Snore zzzzzzz. Whatever you reckon from a left wing non-scientist JD. Quoting George Costanza again - it's not a lie if you believe it. You can repeat your claims infinitum but it doesn't alter reality or help the environment being destroyed by the mad rush to so-called "renewables" which consume more energy in their creation installation than they will ever generate in their short, intermittent lives.

Mikko2,

I have linked to you to multiple, reliable sources, most of which reference their sources, and so on until you reach the raw data. You therefore have no excuse for repeating claims I have already corrected, and you certainly have no excuse for the projection you engage in by claiming that I am the one doing this.

Try utilising some critical thinking techniques instead of just letting you polics be your guide. They're a lot more reliable.

Thanks Mikko,

The Spectator has done wonderful work exposing the renewable energy con. Here is a link to a presentation by a photographer who has been documenting the environmental destruction by wind, solar, and pumped hydro. It is hard to watch and horrific that a government would preside over the greatest act of environmental destruction in Australia's history in order to build expensive and dysfunctional energy generation. The presentation is part of a series of talks by Nuclear for Australia hosted by UNSW recently. I will also link a talk explaining why wind and solar are quite useless for meeting the demand of the grid even with significant overbuild.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-H0GCeS65uc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-H0GCeS65uc

John,

You lied about the danger to residents from living near nuclear power stations. You lied about the area of Australia affected by wind and solar. You lied about the environmental destruction from wind and solar. You lie about the potential to solve problems which cannot be solved as they relate to fundamentals of capacity and intermittency. You make out that things in California are wonderful when in truth they face blackouts, brownouts, environmental destruction and spiraling costs with the pursuit of wind and solar. You're a serial liar and you have no credibility.

Fester,

I haven't lied, and the fact that I had provided credible scholarly sources to support all that you accuse me of lying about is a testament to that.

That you felt compelled to launch such a stinging personal attack, with accusations that are obviously untrue, suggests to me that you are very emotionally invested in this issue.

I apologise for any distress caused.

Hi John, I don't think it is very pleasant for you to be accused of lying. Just because you might be wrong doesn't mean you are dishonest. So I think Fester should apologise.

I've read the thread, or parts of it. Using Iceland as an example of successful renewables doesn't really advance the renewables case. It is powered by hydropower and geothermal, both of which are power sources which are despatchable, while wind and solar aren't. When you are a small population living in an area with a lot of water and high mountains then hydropower can be feasible.

Geothermal isn't generally successful anywhere in the world, but again, when you are in a volcanically active area, it's a possibility.

But Australia doesn't have any of these advantages and is trying to harvest power from the low density, widely dispersed, unreliable sources of wind and solar. It's expensive. And promises that battery costs will come down have to be laid down next to promises that things like nuclear will get cheaper.

Check out Ontario. 95% emissions free in generation, and 59% nuclear and another 24% hydro. Germany and Denmark are nowhere near the same emissions free generation, and won't get there at a reasonable price.

Australia has an advantage in nuclear - we mine uranium and have huge reserves. And the technology works. We need to go with our strengths, not legacy technology like wind and solar that have never been more than hobby energy sources.