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That’s outdated.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.