to substantial leakage and the process industry in the last 100 years has yet to discover a durable solution. Your glib response was that money and time can solve all problems. You’d make a great politician until reality caught up with you. Recently it has been discovered that leaked H2 is 14X more damaging to the environment than CO2. The best solution so far is to generate H2 at the point of use which eliminates any attempt to store H2 even for a moment. Incidentally, putting a list of unsolved problems on a whiteboard does nothing in my book.

The biggest solar ll factory in world is in China, powered by coal from Russia.

To my mind, and for my analysis is flawed in so many ways sorry. Firstly, references to gas prices in Europe when the gas lines were blown out leading to demand side inflation, secondly coal as you rightly say develops varying BTU depended on quality. In Australia-we have some of the worlds best coal so for my purposes I’d like to use our best coals, and yes, mining and processing costs for all forms should be included including mine rehabilitation regardless of where they are in the world, with fixed labour rates for a level playing field.

And also, coal and gas productivity is not, for this exercise shaped by time of day.

And it goes without saying that no subsidies should ever be included in this sort of analysis.

That said, nuclear would be an interesting starter in this race if we are wanting a true and accurate guide for spending hard earned taxpayers money to provide the foundational cheap and reliable power that underpins any community.

Has the coast of connecting renewables into being penciled in ?Renewables having a lower power density.

This video didn't old well if we consider that wind and solar have been abandoned all over the world.

Great videos. Nice to see a more balance approach than the Mills, Shellenberger, et al slick suit-and-tie babble. I'm wondering why we don't seem to consider.that solar actually operates at night....just not 'our' night. We seem quite happy to transmit fossil fuel power great distances, but seldom take into consideration that the sun is still shining an hour away from both horizons. Varying weather of course diminishes that, but where does that calculation take us....anywhere? While the wind may not be blowing in California or B.C. Canada, it might be howling in Western Washington or Alberta, Nunavut, Nova Scotia or the Panama.

The BEST Energy Source is the one that gives 24/7...Simple

How about nuclear (fission and fusion) ?

How about adding summer to winter storage?

I think that geothermal energy is underrated. First, it produces base load. The life time of a modern geothermal plant is underrated. The oldest power station at Bjarnaflag, used for testing flash steam power plants, making 3 MW, is operating since 1969 at around 90% availability.
There are plans to install a 2x45 MW at Bjarnaflag and than the old plant will shut down.
The first 30MW turbine at Krafla, designed on the basis of the Bjarnaflag power plant, is running now since 1977 with over 90% availability. No big repairs have been needed yet.
I also disagree with high estimated cost of maintenance, it is on the level of other stem powered plants.

Capacity factor matters. Wind and solar acolytes dismiss the true costs that allow them to exist. They often make power when not needed and don’t make it when desperately needed.

Good attempt at trying to use mathematics with mythical ideas.
Here's my take on this including all factors such as transmission, serviceable life etc.
The dearest comes in as wind power
Next we have solar, the 3rd place for high cost is nuclear, 4th place is coal and the cheapest is gas fired plants.
By far the best option is 30% nuclear, 50% renewables and 20% other.
It's not just about the costs, it's about a clean and reliable energy balance that fully meets our needs.

This calculation is far from accurate - it's very sporadic as well. Also, it's strange that nuclear power, the cleanest and most potent energy source, was not even taken into consideration. Mark P Mills made the most intriguing, comprehensive and knowledgeable calculation so far, I know of. I urge all those who're blinded by green energy initiatives, to listen to him. As for wind and solar, they won't even cover the fraction of our energy needs. Not to mention the green energy's environmental destruction. We don't have a viable EV battery disposal plan yet. A cell phone battery contaminates one square mile of earth for fifty years. An EV battery will contaminate at least 1000 square mile of earth for fifty years. Mining the hell out of earth for EV batteries and solar panels, the acidic wastewater and radioactive residue from mining, the destruction of deserts, forests/wild animal habitats for solar/wind farms, the onslaught of offshore wind turbines on whales and the same of onshore wind turbines on millions of birds, toxic non-recyclable turbine/solar graveyards isn't green, but an environmental/humanitarian catastrophe. We act like we're the only ones living on this earth. This is not what classical environmentalism envisioned and fought for.

Cherry picking renewables that only work for a fraction of the demand cycle is an ingenuous means of assessment. Set Solar the task of delivering 24/7 energy and the costs go through the roof. Renewables enjoy a bonus position in the market where their price for feed-in is much higher than the “evil” reliable systems such as coal and gas. This is not a levelised playing field at all but a skewed one based on wild notions of renewable “purity”. I live in South Australia which has the highest penetration of renewable energy systems in Australia and also has the most expensive electricity not only in Australia but in the World. Renewables = Expensive electricity

The biggest load of propaganda BS I have seen - Australia taxpayers subsidize 5+ billion per year, for part time power which at best has 30% efficiency - nuclear is the most efficient and cheapest.

Apologies for late commenting. Where did you factor in the cost of energy storage (batteries) please or eg gas fired plants when renewables reach eg 90% of generation? If we are at 90% generation (which is to my understanding only possible if we store electricity for mornings and evenings, this storage cost should be part of the 90%. And for 10% remainder taking eg natural gas plants, you have 10 times higher production fixed cost per kWh (as the depreciation is distributed only on a tenth of the normal operating usage). Same holds true for the capital cost. Variable cost will remain variable as only 10% natural gas is used. So the kWh from gas wil cost maybe 30-60cts plus grid plus....due to the bad/low capacity factor. However if the distriuted back as cost on top of the 90% renewable kWhs , you might need to add on every PV/wind kWh at maybe 6cts another 3...6 ct for the cost of generation when wind is low and PV in night mode. Am I right with this and again, where has that been factored in, please?

I love solar, I even have solar on my house. But you also have to calculate fragility. For example Texas had a hailstorm and a solar farm lost 65% of their panels (~12,000 panels)

Generate your own power off solar for the win. How simple is that.

I was thinking that LCOE for the renewables should include battery storage for a more "fair" comparison, to account for firming requirements.

All I know is up unit solar and wind came into the equasion the yr cost was $ 300 . it didnt change ... then to 400 ... now 2k plus . wind and solar . Bullshit

Nuclear is always the cheapest over time. Nuclear plants last 80 to 100 years. What also has to be included is the capacity factor or percentage of power constantly produced. For Nuclear it's around 95%. These factor is not included in the levelized cost of power. Like always on is much more valuable than not dependable. So the closest is coal at 65%. Not even close.

The best power generating is nuclear by far. Anyone who thinks renewables is free has no clue how life works, truely clueless. Renewables are by far the most expensive when all costs are taken into account. Just look at your bills and you quickly work out that as they add more wind and solar up go your bills. The only way to reduce your power is to go solar on your roof. If you go for a battery and add in a 20 year life for both panels and battery you are paying more than a fully coal or nuclear powered grip.

1 kg of coal powers a washing machine for 6 hours
1 kg or oil powers a washing machine for 9 hours
1 kg of uranium powers a washing machine for 2000 years.
It is estimated that 250 Trillion will be spent by 2050 if Net Zero is fully implemented.
The only way to get to Net Zero is by going nuclear.
Not hard to work out which is both cheaper more efficient and by far the most reliable.
NUCLEAR
Don’t believe this climate cult propaganda.

They should be called replaceables

Really sad to see somebody as talented as you perpetuate the lie on renewables by not including storage. Once storage is included, wind and solar becomes some of the most expensive sources of base load energy. It is disingenuous not to evaluate renewables without including the intermittency and the storage required to make it viable at scale. Why does nobody include the cost of storage? Because then renewables would get a huge black eye and we would finally recognize we need to move to nuclear power?

My local garbage tip is paid to flare off their metane emissions to turnthem into CO2 which is a less potent greenhouse gas than CH3. Why cant they burn the methane emissions through old car motors from local wreckers - employ and train apprentice mechanics and electrical engineers and put power back into the grid - the old fashioned gas holders which used to be part of every major town in the 20th century could be used to store the gas to use it to generate power when the grid needs it! Furthure to that perhaps every major land fill could have a pyrolysis plant to make gas from wood and other green waste to put pewer into the grid - the carbon char prom the pyrolysis could be used as a soil additive (biochar) so it will never burn again and get back into the atmosphere!

Your figures on solar are so far off. You are tacking the unicorn figure of 30 years. The real life of a solar installation is at best 15 years as the solar panels loses capacity from the time the silicone is made. As an engineer I would expect you to know this. The real cost is closer to 800 billion. But you also did not include the transmission line installation for the solar. Also the truth as to why the lending is more generous because they get government subsidies. The coal and gas price as it is on shore if it is done correctly then your cost go down as it is not based on international price. Wish you would actually tell the truth and not the ideology garbage. All aspects of this bs video are based on the bs of the government. If you open your eyes you will see this crap comes from the W.E.F.

I like what you are Rosie is doing but this costing misses one difference between generators. Coal and gas are dispatchable or reliable power. They can guarantee a certain supply at any time the consumer wants. Renewables without energy storage do not, sure we can wait for pumped hydro operators or battery operators to get into the market but if we did a cost analysis of guaranteed production so that renewables wre eas reliable as coal et al, then renewables would have to buy pumped hydro and batteries so that they can do what coal and gas and nuclear can do - guarantee production. At the moment, renewables are like cheap airlines. They are lessreliable but undercut reliable operators. Many people are willing to pay more for reliability in our airlines, power tools, our cars and also our electricity. I feel that just like patronising a cheap airline or cheap power tools leads to the loss certain high quality brands, the takeup of renewables, whilst great, is taking advantage of the reliable and grid varied production coal/gas/nuclear could do. They are not the same.

The elephant in the room is that you need lots of fossil fuels to make wind turbines and solar panels, some people must think that the just grow out of the ground, no such thing as renewable energy.

Excellent video!! Using excess solar/wind electricity to split water & store energy as a buffer is the smoothing curve answer.

A very rosy expose of a very complex problem, however poor Rosie has avoided the elephant in the room of having to add in the full cost of renewables, like adding the extra cost of nuclear or gas back up when the sun and wind are off, so for a valid LCOE these have to be added to the gas and wind cost. When this is done as clearly evident in some of the genuine LCOE papers by the big investment agencies then renewables eg solar and wind are some 3 to 4 times the cost of nuclear and gas.
Do your full homework Rosie???

Wind and solar are useless! They need fossil fuels to make and fossil fuels to provide constant power when the wind stops blowing and the sun stops shining. Moreover, how many products are made with wind or solo? Compare that to the over 2000 products made from petroleum - medicines, plastics, fertilizer, polymers for products like safety helmets.

Wind and solar are not recyclable and destroy the environment in their production and after their useful lifespan. I'll stay with fossil fuels...

Looks like the keynumbers site is down. Does the capital cost include the poles and wires? Because there are large differences in the cost for wind farms etc in remote locations.

My energy bills have dropped 80% since my move to solar and geothermal. Its absolutely amazing and I cant believe the negative info. I was getting killed yearly with $5k oil bills and my AC/electric bill was over $500 a month. Last month my electric bill was $58. My break even point will be five year or less depending on the price of oil. No turning back here.