There is nothing “noble” about wrecking the economy and increasing power prices as the Albanese/Bowen government is doing in Australia.

And, the non-Opposing Liberal Party would be little or no different; they started the Net Zero lurk.

It is too expensive now to manufacture anything in Australia, so we are looking at fewer jobs, and more taxing of people with the remaining jobs because of the energy fraud. It is not an “illusion”, it is downright fraud.

“Let's foster energy literacy at all levels of society …”.

No. Let’s get rid of the whole silly idea of unreliable energy, and the politicians who have brought it down upon us.

Of unreliable and expensive wind and solar power that is still ruining Australia's economy, but which most other countries are now a wake up to, the comical little UN head, António Guterres, has said, “We are on the cusp of a new era. Fossil fuels are running out of road. The sun is rising on a clean energy age.”

He also made the obvious Bowen-like statement that sunshine is not subject to price hikes. No, but everything else to do with unreliable energy is. And he ignored the fact that sunlight is totally useless at night and when it's cloudy - unlike fossil fuels that he confidently spruiked were “running out of road”.

Apparently Australia pays around $70 million a year to be a member of the organisation that this idiot runs.

This is the same tired script Ronald Stein has been running for years. Again:

- Intermittent doesn’t mean inadequate
- Plastics aren’t power
- Early fossil use doesn’t mean dependence
- EVs are already cleaner
- Developing nations are leapfrogging fossil fuels
- The European “energy crisis” claim is a myth

Wind and solar aren’t magic, but they’re already outcompeting coal and gas.

Next…

Exactly what many previous commentators on this forum have said on numerous occasions..

In subscribing to Net Zero and Open Borders, Albanese Labor is openly batting for China and India, against Australia.

Net Zero is a formula for endless Chinese growth and Western de-industrialisation. While Garnaut and the Australian left swoon over the "electrification of everything", China is burning far more coal than Rest of World combined, and is the runaway world-leader for CO2 emissions.

I think the claim that electricity cannot always be a substitute for fossil fuels is quite correct. But it needs proof, not mere assertion, and such proof must be convincing. Which is not easy -- proving a negative never is. Also, renewables supporters and advocates don't take kindly to criticism and they take some convincing. My guess is that in terms of public admissions of a change of mind the success rate so far is zero. But don't give up! It's important.

Steve S,

If we really wanted to hand China a win, the best move would be to stall our own renewable transition. China’s not just burning coal, it’s investing more in solar, wind, and nuclear than the entire rest of the world combined.

If the West drags its feet and clings to fossil fuels, Beijing walks away as the global leader in clean energy manufacturing and tech exports.

Net Zero isn’t “batting for China”, but refusing to modernise certainly would be.

All just for a non-solution producing massive short-term profit ! China is laughing at the moment, it'll be the Europeans' turn with Nuclear-hydrogen & for way longer !
Australians will just keep voting Labor until enough migrants change the gene pool !

I've previously shown data that proves that the more renewables a nation has the higher its electricity costs. http://archive.md/lZKbb

The US is backing away from the climate hysteria. China never bought it. India likewise. So the three biggest emitters have resolved to remain the three biggest emitters. Minnows like Australia can continue to adopt policies that transfer wealth away from the poor, but things that can't gone on forever, won't.

mhaze,

We've been through much of this before. Lomborg’s piece doesn’t prove that renewables drive up costs. All it does is confuse correlation for causation.

- Countries like Germany had high prices long before renewables - mostly from taxes, grid fees, and fossil fuel imports.

- In the US, many of the cheapest states for electricity now have high shares of wind and solar.

- Europe’s 2025 data shows renewables avoided 59 billion euros in fossil fuel costs since 2019, directly lowering wholesale prices.

- Wind and solar remain the cheapest new electricity sources worldwide. Utilities and investors wouldn’t be building them at record levels if they were more expensive.

- Some high-renewable grids see short-term price spikes, but that’s a market design issue. Storage, flexible demand, and smarter grids are solving that problem fast.

Lomborg also ignores that fossil “backup” isn’t permanent. As storage, HVDC links, and green hydrogen scale up, system costs keep falling.

In short, renewables don’t inherently make electricity expensive. In fact, they often push prices down. High retail bills in places like Germany come from legacy fees and policy choices, not from the turbines and panels themselves.

And as for the US, China and India:

- The US, China, and India are not backing away, they’re installing renewables faster than fossil fuels.

- China adds more solar and wind capacity each year than the rest of the world combined. That’s not “never buying in.”

- India is on track for 500 GW of non-fossil capacity by 2030, with solar leading new builds.

- The US hit record clean energy investment in 2024 and is doubling utility-scale battery storage this year.

If that’s not buying in, it’s an odd way to show it. The only way to actually cement their position as top emitters is for others to stall their own transition and hand them global leadership in clean energy tech.

Let me summarise JD's critique of the Lomborg data.... I don't like it therefore its wrong.

"Countries like Germany had high prices long before renewables"

That's false. In the early 2000's German prices were roughly at the average for Europe.

" In the US, many of the cheapest states for electricity now have high shares of wind and solar."
The
US has integrated grids. You can't separate states. But how about showing some data for a change.

"Europe’s 2025 data shows renewables avoided 59 billion euros in fossil fuel costs since 2019, directly lowering wholesale prices."

And yet they are among the highest in the world. Go figure!!

"Some high-renewable grids see short-term price spikes, but that’s a market design issue. Storage, flexible demand, and smarter grids are solving that problem fast."

You see this a lot from the alarmist brigade....basically admitting that current data disproves their assertions but asserting that things will change at some indetermined time in the future.

Chinese and Indian emissions continue to grow unabated at massive rates. And the US under new management have dropped the emission fetishism of the past.

Still too afraid to address me directly, mhaze?

//Let me summarise JD's critique of the Lomborg data.... I don't like it therefore its wrong.//

No, I simply corrected Lomborg's confusing of correlation and causation and ignoring of counter-data.

//German prices were roughly at the average for Europe.//

Retail prices began climbing mid-2000s when renewables were <10%. Taxes and grid fees - not turbines - drove most of that. Wholesale prices now drop when renewables are high.

//The US has integrated grids. You can't separate states.//

State data is clear: Iowa and Oklahoma (55%+ wind) have low retail prices; California and Hawaii have high prices with less renewables.

//They are among the highest in the world. Go figure!!//

Because fossil fuels still dominate. Renewables mitigated the spike. Without them, bills would’ve been much higher during the gas crisis.

//Basically admitting that current data disproves their assertions but asserting that things will change at some indetermined time in the future.//

Current data already shows wind and solar are the cheapest new-build sources. Storage and market fixes to smooth volatility are rolling out now, not at some vague future point.

//Chinese and Indian emissions continue to grow unabated… US… dropped the emission fetishism…//

Absolute emissions grow as economies expand, but clean capacity now outpaces fossil in all three nations. The US hit record renewable investment last year and is doubling battery storage in 2025.

Bottom line:
Neither Lomborg nor you have shown that renewables cause high prices. Taxes, fees, and fossil imports explain it. Renewables are scaling because they’re cheaper, not costlier.

Try again.

https://www.facebook.com/watch?v=750298267473501

Something to consider regarding Green Energy !

"Neither Lomborg nor you have shown that renewables cause high prices."

And you haven't even bothered to address the point that this is repeated across jurisdictions, and continents and the world. The higher the level of renewables, the higher the electricity costs. You might think that cherry-picking one or two states and then asserting (without evidence) that their costs are higher for some other reason, matters. But it doesn't begin to address the fact that the relation stands across the world and over time.

But if you don't want it to be true, its isn't, eh JD.

"Renewables are scaling because they’re cheaper, not costlier."

They are implemented in those locations where they are massively subsidised. In those places where they're not subsidised, the cheap coal and nuclear are favoured.

That’s still correlation, mhaze, not causation.

//The higher the level of renewables, the higher the electricity costs.//

Germany’s prices rose before renewables were significant (<10%), driven by taxes and grid costs. Countries with high renewables and lower prices (Portugal, Denmark, parts of the US) disprove a universal rule. Global data shows wholesale costs drop when renewables are high. Retail prices reflect taxes and fees, not turbine costs.

//They are implemented where they are massively subsidised… cheap coal and nuclear are favoured otherwise.//

That’s outdated.

The IEA, Lazard, and BloombergNEF all show wind and solar are the cheapest new-build power sources globally, even unsubsidised. That’s why private investors - without “massive subsidies” - are building them at record rates in China, India, the US, and Australia. Coal and nuclear can’t compete on cost for new projects.

You’ve now repeated the same claim three times without providing actual causal proof. Do you have data showing renewables themselves make power expensive, or just this denialist talking point?

Present renewable technology is a massive failure on large scale energy supplies. It's irresponsible to push & finance it to such a large extent.
All costs are presently unrealistic & do nothing more than fill the bank accounts of those who promise but never deliver.
Spend the money & resources on research into other alternatives such as nuclear-hydrogen instead as this presently shows more promise than solar & definitely way more than wind.
The environment will thank us for it !
If just a fraction of this were to be spent on education, warfare would dwindle also.
There's no energy crisis only a mentality crisis !

"That’s still correlation, mhaze, not causation."

Yep a world-wide trend. More renewables = higher costs.

"Countries with high renewables and lower prices (Portugal, Denmark, parts of the US) "

But But....Denmark has the highest costs electricity pries in Europe and therefore the world. Oh dear!

I shouldn't have to explain this but I will. When calculating the cost of anything, the issue becomes what to include. If you're calculating the cost of a wind turbine, do you include the cost of things like the cement used to fix it, the cost to make the cement, transport costs for the turbine and the infrastructure, the costs of the cables to hook it to the grid? And a myriad of other issues.

Because there are so many inputs the options to arrive at the number you want is enormous. (There's an old Russian joke about people applying for a job in the Kremlin, Each is asked "what is 2+2 and each answer 4. But one, when asked "What is 2+2" answers "what answer do you want". He got the job.)

If you want to prove, wind or solar or coal or gerbils on a spinning wheel is the cheapest, its child's play to set the parameters to achieve the required answer.

The only way avoid these pitfalls is to take every cost into account by looking at the final results - the prices. Lomborg isn't the first to realise this and won't be the last. But those of a certain leaning definitely will continue to avert their eyes from the data. But reality has a strange way of hanging around.

But, but, nothing, mhaze.

//More renewables = higher costs.//

Correlation again. Germany and Denmark had high taxes and grid fees long before renewables dominated. Portugal has >60% renewables with mid-range prices. Wholesale costs fall when renewables are high; retail bills stay high because of taxes and legacy costs.

//Denmark has the highest electricity prices…//

Yes, retail prices - because of taxes funding grid upgrades and social programs. Wholesale prices in Denmark are among Europe’s lowest when renewables are generating. Conflating taxes with generation costs isn’t “final results.”

//Cost accounting is subjective…//

Not here. Lazard, IEA, BNEF, CSIRO, and independent energy agencies all converge on wind and solar being the cheapest new-build sources globally. Different methodologies, same result. If it were “child’s play” to rig numbers, these organisations wouldn’t all land on the same conclusion across decades and continents.

//The only way… is to look at final results - the prices.//

Retail prices don’t just equal generation costs. By that logic, US healthcare must be the most expensive to provide simply because Americans pay the most. Bills reflect taxes, fees, and market design - not inherent technology costs.

Reality is this: utilities and investors worldwide keep building renewables at record rates without “massive subsidies.” That’s not because they’re more expensive - it’s because they’re cheaper.

Reality is this: utilities and investors worldwide keep building renewables at record rates without “massive subsidies.” That’s not because they’re more expensive - it’s because they’re cheaper.
John Daysh,
It's not cheaper at all particularly in an environmental sense. It's an unsustainable gravy train & it looks as though you're hell-bent on not letting anyone activate its brakes !