There is no wriggle room for the position of WTF?. It is not LOEC but LCOE. The calculations of CSIRO and AEMO are invalid not only because they relegate intermittency as a simple adjustment, which is absurd, the vagaries of the weather evade most models, as we have seen with climate models but also their figures are dodgy. CSIRO and AEMO are beholden to government. In Daily Telegraph, 2 October 2023 we have an article: "The Big Lie" about the cost of renewables. Quote: "CSIRO and AEMO have been co-opted by the renewables lobby and government to prove renewables are the cheapest form of energy". This is believable when the figures quoted are at stark variance with a simple qualitative assessment. As the author said : figures are of no value unless the methodology and underlying assumptions are known.

Can WTF? answer why we can make renewables reliable and affordable when there is nowhere else in the world where this has been done?

WTF? wants to claim that the reason why we have higher energy costs now has nothing to do with renewables. Is it that renewables can do no wrong or something else? How absurd, it is in the same category as say that renewables are 'cheap'.

WTF?

Chuckles - seriously, a typo does not devalue the point I made.

I disproved both your and the author's (are Chuckles and Charles one and the same?) premise for the whole article.

The things you talk about are not new or revealing in any way just denial and unsupported deflection.

CSIRO does not use "a simple qualitative assessment" - and the author agrees that they should not. That is the whole premise of the article.

If you are critical of the CSIRO not doing the very thing you do not want them to do you have no point - talk about absurd.

If the facts do not suit your world view then too bad.

The facts do not care about your feelings so it does not matter how absurd you find it to be.

You are the one who is disagreement the CSIRO so the onus is on you to disprove their calculations. Quoting a newspaper article does not cut it. Saying it is because they do not use an unreliable comparison tool is just plain ridiculous.

Using your own power bill as a metric to try to discredit AEMO information that they commissioned a third party to analyse does not cut it.

WTF?

Chuckles the very fact that the author mistakenly assumed that the CSIRO uses the LCOE for comparison purposes in any meaningful way when it does not would seem to indicate a simplistic research technique.

Chuckles says: “As the author said : figures are of no value unless the methodology and underlying assumptions are known.”

Does the author know what the methodology and underlying assumptions are?

Did the author attempt to research CSIRO’s methodology and underlying assumptions?

Did the author attempt to evaluate the methodology or underlying assumptions himself?

I do not know but the fact that he appears to wrongly identify the LCOE as one of those fundamental methodologies and assumptions would make me suggest the research was done poorly.

Using the “because I don’t know how they did it they must be wrong” argument is a little trite.

Again I ask as it was conveniently ignored.....Can WTF? answer why we can make renewables reliable and affordable when there is nowhere else in the world where this has been done, so far as I am aware?

As to methodology and underlying assumptions, that is for CSIRO and AEMO to explain their case properly. There is no reason to accept their figures without that. One consultant, published in the Daily Telegraph on 2 Nov 2023 believes the two organizations have been "co-opted by the renewables lobby and government to prove that renewables are the cheapest form of energy". There is certainly some vested interest there.

WTF?

I think you are confused Chuckles.

I haven't answered that question because I have never made that claim.

The CSIRO report I referred to is an overview and it is 97 pages long.

I have 350 words but I repost an example about wind turbines.

Since 2018 there have been at least 5 studies undertaken around the world involving the energy return on investment for wind energy.

It typically takes about six months for turbines to achieve energy-payback time, or EPBT, the time it takes for a system to generate more energy than it took to make it.

A US Environmental Protection Agency report said the typical lifespan was 20 years for wind turbines. Other sources estimate from 18-25 years.

The lower end estimates include everything from pre-mining of materials to decommissioning and recycling.

This is the payback for using just one type of renewable.

You keep mentioning a newspaper article - who is the author, what sources materials did they use and what are their vested interests?

I'll trust the CSIRO and AEMO who use many sources of data - their own and third party data and I am sure that they are well aware of these 5 international studies.

You seem to want to distance yourself from your referencing the AEMO now that you realise that they debunk the author's premise.