"Am I the only numerate scientist/technologist alert to the truth?" Tom, I see you were a CSIRO chief. Today's CSIRO chiefs, no kidding, claim they're going to "science the sh.t" out of net-zero. UN Net Zero based on "free" and limitless renewables is fascist religion not fair science. On a global level even, few scientists dare to dissent, too career-limiting.

In Australia, open-borders net-zero heresy among career-scientists is a huge no-no. Same goes for our corporates - Matt Barrie stands almost alone, wouldn't even seem to care, if smeared with the Racist Card.

Even at my low levels of published dissent, OLO/MB/TAPRI etc, "friends" & family march into our home, to flash me the Racist Card. What a drag.

And we should recognise that in terms of emissions adding to the global total, we are too small to matter. Our contribution is about 1.3% of total emissions. No matter what we do to reduce that contribution, it is too small to affect any assumed climate trends. In fact the annual growth of emissions from China is greater than our total emissions. Our ‘gear wheel’ is too small to turn the big wheel of total emissions. It wouldn’t matter if we disappeared altogether along with our emissions. The small gap left would be filled in a few days by the really big emitters. This was confirmed by Prof Finkel in 2017 at a Senate Ctee hearing. It’s as simple as simple arithmetic. There is no justification for the mad panic to renewables promoted by Min Bowen and Albo. It’s all political, not scientific. We are damaging our economy for no significant benefit in reduced emissions. The global trends dominate us, not the other way around.

I don't buy the argument Australia's emissions are too small to matter. We could tip our garbage on the street and hope nobody else does. On nuclear costing a couple of years ago SMR makers like Rolls Royce and General Electric said their costs would be similar to combined cycle gas. Yet CSIRO's figures more than double than that are taken as gospel. No mention that Snowy 2 went from $2bn to $12bn.

Another rubbery claim is that heavy industry like aluminium smelting could cope with 80+% renewables. I think that means generous subsidies will continue as they always have even if it requires a lot of gas fired input. Think of a rainy week when the batteries fail to recharge. As big coal plants retire there's going to be a mild panic.

You are missing the point. Our emissions are too small to warrant the panic currently attached to renewables. We could do things a lot more slowly and sensibly, including moving to a significant nuclear component as time goes on.
And by the way, there are few if any countries likely to meet net zero on current trends. Check out the Climate Tracker website and other sources.

With dispatchable energy (coal, gas, nuclear) you can use supply contracts to raise capital to build the power station. With non-dispatchable wind and solar you have no idea when and how much energy you will have to sell, so how the hell do you finance the build?

Wind and solar are a complete con. Total bs, but at least the fact that it is being built at a snail's pace is good news for koalas and the environment.

Get rid of the nuclear ban and let the private sector determine if it is worthwhile.

So, Tom Biegler sets out to expose some grand conspiracy in Australia’s clean energy sector - but ends up doing little more than shaking his fist at the sky.

The backbone of his argument is that renewables only grew by 35 petajoules last year - as if that’s some universal law. He stretches that number out like it’s frozen in time, projecting it decades ahead with no consideration for how these transitions actually work. No allowance for momentum, tech advances, or policy shifts. It’s like watching someone grow a veggie garden, then declaring it a failure because it didn’t feed the neighbourhood in week one.

Worse, he floats the idea that Australians are being duped - that public enthusiasm for renewables isn’t real, but the result of mass delusion cooked up by rooftop solar ads and overly cheerful press releases. It’s not just a stretch - it’s a bizarre read on why people support clean energy. They’re not hypnotised. They’re responding to something that’s cleaner, cheaper, and already changing the landscape.

He tries to land a killer blow with the usual “but what about nuclear?” argument, pretending it’s some overlooked silver bullet. Never mind that nuclear has been politically dead in Australia for decades, and economically unviable in a world where wind and solar now win the investment race.

In the end, there’s no scandal here. Just one man annoyed that the world’s moving on from fossil fuels and not consulting his pessimism, tribalism, and sense of identity first.

Really, John.
If nuclear is such a failure why is Germany restarting their nuclear
power stations ?
Answer simple, they got sucked in like Bowen etc.
Germany got hit as did the rest of Europe with a wind drought.
Nothing will change here till one night we will spend sitting in the dark.
Then another part of Eastern Australia will sit in the dark as it will
be their turn.
That is when the average person who let our arguments go over their
heads will then ask what was all that argument about ?

We already have a wind farm that is not connected to the grid because
the miles of towers have not been built across farmland.
The 22,000 solar panels a day plus 40 wind turbines a month for
8 years was a monster project from the start and no politician or
public servant picked up a hand calculator to get an idea of the scope
of support facilities needed to get it built.
Last I heard it will reach about 30% in the 8 years period.
I would like the government to produce a report on the project status.
I am not holding my breath.

Bezza,

There are several major problems with what you’ve said. You really should stop seeking out denialist talking points.

First, Germany isn’t restarting its nuclear plants. They shut the last three down in 2023, and that was after a lot of public debate during the energy crisis. Some politicians floated keeping them running a bit longer, but in the end, they stuck to the plan. So the whole idea that Germany is “going back” to nuclear is just wrong.

Second, the energy issues in Europe weren’t because "the wind stopped blowing." They were mainly caused by the loss of Russian gas supplies after the invasion of Ukraine. Renewables actually helped cushion the impact - they weren’t the cause of the crisis.

Third, the idea that we’ll all be sitting in the dark is a bit dramatic. AEMO has already mapped out how the transition can work, and yes, there are risks and challenges, but they’re not pretending otherwise. Managing a grid through a major energy shift isn’t easy, but it’s not a blind leap either. Planning is happening - whether politicians move fast enough is another story.

Fourth, the issue with the wind farm sitting idle isn’t because wind power doesn’t work - it’s because the transmission upgrades aren’t finished. That’s a bottleneck with infrastructure, not generation. It’s like blaming a car for being stuck because the highway hasn’t been built yet.

And about no one picking up a calculator - AEMO, CSIRO and others have done loads of modelling on this. It’s not perfect, but it’s a bit much to suggest no one's done the numbers when whole reports have been written about exactly that.

Lastly, the grid is already running at over 35% renewable power. That’s not some distant dream. It’s already here.

You’re right that there are big challenges ahead. But a lot of what you’ve said doesn’t match the facts.

"And about no one picking up a calculator - AEMO, CSIRO and others have done loads of modelling on this. It’s not perfect, but it’s a bit much to suggest no one's done the numbers when whole reports have been written about exactly that."

Apparently the integrated system plan is based on a number of false, unrealistic and unworkable assumptions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4z65FswjHw

Renewable energy is a complete scam.

Well John, you seemed to have missed a few points or have looked at a
different time scale to me.
At the time Germany had the wind drought so did the rest of Europe and
it caused major problems in the UK.
Helped out by the extension cord to France.
However they DO happen.
I just wonder how many who planned our dream scheme had ever had to get
a project up and running in a place remote from the coast.
I did on a very much smaller scale and it is a nightmare.
An example, reasonably accurate;
It will require 44 semitrailers on the road 24 hours a day just to get
the solar panels on site at the rate of 22,000 a day.
Remember the drivers cannot just turn around and drive back they would
be out of time, so they drive back the next day, so another 22 trucks
have to set out the next morning.
Oh yes they need days off also.
I got those figures without knowing the package size, it could be worse.
The mounting frames have to manufactured and then galvenised then
trucked to the sites, how many to a truck ? About 8000 frames a day.
err, where can you get that many galvanized in a day 365 days a year ?

Then there is the wind turbines, 40 a month ? About 2 a day.
No wonder it is late.

Fester,

Thanks for posting that video again. It still proves my point better than yours, though.

The video doesn’t "debunk" renewables. It critiques one version of the ISP (2024) for assuming smoother policy execution, consumer participation, and infrastructure rollout than might realistically happen. That’s a process critique - not an argument that renewables can’t work, or that the whole transition is a "scam."

Every large infrastructure plan has assumptions. Every one can be critiqued for optimism. If you went back to the original plans for the Snowy Hydro scheme, or the national grid itself, you’d find the same kind of problems - workforce shortages, unrealistic timelines, political meddling, logistical headaches. It’s messy because reality is messy.

But nowhere does your transcript show that renewable energy itself is unworkable. It shows that rushed planning, political interference, and insufficient investment can make any transition harder - which is exactly why doing nothing (i.e., staying tied to aging coal and volatile gas markets) is a worse idea, not a better one.

You’re trying to turn "poor process in one government report" into "physics says renewables are a scam." That's like claiming bridges can’t be built because one construction project ran over budget.

----

Bezza,

You’re confusing logistics with impossibility. Yes, building out renewable infrastructure is a huge undertaking - just like building the entire fossil fuel and electricity grids was a century ago. Moving heavy equipment, manufacturing parts, scaling labor - these are standard challenges for any major infrastructure build, not proof that the goal is unworkable.

And as for your "44 semitrailers" scenario - even assuming your rough math is right - so what? Major projects already move massive volumes of material every day. Mining operations, port expansions, oil pipelines - none of them grind to a halt because trucks exist and drivers need rest days. That's why logistics companies and project managers exist.

Nobody said this transition would be easy. But difficulty is not impossibility - and it's certainly not an argument for sticking with a 20th-century energy model that’s already breaking down under its own economic and environmental weight.

Except John, Albo/Bowen promised it in 8 years !
Anything can be done if you just wait.
How long did the pyramids take ?
Re your massive moving of product you are comparing bulk handling with
package handling. Like comparing a coal train to road freight.
Sorry but you missed the point.
The coal fired stations have been closed and blown up taking the
government at its 8 years word.
I have not yet hear about a country that has only solar, wind and batteries, or even some hydro.
What happened to the Sth Aus plan for a row of dams on clifftops and
turbine/pumps at the base.

Bezza,

You’re shifting the goalposts. The discussion wasn’t about whether everything could be done in 8 years flat - it was about whether the scale of moving materials, building infrastructure, and transitioning energy systems was inherently impossible. It's not. It's difficult, yes. But difficulty isn’t impossibility - unless you start from the assumption that failure is inevitable.

Your "pyramids" analogy just proves my point: large projects take long-term vision, effort, and persistence. They don’t happen overnight - but that doesn’t mean you don’t start.

Second, your "bulk vs package handling" complaint misses the real-world fact that construction projects already deal with high-volume, high-frequency logistics across different materials and scales. Building solar farms, wind farms, transmission lines, and hydro projects isn’t remotely unique in that regard. Major mining operations, port expansions, oil pipelines, highway networks - they all move huge volumes of "packages" too. It’s just project management, not some unsolvable mystery.

Third, you’re right that some coal plants were shut down too early without full replacements ready - and that’s a legitimate criticism of how the transition has been managed. But that’s a policy failure, not proof that solar, wind, and storage can’t work. You’re confusing a bad rollout with a bad technology. They’re not the same thing.

Finally, no country is 100% solar, wind, and batteries - because nobody serious proposes that. Every real energy plan includes a mix: renewables, firming capacity (storage, hydro, gas), demand management, and grid upgrades. Pretending that the goal is to "only" have solar, wind, and batteries is attacking a cartoon version of the plan, not the real thing.

If you want to criticize specific timelines, fair enough. But if you're trying to imply the whole idea is impossible because it’s hard and governments have sometimes botched it - that’s just defeatism, not analysis.