“An inconvenient truth to the green energy believers is that there is no green energy transition happening, so they ignore that it is not happening. The world's increasing demand for energy is being satisfied more by coal than by solar panels and wind turbines”.

That's all that needs to be said.

Charles,

Your article mixes fact with heavy distortion. Yes, dispatchable power is critical and fusion isn’t ready yet. But your framing of fossil fuels, nuclear, and renewables is misleading at best.

CO2’s role in climate change is not speculative. Satellite data, attribution studies, and physical measurements have long established not just the presence but the specific consequences of CO2-driven warming. Pretending otherwise ignores decades of evidence.

On nuclear, you inflate the waste problem without mentioning that vitrification and geological storage - already operational in places like Finland - offer viable long-term solutions. If waste alone disqualified technologies, coal and gas would have been abandoned long ago given their enormous health and environmental toll.

Your treatment of renewables is worse. Solar and wind are now the cheapest sources of new electricity globally. Storage costs are falling fast, and grid solutions go far beyond just "batteries." Claiming otherwise is years behind reality.

As for Germany, high household prices reflect taxes and historical policy decisions far more than renewable generation costs. And contrary to your claims, Germany remains a net electricity exporter - hardly the mark of a failed grid.

Claiming there is "no green energy transition" is pure denial. Renewables now supply the vast majority of new global electricity growth. Fossil fuel demand is still high because total energy use keeps rising - but that doesn’t change the fact that renewables are taking over most new growth.

You talk about ideology, but you’re the one pushing it - cherry-picking facts, quoting old numbers, and throwing around words like "illusion" and "delusion" to cover for a narrative that just doesn’t hold up.

The transition is real. It’s messy, it’s incomplete, and it’s happening anyway. Pretending otherwise doesn’t make you sound sceptical - it just makes you sound stuck.

"Germany remains a net electricity exporter"

Not true John (yet again). Net imports of about 30 twh in 2024. Have you ever considered being truthful instead of a lying shonk?

Fester,

Germany was a net electricity exporter for most of the past decade, including during major renewable expansion years.

A single year’s shift - in the middle of a deliberate nuclear shutdown and an energy crisis triggered by Russia’s war - doesn’t change the broader reality.

You’re playing "gotcha" with a cherry-picked moment - and even then, Germany’s imports were small relative to its total generation.

I'm sure you'll catch me being wrong about something one day, but today just doesn't look like that day.

In the meantime, try addressing the argument instead of reaching for a technicality and shouting "liar."

John,

Germany was a net energy exporter last year. That is a fact. It isn't cherry picking.

I'd guess that the big worry for the wind and solar spruikers is what just happened in Spain and Portugal? I woke up to that news at 4am and immediately thought "grid instability from wind and solar". I will be interested to see what come from the investigation. If it is as I suspect , then the average punter might wake up to the renewable energy con unfolding in Australia.

Do you remember the story of Alice Spring's grid being destabilised by a passing cloud? Think of all those spinning turbines like a giant train. The momentum makes the grid stable. You would have that momentum with nuclear.

And if I were to offer criticism of the article I would suggest a mention of the grid instability that wind and solar bring.

"High share of renewables raises grid reliability concerns

Spain derives 56% of its electricity from renewable sources, primarily wind and solar. This high reliance makes power generation more weather dependent. Combined with limited interconnection capacity with neighboring countries, this reduces flexibility in load balancing and increases the challenge of maintaining grid stability—factors that likely contributed to the blackout.

Restarting the grid following such a large-scale outage involves a complex “black start” process, which requires smaller backup generators to sequentially restart larger power units before reconnecting them to the transmission network under strict dispatch control.

REE estimated that national restoration in Spain might take 6 to 10 hours. However, REN warned that due to system complexity and international electricity flows, full recovery across the region could take up to a week."

https://reccessary.com/en/news/world-regulation/spain-portugal-power-outage

Fester,

You're still missing the point. Germany was a net exporter for most of the past decade - including during its major renewable buildout. One year of net imports, during a geopolitical energy crisis and nuclear shutdown, does not undo a decade-long trend.

Cherry-picking a single year and ignoring the broader trend is classic misdirection.

Thanks for posting that article about Spain and Portugal - it actually supports my point, not yours.

No one serious denies that high renewable penetration requires better grid management. That's been known for years. The article you linked mentions exactly what I said earlier: flexibility, interconnection upgrades, and advanced load balancing become more critical as renewables scale.

It doesn’t say renewables are unworkable. It says the grid needs to be engineered around new realities - which is exactly what countries are doing.

Spain’s blackout highlights a need for smarter grid planning, not a retreat from renewables. Pretending otherwise is like arguing we should have abandoned electricity altogether after the first blackouts a century ago.

The broader trend remains: renewables are growing, grids are adapting, and isolated challenges don't undo the direction the world is moving - any more than Germany's 2024 import blip undoes a decade-long trend of net exports.

Grid inertia matters, yes. That’s why modern grids are already integrating synthetic inertia, fast frequency response, and stabilisers to handle renewable-heavy systems. You’re pointing out a challenge, not a showstopper - unless, of course, you want it to be one.

If you want to argue against renewables, you'll need something stronger than "change is hard."

After 30 years of UN Climate Action for Net Zero, emissions are higher than ever, CO2 is higher than ever. Even under Trump, Mauna Loa doesn't lie. Just as the author politely says.

All this just bounces straight off the pro-China "electrification of everything" brigade, because theirs is a deep-fried-green-groupthink, not commonsense science or evidence.

Why wouldn't they just stick to an old-fashioned creed, like the transubstantiation of the wafers and wine? On balance, much less harmful than the soviet UN creed.

The need for inertia becomes greater the more renewables are present.
Anyway it does not matter as we cannot afford the amount of renewables
needed.
The latest costing for the governments intention spent over 35 years
is; wait for it; $7 to $9 Trillion !

Bezza,

As pleased as I am that you've now at least added the "over 35 years" to the $7-9 trillion estimate, leaving it at that is still grossly misleading.

You're quoting a cumulative investment figure spanning nearly four decades - for a complete transformation of our national energy system - as if it's some kind of shock horror number. Of course it sounds scary if you strip it of context. But spread over 35 years, it averages out to around $200-250 billion per year, much of which is already being spent in the form of electricity bills, infrastructure upgrades, and existing subsidies to fossil fuels.

More importantly, this isn’t some reckless luxury project. It’s a long-overdue overhaul of infrastructure that’s already ageing, already costly, and already contributing to climate-related damages that will cost far more in the long run if left unchecked.

And yes, the need for inertia increases with more renewables. This is exactly why engineers are building grid-scale batteries, flywheels, synthetic inertia, and synchronous condensers into modern systems. You’re describing a known engineering challenge, not an argument against the transition itself.

We either invest in a more flexible and future-ready grid, or we keep throwing money at a system that’s becoming increasingly insecure and costly, and driving worsening climate extremes. Pretending we can't afford the transition while ignoring the even grater cost of not doing it is the real fantasy.

Warnings have been circulating about a grid collapse in Spain for many years, and there were a few close calls over past weeks.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/spain-suffered-multiple-power-incidents-build-up-full-blackout-2025-05-02/

Of course, all the warnings were met with a stock denial of there being any vulnerability. Now with up to seven deaths attributable to the outage the Spanish government is looking for scapegoats, with the head of grid operator REE announcing that Spain had the best grid in the world (sounds as delusional as JD.

"it averages out to around $200-250 billion per year"

You must have od'd on magic mushrooms IBM. That is a massive figure, equivalent to about $8k per Australian per year for the next 35 years.

"This is exactly why engineers are building grid-scale batteries, flywheels, synthetic inertia, and synchronous condensers into modern systems. You’re describing a known engineering challenge, not an argument against the transition itself."

No, they are doing no such thing for the simple reason that they don't yet know how to integrate these stabilising measures.

Wind and solar are a prohibitively expensive and unworkable option. No massive transmission upgrade required with nuclear.

Fester,

Linking to the Reuters article about Spain’s grid issues doesn’t prove what you think it does.

Yes, the grid faced stress after a complex series of faults, and yes, concerns had been raised. That’s normal in any major infrastructure system. But the reporting points to technical strain and inadequate contingency planning, not some blanket failure of renewables. Blaming it entirely on wind and solar is simplistic and ignores the broader engineering picture.

As for the $7-9 trillion figure, spread over 35 years that works out to around $200 to $250 billion per year. That’s actually less than we currently spend on health, defence, or superannuation. And unlike those, this is capital investment in infrastructure we’ll be relying on for the next 50 years or more. Framing it as "$8,000 per person per year" without explaining that it’s not a personal tax but a mix of public and private investment is just spin.

Your claim that engineers “don’t yet know how to integrate” inertia solutions is simply false. Synchronous condensers are already operating across Australia’s grid. Grid-scale batteries with synthetic inertia are also online today. These are not theoretical concepts. They are being deployed and used right now.

And the idea that nuclear doesn't require major transmission upgrades is a myth. Nuclear plants still need extensive grid infrastructure, especially when they’re built in remote locations for safety or space. Centralised generation doesn’t remove the need for transmission, it just shifts it.

You keep insisting that renewables are unworkable, but the reality is that they are working. They’re being improved, scaled, and adopted because when you factor in system cost, emissions, and risk, they make sense. It's been months now, yet none of your "they're unworkable" claims have withstood scrutiny. At what point do you not at least find another angle to argue against renewables (if altering your objection to them is not an option you're willing to give yourself)?

If your argument relies on fear, distortion, and pretending engineers are clueless, it might not be the renewables that are on shaky ground.