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.