A minute ago according to NemWatch batteries were supplying less than 0.4 GW out of 29.3 GW demand. Coal, oil and gas supplied about 18 GW. According to true believers that is supposed to be reversed in a few short years. The average morning spot price in most states was about $85 per MWh for the breakfast rush but that usually rises to $200+ for the dinner rush say around 6pm.

A couple of days ago an electricity retailer offered $5 credit to draw 0.2 kWh from home batteries or plugged in EVs. Despite generous offers they seem to be desperate at times. Those small batteries could be low on juice from an overcast week and the owners want to conserve the energy. Gawd help us if it becomes compulsory.

You have to wonder how heavy electricity users like aluminium smelting would fare under a battery dominant system. It's obvious to most of us we need a like-for-like replacement for coal baseload. Shame that Bowen doesn't get it.

The article presents an alarmist view of renewable energy and battery storage, using outdated and misleading information.

First, it incorrectly claims that batteries are the weakest link in a 100% renewable energy supply chain. Significant advancements in battery technology have led to an 89% drop in lithium-ion battery costs over the past decade, with further reductions expected. Complementary storage technologies like pumped hydro, compressed air energy storage, solid-state batteries, and flow batteries enhance system reliability and cost-effectiveness.

The article's estimated cost of A$1.2 to A$2.3 trillion for the necessary battery supply is exaggerated. Effective grid management employs a mix of storage solutions, demand response strategies, and diverse renewable sources to balance supply and demand, reducing the required battery capacity. The assumption that power needs to be stored for half a year is unrealistic, as energy systems balance supply and demand on much shorter timescales using complementary resources and transmission infrastructure.

Claiming that 100% reliance on renewables and batteries is neither politically nor economically feasible is unfounded. Studies and real-world examples show that transitioning to a high percentage of renewables is economically viable. Countries like Germany, Denmark, and parts of the United States have successfully integrated large shares of renewable energy into their grids, resulting in cost savings and improved energy security. The article also overlooks the substantial environmental and public health benefits of reducing fossil fuel reliance.

The article cherry-picks examples like South Australia's 2016 blackout without broader context. This blackout was caused by an extreme weather event that damaged transmission infrastructure, not the inherent unreliability of renewable energy. Since then, South Australia has improved grid stability and reliability through better planning and investment in renewable energy and grid infrastructure, enhancing energy security and lowering electricity prices.

Finally, the assertion that battery storage costs are unlikely to decrease further contradicts historical trends showing significant cost reductions. Continued investment in research and development, as well as increased production capacity, are driving down costs and improving performance. Government policies, including subsidies and incentives for renewable energy and storage, foster market conditions that support technological innovation and cost reduction.

John,

I've yet to see you quantify a single cost, which is remarkable given what you claim. The OECD has done system cost analysis showing that relying on wind and solar is over twice the cost of nuclear. I've also seen research claiming that storage costs would need to fall by more than ninety percent to be competitive. And the current and future environmental destruction from commercial wind and solar is reason enough to have a national ban.

Fester,

Thanks for the opportunity to quantify the costings. Although, I’m pretty sure I’ve done it before.

According to IRENA's 2020 report, the global weighted-average LCOE for onshore wind was $39 per MWh. This represents a 13% decrease from 2019, driven by improvements in technology, economies of scale, and competitive supply chains. (http://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2021/Jun/IRENA_Power_Generation_Costs_2020.pdf?rev=c9e8dfcd1b2048e2b4d30fef671a5b84)

The same report indicates that the global weighted-average LCOE for utility-scale solar PV in 2020 was $57 per MWh. Solar PV costs have fallen significantly, by about 85% between 2010 and 2020, due to technological advancements and increased production capacity. Offshore wind has also seen cost reductions, with the LCOE falling to $84 per MWh in 2020. While still higher than onshore wind and solar PV, it benefits from consistent wind speeds and larger turbines.

BloombergNEF reports that the cost of lithium-ion battery packs has decreased from around $1,100 per kWh in 2010 to $137 per kWh in 2020. This represents an 89% reduction over a decade, primarily due to economies of scale, improved manufacturing processes, and increased demand for electric vehicles. Further cost reductions are expected as battery technology continues to evolve. By 2023, BloombergNEF anticipates battery pack prices could fall below $100 per kWh, making them even more competitive (http://about.bnef.com/blog/battery-pack-prices-fall-to-an-average-of-132-kwh-but-rising-commodity-prices-start-to-bite).

Pumped hydro is currently the most widely used form of energy storage, with an LCOE typically ranging from $50 to $150 per MWh. It is valued for its large storage capacity and long-duration discharge capability (http://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2020/Jul/IRENA_Innovative_PHS_operation_2020.pdf?la%3Den%26hash%3D4533ABDD9EA1D0755720FF46F3241FAB56C65014). CAES systems have an LCOE ranging from $60 to $150 per MWh. They store energy by compressing air and then releasing it to generate electricity during peak demand periods (http://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2020/Jul/IRENA_System_Operation_Collection_2020.pdf?rev=c530b773d9b04a5abdfb307b3938d5f0).

The OECD estimates that nuclear energy's LCOE is approximately $112 per MWh. (http://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_30001/technology-roadmap-for-small-modular-reactors). Fossil fuel power plants, particularly coal, have variable LCOE depending on the region and fuel prices. However, they incur substantial external costs related to environmental and health impacts, which are not reflected in the LCOE (http://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2019/Apr/IRENA_Global_Energy_Transformation_2019.pdf).

Regarding environmental destruction, I think I've corrected your claims there sufficiently in the past. But let me know if there is something you feel I haven't addressed.

Regarding environmental destruction
John Daysh,
That's what it really boils down to. Present Green technology fails miserably & totally in that department.
The recent lurch in pollution comes from exactly that industry. The pseudo intellectual elite advocating for this failure are the ticks feeding off the society they hood-winked for long enough with this nonsense. Get rid of present Green energy & the emissions will go down. would be interesting to hear their answers were we to ask them how they propse to ged rid of the pollution from Green energy ?

Indyvidual,

On the contrary, environmental destruction and pollution (or the lack thereof) are where renewables are the most obvious winners. However, my travels on the various social media platforms make me no stranger to the wild claims you’re likely referring to.

A study by the IRENA in 2019 found that solar photovoltaics emit about 40 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour (g CO2e/kWh) over their lifecycle, while coal emits around 820 g CO2e/kWh. Although manufacturing and disposing of renewable infrastructure have environmental impacts, these are much smaller than the ongoing emissions from coal, oil, and gas.

Innovations in recycling methods for solar panels and batteries, as well as more efficient manufacturing processes, are reducing the environmental footprint of renewable energy. The NREL found that recycling recovers up to 95% of materials from solar panels.

The claim that the recent increase in pollution is due to renewable energy isn't supported by the data. Fossil fuel combustion remains the largest source of air pollution globally. The WHO reports that air pollution from fossil fuels causes 4.2 million premature deaths each year. Transitioning to renewables has been shown to reduce air pollution and related health issues. In the U.S., the EPA found that wind and solar power prevented 12,700 premature deaths between 2007 and 2015 by reducing air pollution.

Countries that invest in renewable energy are seeing economic benefits, like job creation in new industries, and environmental benefits, such as reduced air pollution and lower greenhouse gas emissions. The IEA reported that renewable energy jobs worldwide reached 11.5 million in 2019, highlighting the significant economic potential of the sector.

Addressing pollution from renewables involves better recycling programs, advancements in material science for more sustainable products, and policies that encourage environmentally friendly practices throughout the lifecycle of renewable technologies. For example, the WEEE mandates recycling and proper disposal of solar panels.

While there are challenges, the environmental and health benefits of moving away from fossil fuels far outweigh the temporary and manageable impacts associated with green technology. Continued innovation and responsible practices further minimise its environmental impact.

They go on and on and never answer the question;
If you have one or even two days of low wind and overcast one morning
you will have flat batteries.
Where will you get enough power to recharge the batteries in case the
next night is cold & still ?
You need enough generation equal to two days demand just for battery charging.
What if the next day is overcast and windless ?
What another $2Trillion just for charging ?
On & on it goes !

Bezza,

I’ve answered the concerns you’ve raised more times than I care to count now; sometimes even in direct response to you.

Again, modern energy systems don't rely solely on a day or two of battery storage. They instead use a mix of storage solutions, demand response strategies, and diverse renewable sources to balance supply and demand. This includes not just batteries, but also pumped hydro, compressed air energy storage, solid-state batteries, and flow batteries, all working together to ensure a stable and reliable power supply.

Demand response programs can temporarily reduce energy consumption during peak times or when renewable generation is low, easing the strain on the grid. Also, having renewable energy sources spread out geographically means it's unlikely the entire grid area will experience low wind and overcast conditions at the same time. Energy can be transmitted from areas with excess generation to those with deficits.

Renewable energy is also complemented by other sources like hydropower, geothermal, and sometimes even nuclear power to provide a steady baseline supply. Countries like Denmark and Germany, which have high renewable energy penetration, have shown that with proper planning and investment in grid infrastructure, these systems can handle variability effectively.

The worry about needing massive amounts of extra generation capacity for battery charging overlooks the continuous advancements in energy storage efficiency and cost reductions. As I mentioned earlier, the cost of lithium-ion batteries has dropped by 89% over the past decade and is expected to keep decreasing as technology improves and economies of scale kick in.

Lastly, the financial argument often exaggerates costs without considering the savings and benefits. Moving to renewables reduces health costs related to air pollution, mitigates climate change impacts, and can lead to long-term economic benefits through job creation and energy independence.

The reliability of renewable energy systems isn't just about having enough storage for one or two days. It's about building a resilient and diversified energy system that can handle variability and ensure a stable power supply through advanced technologies and smart planning.

There is no doubt that the Albanese government is working against the best interests of Australia and Australians. Stupidity is no longer a reason. The Albanese government has evil intent. Nobody could be stupid enough to think that a country and its economy can be run on renewables.

Australians are slowly but surely waking up to the renewables scam, and will continue to do so as power gets more unreliable and expensive - with none at all at peak times. Pissy little batteries don't even get a thought.

An election is coming.

John your rebuttel is a collection of nonexistent sources of backup.
The idea of hydro backup is nowhere near doable in Australia.
Several may be installed as they do not need power to recharge them
and their large capacity in terms of hours is attractive.
Of course demand control and the car to grid schemes will fall over
the first time thousands of drivers go to work the next morning
and find they do not have enough range to get to work and home.
Demand control at 5pm to 10pm will cost a government their seats.

All in all I think your list of sources are pretty dodgy and most
would rely on unpopular government legislation.
They would all help of course but 100% x 100% I doubt it.

John,
Went back and reread your post.
A couple of points.
The idea of geographical spread has already fallen over as the cost
for the limited number of transmission line needed right now is
already into the $Trillion mark. CSIRO Figures I believe.
What you are relying on would be more $Trillions.
Re geothermal, I even put some small amount into that with shares in
Linc Energy but while it produced lots of steam in Queensland it
failed because of the short life of the plumbing. That made it an
economic failure. I do not know the cause of the corrosion but they
were well up in that field so they did not give up lightly.
Re pumpted hydro there was a proposal in Sth Aus for a row of dams
along a clifftop with turbines/pumps at sea level, but never heard
anymore about it. Perhaps it was not economic.
Sea windfarms are failing in Europe as the government cannot get
quotes for supply from the owners. The sea is the worse place for maintenance.
Nuclear is too far away even by 2030 so something has to be found
this year or next.
Do you think a solution can be found in time ?

John,

You keep repeating the same lies. You are reading from a script. LCOE is a dishonest comparison, as you are fully aware. You need to consider the system cost. The analysis done for the OECD shows that relying on wind and solar is at least twice the cost of nuclear, and probably unachievable.

https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2024-03/nea_system_costs_executive_review.pdf

The hydrogen economy is so stupid that even Twiggy can see the writing on the wall and is abandoning the idea. Your repeated claim that wind and solar is beneficial for the environment whereas nuclear is harmful is just stupid beyond belief.

I hope team Albo runs with these idiotic renewable energy ideas as it will get him a bigger kick up the backside from voters than the Voice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQ3Y-JoyyTI

Intermittent power doesn't work anywhere.

Now Twiggy's $200 billion 'green' hydrogen has hit the rocks.

It's all a waste of money and an economy wrecker.

Albanese wants to manufacture plastics here, but our last plastics manufacturer is leaving, or has gone, because electricity is too expensive in Australia.

When Australia hits rock bottom, the mess will be evident, but none of the rogues will be punished for wrecking the country. There will be mass resignations and quiet retirements on the massive benefits we have given them.

There's still time for us: an election is coming.

Fester,

The LOEC is not dishonest. We have already been through this. LCOE provides a standardised measure to compare the direct costs of generating electricity from different sources. It’s a widely accepted metric used by energy experts and policymakers globally. The fact that it doesn't account for system costs doesn't invalidate its utility. It simply highlights the necessity of integrating it with other metrics for a comprehensive view, which is what I've been doing.

Your interpretation of the OECD document is misleading. The OECD report does acknowledge higher system costs for integrating high shares of renewables compared to nuclear. However, these costs are context-dependent and can be mitigated with proper grid management, advancements in storage technology, and diversified energy sources. The document does not suggest that renewables are unfeasible or prohibitively expensive; rather, it outlines the challenges and solutions for integrating them effectively (http://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2024-03/nea_system_costs_executive_review.pdf).

Additionally, the report and other studies highlight significant cost reductions and technological advancements in renewable energy and storage solutions. The LCOE for renewables has dropped dramatically, making them competitive with, and in some cases cheaper than, conventional energy sources. Further cost reductions are expected as technology continues to improve (http://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020).

While nuclear power provides low-carbon energy, it comes with high upfront costs, long development timelines, and issues related to waste disposal and potential accidents. Renewables, although requiring investment in storage and grid infrastructure, offer substantial environmental and public health benefits by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution (http://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_30001/technology-roadmap-for-small-modular-reactors).

The NEA and IEA reports emphasise that policy frameworks and market conditions play a crucial role in determining the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of different energy sources. Countries successfully integrating high shares of renewables have demonstrated the importance of supportive policies and investment in grid infrastructure (http://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020).

The video you linked to uses exaggerated figures, emotionally-charged language, and misleading comparisons to paint a negative and false picture of the Moah Creek Wind Farm.

(Cont’d)

(Cont’d)

1. "Soon to have ridgelines blasted out like other wind farms along Queensland's coastal ranges."

This statement is designed to evoke a strong emotional reaction by suggesting extensive and destructive land modification. In reality, wind farm construction, including Moah Creek, involves careful planning and environmental assessments to minimise impact. The focus is on using existing clearings and infrastructure whenever possible to reduce environmental disruption.

2. "105,000 hectare study area with a 654 hectare industrial footprint."

These numbers are exaggerated to make the project seem disproportionately large and intrusive. The Moah Creek Wind Farm is situated within a 10,500 hectare area, and only 6% of this is used for the infrastructure, translating to about 630 hectares. This demonstrates a commitment to limiting the environmental footprint and preserving as much land as possible for other uses, like agriculture.

3. "58 turbines proposed in this site, 76 km of internal roads."

While the project includes 60 turbines and associated infrastructure, the mention of 76 km of roads is likely intended to exaggerate the scale of disruption. Wind farm developers aim to optimise the layout to minimise the need for extensive road networks, and many of these roads are temporary or built on existing tracks.

4. "The cumulative impact of this project combined with 27 other wind farms planned in the district is an unacceptable risk."

The claim about cumulative impact is a common tactic to create fear of widespread destruction. Each wind farm undergoes a rigorous EIA to ensure that combined effects are considered and mitigated. The regulatory framework requires comprehensive evaluations and community consultations to balance development and environmental protection.

5. "Destroying biodiversity to save the climate is ecocidal"

This hyperbolic statement misrepresents the trade-offs involved in renewable energy development. Wind farms like Moah Creek are part of broader efforts to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, which have far more severe and long-term impacts on biodiversity and the environment.

http://www.moahcreek.com
http://statements.qld.gov.au/statements/98634
http://www.moahcreekneighboursharedbenefit.com/the-project

John,
I intended to reply but just got distracted by the above posts.
Australia is a wide brown land, then why not build the solar farms out
beyond the Darling river and and run Transmission lines in all
directions to SA, WA, VIC, NSW & even QLD
It will save all that farming country that there is so much hassle
about and comply with your suggestion of distributed generation.
Actually why I think that would be a good idea my minor experience of
doing similar electrical and electronic work in country areas makes
me realise that the manpower requirements are too extreme.
To install 22,000 solar panels in 8 years would be an absolute
nightmare in such locations & would be impossible.
I am sorry but while your ideas are good they are in fact VERY costly
to actually implement.
The catering costs alone would wipe out the project.

Just in the areas where they are trying to do that explains why they are running so late.

There's absolutely nothing "renewable" about equipment & infrastructure materials that can't be re-used & need to be buried on huge areas of land just to be out of sight ! Why don't we get to hear or see how hail damaged solar panels are dealt with ? Something tells me they don't get "renewed" because whatever could possibly be renewed is too expensive & polluting to renew !
Imagine the funds that could be saved by doing away with all the consultants in that unviable industry !

Bezza,

Building large-scale solar farms in remote areas like beyond the Darling River and running transmission lines to major Australian states is a big task, but it's not impossible.

Putting solar farms in remote, non-arable land can save valuable farming areas and fits well with the idea of distributed generation. This approach enhances grid resilience and reduces transmission losses. Our vast open spaces are perfect for such projects.

You’re right that installing 22,000 solar panels is a massive task requiring a lot of labour and resources. However, large-scale solar projects have been successfully implemented worldwide, even in tough environments. For instance, the Noor Ouarzazate Solar Complex in Morocco, one of the world’s largest, was built in a desert region. Modern construction techniques and automation can significantly reduce manpower requirements and streamline logistics.

Initial costs are high, but the long-term benefits of solar energy include lower operational costs and energy independence. Large-scale solar costs have dropped significantly over the past decade due to technological advancements and economies of scale. According to the IRENA, the cost of solar photovoltaics has decreased by about 90% in the last decade, making it one of the cheapest power sources.

These projects create jobs and stimulate local economies. A study by the ANU found that transitioning to renewable energy could create up to 45,000 new jobs in construction, operations, and maintenance. These projects also drive economic growth in remote areas through infrastructure development and increased demand for local services.

Government policies and incentives are crucial for making large-scale renewable projects viable. The Australian government, through agencies like the ARENA and the CEFC, provides funding and support for renewable energy projects. Public-private partnerships can also mobilise the necessary capital and expertise to overcome logistical challenges.

Building large-scale solar farms in remote areas and running transmission lines is complex and costly, it’s feasible with proper planning, investment, and support. The long-term benefits, including job creation, economic growth, and environmental sustainability, make it a worthwhile investment.

Indyvidual,

As I had touched on in my last reply to you, the industry is constantly improving the recyclability of materials used in equipment. The term "renewable" refers to the energy source itself.

For example, solar panels can last 25-30 years, and significant progress is being made in recycling them. Up to 95% of materials in solar panels, like glass and aluminium, can be recovered. As recycling infrastructure develops, this will become more economically viable.

Regarding damaged equipment, many companies actively work on ways to repair or recycle hail-damaged solar panels rather than just discarding them. For instance, First Solar's global recycling program can recover over 90% of the materials in their panels. The industry is increasingly adopting more sustainable practices.

The idea that renewable energy is unviable is simply not true. The cost of renewable energy has dropped dramatically over the past decade, making it competitive with, or even cheaper than, fossil fuels. According to IRENA, the renewable energy sector employed over 11 million people worldwide in 2018, showing significant economic potential for it.

Consultants ensure renewable energy projects are well-planned, cost-effective, and comply with regulations. Removing them would likely lead to poorly executed projects, resulting in higher costs and inefficiencies.

It's important to consider the broader benefits. Renewables significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. For instance, transitioning to renewable energy in the United States is estimated to avoid 3,600 premature deaths and 90,000 asthma attacks annually, saving approximately $33 billion in health costs each year. The claim that they’re too polluting to renew is something you’ve made up. (http://www.nrdc.org/resources/climate-change-and-health).

Moreover, the health benefits often outweigh the environmental impact of producing and disposing of renewable energy equipment. A study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that the health benefits from reduced air pollution in the U.S. alone are worth $2.6 trillion over a decade, far surpassing the costs associated with renewable infrastructure. (http://pv-magazine-usa.com/2024/05/30/research-shows-wind-and-solar-produce-tens-of-billions-in-u-s-health-benefits-per-year)

One of the main 5 types of people you should avoid are the ones who jump in to disagree with what you say or believe at every opportunity - unless you like being manipulated, that is.

This anonymous social media surfer using a name he hoiked off the real John Daysh, is one of those. He's madder than the Mad Hatter, and just copies out rubbish that suits him from the internet.

You two blokes will give in before he does. Do yourselves a favour. Ignore the crank.

John,

"The LOEC is not dishonest. We have already been through this."

That's because you keep repeating your lie filled script, part of which is to claim that you have answered questions which you have not answered. If you want to compare energy sources you can only do so honestly on the basis of total cost. LCOE only considers the cost of generation from the source, not the cost of providing dispatchable power from a generation source as does system cost. The CSIRO admitted as much but claimed that such an analysis was too expensive to do. Fortunately the OECD has had the analysis done which shows wind and solar to be the highest cost option, at least twice the cost of nuclear.

You also claim that future renewable associated costs will undergo wonderful improvements and huge cost reductions, yet your technological optimism deserts you in the case of nuclear, where your thinking about the technology can't seem to advance much beyond the 1960s. All your optimism doesn't make the technology cheaper today, so you still pay at least twice as much for your power with a wind and solar system. In ten years time it might be much cheaper, but so might nuclear.

"The video you linked to uses exaggerated figures, emotionally-charged language, and misleading comparisons to paint a negative and false picture of the Moah Creek Wind Farm."

Another completely dishonest statement from you, but no surprise given your attempts to lie about the land area affected by wind and solar and your exaggerations and lies about the dangers and costs of nuclear power.

The patron of the environment is fast becoming the king of koala killers. I don't think it will be long before the crown gets chucked and he becomes a born again nuker. And so might you.

Fester,

Unfounded accusations of lies and dishonesty get us nowhere. Let's just try sticking to the facts without getting emotional. Perhaps I should try a different approach:

//LCOE only considers the cost of generation from the source, not the cost of providing dispatchable power from a generation source as does system cost.//

This is why I said: “The fact that it doesn't account for system costs doesn't invalidate its utility. It simply highlights the necessity of integrating it with other metrics for a comprehensive view, which is what I've been doing.”

The LCOE measures the average cost of generating electricity from a specific source over its lifetime. It includes capital, operation, maintenance, and fuel costs but doesn't cover the additional expenses of integrating renewables into the grid, like backup generation and storage. As your well aware, these system costs help provide a fuller picture of the total cost of reliable power, which the OECD has reported on extensively. They showing that when system costs are included, renewables can be more expensive than fossil fuels or nuclear in SOME cases.

//The OECD has done system cost analysis showing that relying on wind and solar is over twice the cost of nuclear.//

This is incorrect. The OECD NEA report highlights that integrating high shares of renewables into the energy grid can lead to higher system costs due to the need for additional measures to manage variability and ensure reliability. However, these costs are not fixed and can be mitigated through advancements in storage technology, improved grid management, and diversified energy sources.

The report discusses how integrating a high share of variable renewable energy into the grid can increase system costs. These costs are related to managing the variability and intermittency of renewable sources, which require additional investments in storage and grid infrastructure to maintain reliability. While the report indicates that system costs for renewables can be higher than for nuclear energy, it does not conclude that renewables are twice as expensive. The costs are context-dependent and can be significantly reduced with the right technological and policy measures.

(Cont'd)

(Cont'd)

//You also claim that future renewable associated costs will undergo wonderful improvements and huge cost reductions…//

Renewables have already demonstrated significant cost reductions and technological advancements.

//…yet your technological optimism deserts you in the case of nuclear...//

This is because, unlike renewables, nuclear necessarily faces hurdles relating to safety standards and waste disposal that limit what even substantial investment can improve. The historical trends and current investment in renewables suggest continued improvements, and at an exceedingly faster rate.

//Another completely dishonest statement from you, but no surprise given your attempts to lie...//

My responses to the claims in the video you linked to were correct. It comes across as a desperation and attempted character assassination when you suggest that I know differently so that you can then accuse me of lying.

If you believe I am wrong about the land use for wind and solar, and the dangers and costs of nuclear power, then why not just correct me?

ttbn,

Whether it’s driven by cognitive dissonance, projection, or a need to defend a group identity, clearly you are upset.

Given I have said nothing that could be remotely interpreted as manipulative, I take it this is your way of encouraging those you view as your comrades to stick with the cause in the face of contradicting evidence.

Since I began commenting here I have responded to less than 3% of yours and Indyvidual’s comments, and most of my discussion with Fester and Bezza was initiated by them. So, I’m hardly jumping in to disagree with others at every opportunity.

If by “copied” you mean that I get my information from other sources, then I plead guilty - especially given that my sources are the most reliable available - it’s certainly better than making it up as you go or just repeating what you’ve heard from echo chambers and blogs written by unqualified partisan hacks.

My handle is indeed my real name. Your attempt to denigrate by labelling me an “anonymous social media surfer" looks very much like textbook projection.