Thanks Graham. In the real world, in nations worldwide, the more you have renewables, the steeper the power costs. Hence, net-zero religion always employs hypotheticals or counterfactuals. Ah yes they say, but here is this study which "proves" that costs "woodabeen" steeper still, were it not for the joyful influence of said renewables.

And apparently the ISP is based on some very poor assumptions for its modelling. The upshot is that the grid won't be reliable. The reaction of the government? Hide the report!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ1PTEX-OEg

The article is based on a basic, fatal misunderstanding of how power systems work. You can't treat 12 GW of coal generation to 50 GW of renewables as though they were equivalents.

Coal provides capacity on demand. Solar and wind provide energy when available, so planners deliberately build more total capacity to deliver the same reliability. That’s not "four systems doing the same job," it’s one integrated system doing the job differently.

The "four-fold increase for zero-fold output" is a false comparison, so every cost claim that follows from it is meaningless.

In the real world: Where is the real world ?
AU stands alone for sunshine and wind.
Solar power will be exported to Singapore.
Roof top power is above power so far supplied by independent suppliers.
4 million + house holds supplying power to the grid day and night.
Big time suppliers need to have battery storage to compete.
Costs for generation is in negative figures for solar + wind.
So where is the problem with power supply.
Power retailers need obliterating and taken back by state govt:
If retailing was true they would be paying the consumers to consume power.
The power system as it is evolving needs one distribution body only / state.

It's a mess doog. All along we've been promised cheaper power with renewables and all along prices have risen. Now we have a saturated grid which means that you either waste the power, build transmission lines to take it elsewhere or build storage. All these options mean higher prices. And Singapore? Looks as if they will go nuclear. Sun Cable, like all the green steel and green hydrogen projects, will scam taxpayers of billions and come to nothing. The pub servants can see the train wreck and are warning the government to save themselves from copping the blame, and going by the heavily redacted briefing that came out the other day there is a lot of awful stuff that is being hidden from the peanut gallery.

https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/health-environment/article/3331109/atomic-ambitions-singapore-eyes-nuclear-option-net-zero-future

Wind and solar are poison for the grid and deny us the cheap and reliable power we'd have with coal or nuclear.

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power

Wind and solar scammers are fleecing this nation and sending us to oblivion.

Fester,

You’re layering emotional claims onto a misunderstanding that’s already been addressed. You again say the grid is "saturated," power is "wasted," and that renewables are "poison." But what you're describing is exactly what happens when you confuse variability with failure.

Yes, solar and wind can flood the grid at times of high output and low demand. That’s not a flaw, it’s a known feature of variable generation, which is why modern grid design incorporates demand response, storage, and export. You can’t claim the system is broken just because it isn’t behaving like a coal plant.

On prices: energy markets globally are complex. The price rises we've seen are overwhelmingly driven by fossil fuel volatility (see: the 2022 gas price spike), not renewables. In fact, new solar and wind are the cheapest form of generation according to CSIRO, AEMO, IEA, Lazard - and even your own World Nuclear Association link shows that nuclear is not cheap without subsidies or government underwriting.

As for Sun Cable and green hydrogen - not every project succeeds, but the idea that they’re all "scams" is just a lazy smear. If every ambitious infrastructure idea that didn’t pan out was a scam, we’d have to add NBN, Snowy Hydro, and nuclear SMRs to that list too.

Your entire post feels like it’s trying to whip up outrage rather than engage in actual system analysis. There’s plenty to debate in energy policy - but starting with technical misunderstandings and layering on conspiracies just misleads people who deserve better.

Persons that do not believe in Albo only have one eye.
Solar is energy for free, You can not get better than that, infrastructure takes time, you have no reason for argument until the outcome is complete.
4 million houses now have roof top solar and batteries are going gangbusters.
The final outcome will turn the tide in AU as a nation with the cheapest power in the world.
Electricity generation costs that cost nothing. Generation that markets in negative costings. Solar has no competition. The sun stands alone.

According to AI....

The Australian government has committed over $22 billion to support renewable energy initiatives in the 2024-25 budget, with additional investments planned to reach a total of approximately $40 billion towards becoming a renewable energy superpower. This includes funding for various projects and incentives aimed at boosting the renewable energy sector. international.austrade.gov.au energyfactcheck.com.au
Government Investment in Renewable Energy in Australia
Recent Budget Allocations

The Australian government has made significant financial commitments to support renewable energy initiatives. Here are the key figures from the latest budgets:
Year Investment Amount (AUD) Purpose
2023-24 $40 billion Support for renewable energy and digital economy
2024-25 $22 billion Future Made in Australia package for renewables
2024-25 $12 billion Rewiring the Nation program for electricity grid upgrades
2024-25 $3.2 billion Funding for the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA)
2024-25 $10 billion Capacity Investment Scheme for renewable projects
Total Subsidies Over Time

From 2014 to 2023, the Australian government provided over $29 billion in subsidies to the renewable energy sector. This includes various federal and state schemes designed to promote the growth and maturity of renewable energy projects.
Key Programs Supporting Investment

Renewable Energy Target (RET): Encourages electricity retailers to source energy from renewables.
Capacity Investment Scheme: Underwrites contracts for renewable generation projects.
Clean Energy Finance Corporation: Offers concessional loans and financing for renewable projects.

These investments and subsidies aim to transition Australia towards a renewable energy superpower, enhancing energy reliability and supporting economic growth.
cis.org.au international.austrade.gov.au

According to AI...

Electricity prices in Australia have surged significantly, increasing by 27% above the consumer price index between June 2023 and June 2025, and by 206% since 2000. This rise is attributed to factors like higher coal and gas prices, the cost of integrating renewables, and aging infrastructure, despite the ongoing shift towards renewable energy. energytracker.asia
Increase in Electricity Prices in Australia
Overview of Price Changes

Electricity prices in Australia have seen significant increases in recent years, despite the push for renewable energy. The following table summarizes the changes in electricity costs:
Time Period Price Increase (%) Key Factors
Since 2000 206% Rising coal and gas prices, aging infrastructure
June 2023 - June 2025 27% Integration costs of renewables, market volatility
2025-2026 Forecast Up to 9.7% Regulatory price hikes approved by the AER
Regional Variations

Electricity prices vary significantly across different states:
State Average Cost (AUD/kWh) Key Characteristics
Victoria 0.264 - 0.335 Strong renewable supply, competitive market
New South Wales 0.264 - 0.372 Diverse energy sources, competitive pricing
Queensland 0.297 Regulated market, lower prices
South Australia >0.40 High reliance on gas, expensive transition costs
Impact of Renewable Policies

While the transition to renewables aims to reduce long-term costs, the short-term effects have included increased prices due to the costs associated with integrating renewable energy into the existing grid and the retirement of coal plants. The average household electricity bill is projected to rise slightly under new policies, but overall savings are expected in the long run as renewables become more prevalent.
ecoflow.com Wikipedia

Good article Graham Young thanks for the information. Kudos.

Canem Malum,

Thanks for laying that out. It's actually a great summary of the situation. But it doesn't support Graham's argument. It refutes it.

You've shown:

- The government is investing heavily in rewiring, storage, and firming capacity, because that's what's required when replacing firm coal generation with variable renewables. That's not a flaw, it's the plan.

- Prices have risen, but mainly due to fossil fuel volatility (coal and gas spikes), aging infrastructure, and the unavoidable costs of any major system transition. Renewables aren't free, but they're now the cheapest new-build generation (per the IEA, AEMO, CSIRO, and even your own links).

- The short-term price rise is acknowledged, but so are long-term savings as renewables scale, storage improves, and dependency on volatile fossil prices drops.

So yes, the transition is expensive upfront. But pretending that this cost is unexpected or proof that renewables are a "scam," as Graham suggests, is disingenuous. Every system upgrade in history - from copper to fibre, landlines to mobiles, steam to diesel - came with transition costs. That doesn't mean it wasn't worth doing.

And most importantly: none of this changes the central flaw in Young's piece - that he compares nameplate capacity (50 GW renewables) with output capacity (12 GW coal) as if they're interchangeable. They're not. Once you understand that, everything else he's arguing - about duplication, waste, and cost blowouts - falls apart.

Such a spectacular backfire!

Kudos.

John Daysh, there is no point arguing with someone who thinks that GW of renewables is nameplate capacity and GW of dispatchable is output capacity. In both cases I'm measuring the same thing. Different technologies have different capacity factors, and this depends on how often they are running which is determined by a variety of factors.

If I wanted to measure output capacity I would use the actual output of each system over a period of time.

Renewables require so much more capacity to deliver the same amount of power as dispatchables because they only reach their name plate capacity on occasion. Dispatchables can run at nameplate capacity most of the time.

The low capacity factor of renewables is the major problem which causes all the others. That's a major point in my article which you don't seem to understand. Dispatchables are not unreliable, renewables are.

Someone mentioned Singapore and solar. That's a dead duck for a number of reasons. Singapore is a country highly alive to the problems with China. They are not going to make themselves beholden to a long extension cord under the Indian Ocean for their power which could be cut at any time. The other problem, even more foreseeable, is that because of the time difference, we generate solar at a time in their day when they don't need it.

If people want to spend their own money on renewables I'm fine with that, but I'm not happy for "renewable activists" to spend my tax money or contrive to force me to follow legislation that I don't agree with, in the name of the ostensive greater good. It appears that 100 Billion dollars (the whole Australian economy is worth of the order of 2,000 Billion dollars) has been spent pushing renewables since 2014 and power prices keep going up. I'd hope that our Aussie Battler's will still be able to recognise their self interest in the face of hype and distractions.

I had to laugh when a local business came to one of our groups and said for the low price of $200k you could future proof yourself and become self sufficient on solar. It was amazing how the salesperson gave his pitch with a straight face, and hoped that none of our people would be taken in, sadly many people had questions.

I even knew an electrician that was taken in by the promise of solar as being able to convert their home into a business by exploiting government and grid renewables incentives. I did the numbers and couldn't make it profitable, and found that some of the numbers were based on outdated promises of kWh prices and some irrelevant grandfathered contracts. When I presented my numbers to the electrician they seemed listless but grudgingly agreed. Overall a waste of time and energy.

I know of the occasional person with a lot of technical knowledge and sacrifice that has been able to make the economics of renewables work, sort of. He has retrofitted and replaced standard home appliances (stove, HWS, freezer, etc) for DC, and build his own battery packs with sophisticated battery management systems. But their car, a 4WD, uses twice the petrol of mine. Even he runs out of battery capacity at certain times.

These days you can sometimes pick up solar panels, "off the side of the road", but the costs don't stop there

Graham,

You've just restated the exact issue I was highlighting. And in doing so, you've confirmed your misunderstanding.

You say there's "no point arguing" with someone who knows the difference between nameplate capacity and output capacity, yet your own comment continues to treat them as directly comparable, as if it's inherently wasteful to build more nameplate capacity when moving to renewables.

Of course renewables have lower capacity factors. That's precisely why more total GW needs to be built to match the energy output and reliability of dispatchables. It's not a "problem" that renewables don't run 24/7 - it's a known characteristic of the generation type, and the system is designed accordingly with storage, firming, and demand response.

That's why your claim - that Queensland will need 50 GW to do the job of 12 GW - is so misleading. The comparison only holds if you pretend that all GW are equal, which they're not. A well-planned renewables-based grid isn't four systems redundantly doing the same job. It's one integrated system doing the job differently.

//If I wanted to measure output, I'd use actual output.//

Great, but you don't. You instead use nameplate capacity for both technologies while ignoring what percentage of that capacity is usable. That's the heart of the false equivalence.

You're framing a deliberate design necessity - building more variable generation to match firm generation - as if it's a scandal or inefficiency. It's not. It's energy system design 101.