Amusingly, Ronald, this article popped up a "Temu" advertisement, for four manufactured products, made with fossil-fuels.

The only quibble I have is this. Arguably, Net Zero's a greater oxymoron than Renewable Energy. In the first case, one has completely lost one's mind, in the second case, possibly one might respond to intensive treatment.

WTF?

In the same fashion that a drunk University first year Art student, facing a losing argument at 3A.M. in the morning, the anti-science and anti-technology crowd decides to argue definitions.

Nobody believes that energy can actually be renewable. Just the same way that everybody knows, that for the sake of brevity, some people say carbon when they mean carbon dioxide when discussing topics in context.

There are many forms of energy that fit under the banner of renewables". I'm not going to bother listening them.

Any intelligent person knows that in order to transition to other sources of energy that fossil fuels will play a part.

I don't know who the author is trying to convince here. Maybe those that can only imagine a world of black and white.

WTF?

"Any intelligent person knows"

So, after all the years of energy transition, how much of the world's energy comes from wind and solar. (Hint: it was less than 2% a few years ago)

These clowns merely shift the goalpost to attack a strawman.

//Wind and solar cannot make EV's, or any of the products or fuels that get made from fossil fuels.//

Right - and by that same logic, I could argue that fossil fuels are useless because oil and coal can‘t produce a forest. No one’s trying to replace the sun and wind with coal and oil.

If I used this to argue against fossil fuels, I'd be laughed out of the room and dismissed as a fruit cake by people on both sides of the fence. Present an equally irrelevant argument using the same faulty logic to argue against renewables, and it's gobbled up by the tribe.

All that aside, the term “renewable energy” still isn’t an oxymoron, because energy isn’t the opposite of renewable - nonrenewable is.

So, we have a factually incorrect introduction serving as a lead-in to a strawman argument that doesn’t logically follow.

Good grief.

It's me mate John Daysh, still hoping perhaps, cheap renewables will bend the graph and shift us to the UN rainbow of net-zero emissions.

The planet isn't getting the UN memo. Population - well up. GDP and consumption - well up. Emissions - new records. CO2 - new records. Temperatures - well up. Guess the planet should adjust to the theory, eh, and not the other way round.

Steve S,

That’s a curious response. You’ve sidestepped the point I raised about the article using a flawed comparison to discredit renewables by holding them to standards they were never meant to meet.

Instead, you’ve pivoted to a lament about global emissions trends, as if rising CO2 somehow proves wind and solar are a failure, rather than a response to that very problem. By that logic, seatbelts don’t work because car accidents still happen.

Yes, emissions are still rising - but the fact that global renewables are now the fastest-growing energy source and are already reshaping electricity markets is part of the solution, not evidence of its futility.

So we’re back to square one: the article’s central logic doesn’t hold, and your reply doesn’t defend it. In fact you’ve strengthened my argument: If what you’ve said was accurate, then the authors of this article wouldn’t be scraping the barrel like they have, and you wouldn’t need deflect.

John Daysh,
You're welcome to insist on having yourself on but you're most unwelcome to waste our funds to do so ! The evidence that renewables are seriously flawed is all around us.

Indyvidual,

Vague hand-waving doesn’t prove anything. So let’s look at some actual figures:

- Wind and solar are now the cheapest sources of new electricity in most of the world, according to the IEA and BloombergNEF.

- In 2023, wind and solar made up over 80% of new global power capacity, and solar alone added more capacity than coal, gas, and nuclear combined.

- Over 30% of global electricity now comes from renewables, and it's growing fast.

- Australia gets around 39% of its electricity from renewables, up from just 14% a decade ago.

These are not the signs of a “seriously flawed” technology. If you think otherwise, feel free to bring specific evidence - not just slogans and taxpayer panic.

Happy to have a good-faith debate, but let’s keep it grounded in facts.

John,

"Happy to have a good-faith debate, but let’s keep it grounded in facts."

Good.

After a quarter of a century investing in wind and solar, about 2% of human generated energy comes from those sources. How is that a breathtaking rate of rollout?

60% of the world's population is not pursuing net zero.

Spain's blackout appeared to have been precipitated by an electricity over-supply sending the wholesale price into negative territory, which resulted in a number of solar farms cutting supply. On average, an optimal wind and solar grid will be oversupplied by 50%.

Transmission line and pumped hydro cost estimates have been grossly underestimated, with the Victorian government reluctantly acknowledging that a 4.3 billion cost estimate would be close to 20 billion.

The fastest rates of wind and solar build in the world are less than a third that of the French nuclear build which started over half a century ago.

Every nation which has pursued wind and solar has seen consumer electricity costs rise at greater rates than those nations which have not.

1.7 times the area of Tasmania would be required to replace Australia's electricity grid with wind and solar. The government has released no cost estimate for this, but estimates around 1.7 trillion have been made.

Fester,

We’ve been through all this many times before. Repeating it doesn’t make it stronger - just familiar. Still, here’s a quick reality check:

- Your “2%” stat only works if you count all global energy use, including transport and industrial heat. In electricity - where wind and solar actually operate - they now supply over 12% globally, with renewables overall over 30%.

- Spain’s blackout was caused by a fault, not “too much solar.” Negative prices mean abundance, not instability.

- Oversupply? All grids build in excess. Fossil fuel systems do it too. It’s not a flaw, it’s design.

- Yes, transmission is expensive. So were coal plants, nuclear, and oil pipelines. Every transition has upfront costs.

- The French nuclear rollout was decades ago, under a different regulatory environment, and a fully centralized government push. Modern nuclear doesn’t move that fast - just look at Vogtle or Hinkley Point C.

- Rising electricity prices? Correlation does not equal causation. Australia’s biggest spikes were from gas and gold-plated networks, not wind and solar.

- Land use? Wind and solar farms often share space with agriculture. That “1.7x Tasmania” line is a scare stat, not a serious planning argument.

In short:

You’re framing complexity as failure.
You’re ignoring progress already made.
You’re holding renewables to a standard no other energy source was ever required to meet.

You’re not proving renewables have failed - you’re proving that transitions are complex. We already knew that.

John,

"We’ve been through all this many times before. Repeating it doesn’t make it stronger - just familiar. "

Well, you are yet to respond with anything meaningful or consistently factual.

"Your “2%” stat only works if you count all global energy use"

Yes, 2% of total energy. The objective of transition is 100%, so progress is woeful.

"The French nuclear rollout was decades ago, under a different regulatory environment, and a fully centralized government push. Modern nuclear doesn’t move that fast - just look at Vogtle or Hinkley Point C."

Vogtle and HPC are bespoke projects. What France did could better be prepared with nuclear reactor builds could be better compared with the Liberty ship building in WW2. But there is a more general point here: I believe that if you want to produce low carbon energy cheaply, what is needed is a standardised design with multinational collaboration and construction.

"Oversupply? All grids build in excess. Fossil fuel systems do it too. It’s not a flaw, it’s design."

With dispatchable power, you can closely match supply. With non-dispatchable wind and solar you have no control over how much is generated, with massive variations from almost no output to six to eight times average demand. About a third of the energy generated by a wind and solar system is curtailed, or wasted if you will. Comparatively little energy is wasted with a grid running on dispatchable power.

"Rising electricity prices? Correlation does not equal causation."

It isn't a statistic. It is a provable fact from system cost modelling and confirmed by observation in every instance where wind and solar are part of the grid.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/commentary/solar-and-wind-power-make-electricity-more-expensive-thats-a-fact

Fester,

I’ve responded factually - repeatedly - even as you recycle points we’ve covered before. Citing the Fraser Institute (a think tank with a clear pro-fossil agenda) doesn’t change that.

The article cherry-picks one outlier study that claims solar jumps from $36 to $1,548/MWh when you pile on hypothetical costs - while ignoring the fact that solar and wind are now the cheapest sources of new electricity globally (IEA, Lazard, BloombergNEF).

Your “2% of energy” stat ignores that wind and solar aren’t yet widespread in transport or heavy industry - which is why electricity is the first stage of the transition. And in that space, wind and solar now produce 12% globally, and made up over 80% of new capacity in 2023.

As for France: its 1970s nuclear program was run by a single utility in an authoritarian structure - not remotely comparable to today’s democracies. No modern nuclear rollout has matched its speed, cost, or scale.

Finally, calling renewables “wasteful” for having oversupply is disingenuous - every grid oversupplies. Curtailment is manageable, and sunlight costs nothing. Wasting fuel does - and fossil grids do it every day.

I’m happy to keep engaging if the goal is to learn and clarify - but not if you’re just resetting the board and hoping repetition wins.

John,

"I’ve responded factually - repeatedly - even as you recycle points we’ve covered before."

No, you never have. You just repeat invalid answers, and some things you ignore completely. Cases in point:

"Your “2% of energy”... "

Yes, 2% of total energy after 25 years. That is pathetic, and given that about 60% of the world has no interest in net zero, the transition will never happen with wind and solar.

"As for France: its 1970s nuclear program was run by a single utility in an authoritarian structure - not remotely comparable to today’s democracies. No modern nuclear rollout has matched its speed, cost, or scale."

Again, you ignore the reasons for slow builds and cost overruns with recent nuclear projects and misrepresent France's nuclear build: It was in fact an organised response to a perceived impending crisis, something that any democracy would do, and something I'd imagine you would have no problem with when it comes to wind and solar in Australia.

"Finally, calling renewables “wasteful” for having oversupply is disingenuous - every grid oversupplies. Curtailment is manageable, and sunlight costs nothing. Wasting fuel does - and fossil grids do it every day."

Again, a complete misrepresentation as you ignore both the variable input of wind and solar as well as the quantity of curtailment. In the case of wind and solar, if you wanted to supply an average of 40 gigawatts with wind and solar generation alone, you would do so with the knowledge that an average of 20 gigawatts would be wasted. The waste from fossil fuel generation is nothing like that.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/wind-and-solar-facing-20-per-cent-curtailment-in-high-renewables-grid/

Present "renewable energy" is akin to a loaf of bread costing $2500

Fester,
You’ve misread both me and your own source. The RenewEconomy article says 20% curtailment is a modelled scenario without storage, demand-shifting, or reform - not an inevitable flaw. It even states that “curtailment is not necessarily a bad thing.”

And curtailment does not equal waste. Fossil fuel oversupply burns resources, emits CO2, and pollutes. A curtailed solar watt costs nothing. That’s why storage, smart grids, and flexible demand are scaling with renewables - not against them.

Your “2%” stat continues to conflate electricity with total energy - ignoring that sectors like shipping and steel are only just beginning to electrify. In electricity, renewables now exceed 30% globally, with wind/solar over 12% and dominating new capacity.

On France: no modern democracy has replicated that build-out, and for good reason. It was a product of centralized control, uniform reactor design, and tight state regulation - not something replicable in today’s multi-vendor, multi-regulator world. Even EDF can’t pull it off anymore.

You keep pointing to complexity in transition as if it’s proof of failure. But that complexity exists in every energy system. Nuclear is slow and expensive, fossil fuels are polluting and finite, and renewables are variable - but increasingly dominant.

None of your claims refute that wind and solar are growing faster, cheaper, and cleaner than any other source in history. Saying “we’re not at 100% yet” is not a rebuttal - it’s an admission that we’ve only just begun.

it’s an admission that we’ve only just begun.
John Daysh,
No, it's the industry's panic rhetoric since the realisation that it's flogging a lame horse.
I just hope that Hydrogen engines will soon put an end to the insane costly folly that is wind power.
Why is the environmental impact of wind power ignored ?

John

"None of your claims refute that wind and solar are growing faster, cheaper, and cleaner than any other source in history."

That statement is utterly delusional. Even the UK government now admits that renewables are more expensive than fossil fuel energy in their own right, not because of gas and oil price spikes:

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Officials-Warn-Net-Zero-Policies-Push-Up-Short-Term-Energy-Bills.html

Also, your "fastest in history" claim, aside from being false on a percentage basis (French nuclear grew at 10% per year remember? What nation has done this with wind and solar?), comes from a low base of about 2%. Given your "correlation does not equal causation" awareness, you might also be aware of "history is not a reliable prediction tool" statements. The nature of wind and solar are that the more or it you have, the more complex and costly it becomes: This is not the case with fossil fuels or nuclear.

"A curtailed solar watt costs nothing."

That is economically illiterate. Hardly a surprise though given your faith in this nonsense. In an optimal wind and solar system you waste about a third of the energy generated. That means you need to purchase and install an extra fifty percent of wind an solar generation. That is expensive and requires 50% more land, along with the extra transmission lines to connect the generation to the grid. Also note that taxpayers are subsidising wind and solar generation, so the reality is that taxpayers are forking out billions for nothing.

With nuclear, you could have multinational cooperation and build safe and reliable reactors cheaply and by the thousand, which would usurp your "cheapest in history" epithet. Tennis Elbow had the opportunity to be on the international nuclear development team, but turned it down.

Indyvidual,

We’ve already discussed the environmental impact of wind - it’s been rigorously studied, and when compared to fossil fuels or even other infrastructure (like roads, buildings, or transmission lines), it’s extremely low. Pretending we haven’t covered that doesn’t reset the debate.

As for hydrogen engines - if they succeed, they’ll rely on cheap renewable electricity (wind and solar) to produce green hydrogen. So calling for hydrogen while attacking wind is like cheering for bakeries while banning flour.

The only thing flogged here is the repetition of claims already answered.

Fester,

The article you linked actually supports what I've always said. It talks about short-term increases in energy bills due to things like infrastructure upgrades and changes, not because renewables themselves are inherently expensive.

Again, none of this is ground we haven't covered ad nauseum.

In fact, it mentions that clean energy is cheaper at the wholesale level. That’s why the UK isn’t backing away from renewables - it’s investing more into both wind, solar, and nuclear.

On curtailment: calling the concept “economically illiterate” misses the point. Overbuilding capacity is standard grid planning - fossil and nuclear generators don’t run at 100% either. Curtailment is simply the name for surplus in systems with near-zero marginal cost. Even with that, wind and solar remain the cheapest sources per MWh, and storage + demand management are improving efficiency further.

Your “2% of total energy” claim keeps resurfacing, but again - it ignores that the electricity sector is the first target of decarbonisation, and that wind and solar now supply 30% of global electricity and make up over 80% of new generation capacity each year. That’s rapid growth, whether from a low base or not.

As for nuclear: yes, standardised builds with international coordination sound promising. But we don’t build energy policy on hypotheticals - we build on outcomes. Wind and solar are cheap, proven, and scaling today. Nuclear is still struggling with costs and timelines, even after 70 years.

it’s been rigorously studied, and when compared to fossil fuels or even other infrastructure (like roads, buildings, or transmission lines), it’s extremely low.
John Daysh,
What a ridiculous comparison & an even more ridiculously feeble attempt to distract from the real issue.
Per Kw/hr present alternative energy is several times worse not only environmentally but also socially & economically than your 'rigorous study' claims. The mining & manufacturing of Batteries, copper, plastics & everything from hanger-on 'scientists' to hanger-on 'investors' & hanger-on Tax avoiders makes coal the most sane option at this stage to produce electricity.
The notion that Australia using coal has any impact on the global scale is nothing short of silly.
The money & materials used on the present alternative energy guesswork is criminal wastage & damage..

Indyvidual,

You asked about the environmental impact of wind - I addressed it directly with evidence and comparison. Now you’re saying I’m dodging “the real issue,” but this wasn’t what you originally raised.

If you’ve changed topics, that’s fine - just be upfront about it. Otherwise, it looks like you're moving the goalposts.

As for the rest:

- Per kWh, wind and solar have among the lowest lifecycle emissions and impacts, even accounting for mining and materials. That’s backed by the IEA, IPCC, CSIRO, and others - not “hanger-on scientists.”

- Coal, the “sane” option? It causes thousands of deaths annually from air pollution, accelerates climate change, and relies on subsidies and regulation just to compete.

- Batteries and copper are used across all modern energy systems - fossil and nuclear included. And newer batteries increasingly avoid rare minerals.

- Dismissing scientists, investors, and the entire field of clean energy economics as some sort of scam isn’t an argument - it’s just a conspiracy shrug.

If you want to have a serious conversation, I’m all for it - but let’s stick to facts, not slogans.

Okay John,

"The article you linked actually supports what I've always said."

So all along you've been arguing that wind and solar are more expensive, and here I was thinking you were arguing the opposite.

One other fact about wind and solar generation is that it requires ten times as much steel and concrete per unit of power generated as nuclear. It would be good to see thorium utilised as enough to meet world energy demand is already mined as a byproduct. Compare that with the vast increase in mining required for wind and solar.

Fester,

You're misreading my point. I said the article supports what I've always said - which is that short-term costs rise during a transition, but renewables are still cheaper at the wholesale level and essential to long-term affordability and sustainability. The UK is still investing heavily in wind and solar because they recognise this.

As for your steel and concrete claim: yes, wind and solar involve more materials upfront, but that’s spread over decades of fuel-free operation - unlike fossil fuels or even nuclear, which require ongoing extraction. Lifecycle analyses (like those from the IEA and IPCC) factor this in, and wind and solar still come out among the lowest-impact sources per kWh.

If you want to pivot to a thorium discussion, I’m happy to - but let’s not skip over the fact that the article you shared doesn’t undermine my position. It reinforces it: long-term costs are falling, and short-term spikes are transitional.