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.