None of this is about common sense or necessary hydrocarbons or energy security, Ronald. Net Zero is just another UN proxy for endless (population) growth, and anyone who objects to Net Zero is by definition A Racist.

Having said that, I have yet to notice the world (or Australia's) woke "left" abandoning their smart-phones and jet-flights, in favour of papyrus sheets and outrigger canoes.

Almost every mouthful of food we eat comes with the help of oil and gass. When they become unaffordable there will be a crisis. Synthetic hydrocarbon fuels will be too expensive and limited in supply. Think of thousands of hydrogen powered tractors tilling the WA wheatbelt that has been fertilised 5kg per square metre with synthetics. Makes sense to some, a fantasy to the rest of us.

Population growth advocates seem to think cheap oil would last forever. In a decade it will be the main issue.

Hi Steve,

For me it is a question of "Does it work?" and "What is the cost?". Wind and solar do provide cheap, non-dispatchable power, but making it dispatchable in sufficient quantities to run a nation causes massive environmental destruction and comes at a huge cost with ruinous economic consequences.

I keep waiting for the net zero death cult to have an epiphany and realise that life developed a brilliant and long lasting form of energy storage (hydrocarbons) billions of years ago. They might even have a more profound epiphany and realise that our world and energy was made in nuclear reactors.

Ah, this joker again with his fossil-fuelled fearmongering wrapped in a smug ignorance of how energy transitions work.

No credible Net Zero policy proposes "ridding the use of fossil fuels" overnight or without replacement. Yet Stein screams apocalypse if we even try to reduce our dependency on them - like an arsonist warning we’ll freeze without fire.

That electricity came “after” oil is historically and intellectually meaningless. So did antibiotics. So what? The order of invention has no bearing on what we should prioritise today. Worse, his claim that "renewables cannot make anything" ignores the fact that electricity powers manufacturing - and renewables increasingly supply it. Solar panels and wind turbines are made with fossil-fuel-derived materials today, yes - but that doesn't mean they must be forever. Recycling, bioplastics, and electrification of industrial processes are already advancing to reduce that reliance.

Stein romanticises crude oil as the irreplaceable cornerstone of civilisation, which is like crediting asbestos for modern construction. Sure, fossil fuels enabled massive growth. But now they’re also destabilising the climate, choking cities, and propping up petrostates. Continuing business-as-usual because the current system “works” is like saying we should never have banned lead in paint because it was so widely used.

The list of Net Zero targets from various governments is mocked without context - completely ignoring the immense economic opportunities in renewables, the falling costs of clean tech, or the fact that oil is finite. Instead, we’re told that without crude oil we’ll have no hospitals, no transport, and no electricity - because everything uses oil now. That’s like claiming we should never have invented digital cameras because film was once essential to photography.

Finally, citing coal use in China and India as a reason for inaction is a coward’s cop-out. These countries are also investing heavily in renewables - and their emissions don’t excuse ours. Stein’s vision of the future is a desperate clinging to the past, where oil reigns eternal and any move to transition is heresy. But clinging to oil in the 21st century is like worshipping steam engines in the age of rockets.

I think the respondents mostly missed the point.
Which is I think, that those things we use need crude oil as their source.
I will now remind you that

CRUDE OIL PEAKED IN 2005 !

It's not a false binary, Bezza. If oil has peaked, and we are well aware of that point, maybe that's an argument for more renewables. But it's certainly not an argument for eight billion lemmings bulldozing the planet, nor is it a probative argument that Net Zero makes any sense. Anyway, while it's hard to do without oil for certain purposes, it's gas that's the peaker for power.

Indeed, one of the accidental "benefits" of the renewables rush might be that its sheer drawbacks and complexities put the brakes on endless growth.

Nuclear energy could be used to make synthetic fuels.

https://www.neimagazine.com/advanced-reactorsfusion/nuclears-pursuit-of-synfuels-11460789/?cf-view

The Nuclear Industry Association beats this drum as part of its sales pitch.

What happened to the hydrogen economy?

It took the French 15 years to power their grid on and a half times fifty years ago. Germany has spent the past fourteen years destroying their electricity supply and economy pursuing wind and solar, which erratically meet about 20 of electricity demand.

https://www.iea.org/countries/germany

Australia is insane pursuing this lunacy.

Fester,

Your comment is a jumble of half-truths pretending to be insight.

First, France’s nuclear buildout wasn’t a 15-year miracle pulled from thin air - it was a massive, centralised, and state-driven effort following an oil crisis, with an energy monopoly (Électricité de France) and strong public backing. It’s not remotely comparable to modern decentralised renewable transitions - and even then, it required enormous investment, long-term planning, and decades of maintenance.

Second, Germany’s situation is endlessly misrepresented by people eager to bash renewables. Yes, Germany made mistakes - most critically by shutting down nuclear too early. But blaming renewables for "destroying the economy" is laughable when Germany remains one of the largest, most advanced economies on Earth. In fact, renewables now provide over 50% of Germany’s electricity generation annually - not 20%. Your own IEA source shows it. You just didn’t read it (or hoped no one else would).

Germany’s issues come from a messy, incomplete transition, not from renewables being inherently unworkable. Solar and wind are already cheaper than fossil fuels in most parts of the world. Their "erratic" nature is why grids are diversifying with storage, smart grids, and demand management - not retreating to coal and oil like frightened dinosaurs.

As for Australia being “insane” - the real insanity would be refusing to shift while the world economy moves toward decarbonisation. Clinging to the 20th century while your trading partners demand clean energy isn’t patriotism. It’s sabotage.

If you’re going to call the future "lunacy," at least bring arguments that can survive five minutes of scrutiny.

John,

Yes, and as always from you, comment chock full of dishonest and misleading statements.

50% renewables, half of which is biomass. Energy from burning wood if you like, which produces three to four times the amount of CO2 per unit energy generated as natural gas or high efficiency coal generation.

https://www.pfpi.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/PFPI-biomass-carbon-accounting-overview_April.pdf

Oh, and to the UK's embarrassment, it was revealed that its biomass was being sourced from old growth forests in British Columbia.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68381160

Germany had the cheapest electricity in Europe, under which its economy flourished. It had so much electricity that it was criticised for dumping its surplus generation on the European market. Now Germany imports nearly as much electricity as France exports (net imports are about a third of France's exports due to the erratic nature of wind and solar), has nearly the highest electricity prices in Europe, and its economy is struggling.

So, fifteen years for France to supply 150% of its electricity half a century ago vs Germany supplying less than 25% of its electricity form wind and solar and destroying its economy over a similar time frame. And spruikers like you want to tell me that wind and solar are faster and cheaper?

Where will Australia plug in to when wind and solar fails us, as it will?

Fester,

You accuse me of dishonesty, yet once again, your reply is a patchwork of distortions and half-relevant points dressed up as certainty. It's also worth noting that despite your repeated accusations, you've never once been able to substantiate a single claim of dishonesty.

First, Germany’s renewable electricity is not "half biomass." In 2023, wind and solar alone accounted for about 38% of Germany’s total electricity generation - and rising. Biomass is a much smaller slice of the pie. You're clinging to outdated numbers or wildly inflating their role. (And for what it’s worth, environmentalists oppose large-scale biomass for exactly the reasons you cite.)

Second, linking a BBC article about British biomass supply to Germany’s renewable rollout is pure rhetorical bait-and-switch. Germany’s transition is centered overwhelmingly on wind (onshore and offshore) and solar PV - not burning Canadian forests.

Third, your nostalgia for Germany’s old electricity surplus conveniently omits the real cause of the current crunch: fossil fuel dependence on Russia, not renewables. Germany leaned heavily on cheap Russian gas for decades. When Putin invaded Ukraine, that supply collapsed. Blaming renewables for that is like blaming the fire department because the arsonist torched the house.

Fourth, France’s nuclear program was indeed successful - in the 1970s, under conditions utterly unlike today's market-based, decentralised energy systems. Even now, France struggles with nuclear outages and costly delays. If nuclear were fast and cheap today, we wouldn’t still be talking about it as a "future solution" half a century later.

Finally, "where will Australia plug in" is just a lazy scare-line, not a serious question. Australia already has massive pumped hydro projects underway, battery storage is scaling rapidly, and diversified grids (solar, wind, hydro, some gas) can and do maintain reliable supply. No serious planner assumes a 100% weather-dependent grid without backup and storage.

Your worldview boils down to this: if the 20th-century solution had problems, we doubled down. If the 21st-century solution has challenges, you declare it a failure.

That’s not realism. That’s fossil nostalgia masquerading as analysis.

The big unmentionable in Labour's renewable plan is that by the time
it is finished it will be time to go back and start replacing all those
solar panels and wind turbines.
Their lifetime is around 20 years, maybe more if you are prepared to
accept less output.
My own solar panels now 15 years old are down to 50% at high noon in
early January. I can buy the proverbial cup of coffee a week on them.
Well that was until Albo's $275 didn't appear ! He he!

I have seen reports that wind turbines have a 20 year life.
Sounds unlikely but, the bearings may need replacing or perhaps the
blades start showing cracks. I did read a report on the older Danish
ones are getting close to their end of life.
The costs of renewables (now you know why they are called that) never
sees that cost taken into account.

John,

France got to 150% in fifteen years with nuclear. Germany will be lucky to get to 25% in fifteen years with wind and solar. Lie and spin all you like, but you won't change the facts, nor will your lies change Germany's troubled economy.

Newsflash. Spain and Portugal's power grid just collapsed. Was that due to renewable energy? Maybe due to some clapped out fifteen year old wind turbines?

Fester,

You’re just repeating the same talking points, hoping repetition will substitute for argument.

France’s nuclear rollout fifty years ago, under a centralized, post-crisis command economy, has no meaningful equivalence to modern decentralized grids balancing multiple generation sources. That’s not "spin" - it’s basic historical and economic reality.

Nobody denies nuclear built fast then under those conditions. But if it were still as cheap, fast, and easy today, we wouldn't be having this conversation. You’re romanticizing a model that doesn’t even exist anymore.

As for Germany, despite every obstacle you wave around (nuclear phaseout, Russian gas dependence, sabotage, COVID, war-driven energy crises), wind and solar are now generating over half of Germany's electricity on many days and around 38% annually - and growing. That’s a success story under difficult conditions, not a failure.

And now you’re trying to pivot to Spain and Portugal without even checking basic facts. Their temporary blackout wasn't because of "clapped-out wind turbines" - it was caused by a telecommunications system failure that took down control systems, not generation. Nothing to do with generation sources, renewable or otherwise. (Next time, spend two minutes checking before yelling "renewables bad!!")

You keep pretending that every logistical challenge, every policy mistake, every unrelated incident is a death blow to renewables. It's not. It's just reality: big transitions are complex. You’re not exposing some scandal; you’re exposing your own unwillingness to deal with change.

The world is moving on - with or without your permission.