People are catching on. At last! Not before time. Just imagine the billions of our money that could have been saved if the modern equivalent of the Tulip Craze or the Millennium Bug was knocked in the head before it got under way. And, if we had had politicians who listened to the people and not to crooks looking for a quick buck.

There has still not been a shred of evidence that the life-giving gas, carbon dioxide has anything at all to do with climate change, or that climate can be changed to suit by mere human beings.

Another way of looking at this is the EROI Cliff as described by several authors. The massive population and economic growth since the 1800s came on the back of high yielding energy sources starting with coal. Now some want us to go back to foraging for wood. We can't have a luxury lifestyle without high yield energy. Try getting new solar panels and prescription medicine in a medieval village economy.

In my opinion the killer blow will be when oil is no longer affordable. Probably global warming will decline with it. The daft renewable religion twits on TV last night failed to grasp all their food and flying holidays comes courtesy of oil. BTW thanks to OLO for allowing contrary views to the publicly funded controlled media such as the ABC, SBS and The Conversation. One example; no farming near nuclear plants. Tell that to the winemakers of Bordeaux.

While there is now a capacity for the production of 1,600GW of solar panels annually, the demand for the monsters has flatlined at 500GW, causing a crisis in manufacturing. Barely 3 years old factories are closing in Europe.

Nevertheless, the children in the Albanese government are determined to spend a billion of our dollars in a ridiculous attempt to make the things here.

Rising interest rates and rising electricity costs are souring silly solar.

In what appears to be a consistent theme from those who are against renewables, the article criticises renewable energy sources with exaggerations and decades-old arguments that ceased being valid years ago.

The immediacy of an energy crisis in Australia is exaggerated. Despite the challenges, significant progress has been made in developing solutions like battery storage. The Hornsdale Power Reserve, for example, saved consumers over $150 million in its first two years by stabilising the grid and providing backup power.

The claim that a global transition isn't happening despite significant subsidies and political support ignores substantial advancements and decreasing costs in renewable energy technologies. The cost of electricity from solar photovoltaics, for example, fell by 82% last decade, while onshore wind costs dropped by 39%. Moreover, fossil fuels still receive significant global subsidies, estimated at $5.9 trillion in 2020.

The correlation between increased renewable energy installations and rising global fossil fuel consumption and CO2 levels is misleading. The rise in fossil fuel use is largely driven by the economic growth of developing countries. Renewable energy adoption is a gradual process, with its impact on global emissions becoming more significant over time.

Somehow the claim that renewable energy is unreliable and more expensive due to additional infrastructure and storage needs is never discussed with the massive improvements to the technology over the last 20 years, nor the plummeting costs. Also ignored is the necessity for cleaner energy. A balanced perspective would discuss these, too.

The article also overstates the transmission costs associated with renewable energy, while failing to mention their necessity for grid diversification and resilience. Further to this, every dollar spent on the energy transition results in savings of between $3 and $7 from reduced health and environmental costs. (http://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2019/Sep/IRENA_Transforming_the_energy_system_2019.pdf)

All energy sources have environmental impacts, but the impact of renewables is tiny in comparison. Land use concerns are often overstated. For instance, supplying the entire world's energy needs with solar power would require less than 1% of global land area. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960148121016499)

Dollars and destruction is what wind and solar unreliables are all about.

Billion-dollar foreign companies are stripping our countryside, crushing our farmers, wildlife and birds.

Bjorn Lomborg gave a presentation recently and argued that doing nothing about climate change would have a small economic cost whereas aggressively pursuing net zero would be ruinously expensive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWqv6RH-3WE

His argument is for civilisation to do what it always has done and develop technologies until they are economically competitive. The main problem today is that people are being lied to by being told that wind and solar will give us cheap energy and save the environment when the reality is that it is providing expensive and unreliable power and destroying the natural environment at an unprecedented rate in modern times.