"No one’s suggesting a grid consisting only of wind and solar."

Um, yes they are John. Not only suggesting it but committing to the nonsense as well, with all the associated destruction of natural heritage and koala clubbing. Where do you think the energy will come from to power Australia if you want net zero and won't consider nuclear? You could use biomass, but that generates four times as much CO2 as coal remember?

https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/understanding-whats-next-for-australias-main-electricity-market/

Um, no they're not, Fester.

The AEMO roadmap you linked to does not suggest or commit to a grid powered exclusively by wind and solar. It involves a combination of renewables - primarily wind, solar, and hydro - backed by energy storage solutions.

The roadmap clearly acknowledges the need for energy diversity.

Well then John, do enlighten the forum about these other low carbon energy sources. What projects are being planned or built? How much energy will they produce? I ask because I am unaware of any substantial low carbon generation projects other than wind and solar. You might note that with Australia's limited water resources, hydro is more about energy storage than production.

Of course there is nuclear, but that won't be a consideration until the moronic pollies remove the ban.

Fester,

I suppose my forcing you to move the goalposts is SOME progress.

Yes, hydro backup would be a third source of power and then there’s batteries, too. These may be for storage, but they’re still part of the grid.

Your initial framing of the situation presented a strawman argument by claiming that proponents of renewable energy are pushing for a grid powered exclusively by wind and solar:

“No future fallacy in thinking a nuclear grid possible, but I think a wind and solar powered grid to be so improbable as to be more a fantasy than a fallacy.” - Fester

Your claim that a wind and solar-powered grid is “fantasy” deliberately ignores the diverse mix of renewable energy sources, which include storage solutions, that are part of Australia’s actual energy roadmap.

As I’ve acknowledged in the past, however, nuclear energy may become a necessary part of a low emissions mix. Therefore, I am not in favour of the ban.

"I suppose my forcing you to move the goalposts is SOME progress."

John,

You have not related a generation source other than wind and solar, so no, I have not shifted any goalposts. As for hydro generation, how much can that be expanded? Further, you mention batteries: As far as I'm aware batteries don't generate power, excepting nuclear batteries. Did you mean them?

You might just answer the question, "What new generation sources other than wind and solar are being built?". You can answer a question can't you?

While you are thinking up another way not to answer a simple question, here is a link to a story about a $40 million solar array that didn't get attached to the grid. Guess why?

https://stopthesethings.com/2024/08/27/clouded-future-government-disconnects-huge-grid-wrecking-solar-power-plant/

Fester,

Let me walk you through how the goalposts have shifted. Initially, you claimed that a grid powered by wind and solar was a ‘fantasy,’ implying that proponents of renewable energy were advocating for those two sources exclusively. Again:

“I think a wind and solar powered grid to be so improbable as to be more a fantasy than a fallacy.” - Fester

When I pointed out that no one is suggesting a grid powered solely by wind and solar, you switched the conversation to demand a list of specific low-carbon generation projects other than wind and solar - ignoring the broader mix that includes hydro and storage solutions.

Capisce?

//As far as I'm aware batteries don't generate power ...//

You’re sidestepping my point.

I specifically mentioned batteries as a storage method - which would still be a part of the grid.

//You might just answer the question, "What new generation sources other than wind and solar are being built?".//

Yes, I might.

I didn’t answer it before, however, because it was nothing more than an attempt to sidestep, not because I would hurt my case. Your attempts to make it look like evasiveness are dishonest.

But to answer it anyway:

No other major low-carbon generation sources are being built right now apart from wind, solar, and hydro. That’s because these are the most viable, cost-effective options available today. But the grid isn't relying solely on wind and solar, as you had suggested.

//You can answer a question can't you?//

Yes, I can. Just as well as you can sidestep, apparently.

//While you are thinking up another way not to answer a simple question …//

Heh. “Another.”

As for your link, the narrative that solar is somehow ‘wrecking’ the grid ignores the fact that renewables already contribute nearly 40% of Australia's electricity and that grid instability is something being actively addressed with better storage and forecasting technologies. The NT's specific issues are more a reflection of poor planning and regulatory flip-flopping than an inherent flaw in renewable energy itself.

This is only getting worse for you. When you're in a hole...