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.