Max Green said;
Because renewables are about ¼ the cost of nuclear – it’s still cheaper if we build twice or three times as much!

You wish ! The number of duplication needed is inversely proportional
exponentially to the physical area of the grid.
If WA is included you might be able to get the duplication down to
say four times. That is the reason the UK and indeed Europe are bound
to fail with wind and solar. Europe is just too small.
Instead of wasting all that money why not do a virtual simulation with
weather stations until you can show that you only have supply failure
about once in two or three years. To introduce realism include real
wind and solar farms.

The warnings some raise about the charging load of electric cars is
very valid. I can foresee a time when load control will be implemented
to enable closing charging district by district.
It is a major problem the government is trying to ignore as it is
contra their own policies.
You may not have heard, it has already raised its head.
A street in Northern Sydney had three houses with Teslas.
They kept blowing the fuses on the street pole transformer.
The supply company had to replace the pole transformer for a larger one.
It is only the beginning of this problem.

'Now We know they Really are Stupid !'
- Sadly Bazz, I've been aware of this fact for quite some time already.

Luciferase
"Overbuild is a tail wagging a dog."
No, Overbuild is CHEAPER then nuclear or coal or gas.
Overbuilding renewables just makes economic sense!

See what I did there? Bland contradiction - without any evidence. I just took what you said and contradicted it. As a point of illustration. To show your own argument style.

See how bland assertion works as an argument technique? It's great because it lets you be lazy. You just ASSERT the opposite. There, done. Give the arms of your armchair a good celebratory slap! Didn't have to look up any pesky data to back a sophisticated argument or anything - just used good old contradiction.

Which of course reminds us of Monty Python's argument skit...
"An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition... Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says."
http://montycasinos.com/montypython/scripts/argument.php.html
I guess a hater's gotta hate, and a denier's gotta deny. But I'm just trying to be clear as to exactly what you're doing! (Winks, and wags naughty naughty finger.)

Hey Max Green,
"See how bland assertion works as an argument technique?"
- Seems similar to assertions the climate cult has been screaming for the last 40+ years.

I'm fairly sure the ocean is still in the same place it was back then.
No-ones going surfing on the great dividing range, as yet.
- Who knows, maybe tomorrow the predictions will finally come true.

At the heart of this discussion is the renewable delusion. Finland has a core policy of phasing out all fossil fuels. However, in an article published this year Simon Micheaux demonstrates that the maths simply does not stack up. (Michaux, S., T. Vadén, J. M. Korhonen and J. T. Eronen (2022). "Assessment of the scope of tasks to completely phase out fossil fuels in Finland.") The same argument applies across the globe. If we really want to achieve anything to approximating net zero CO2 we need to face the reality that we need to radically change our lifestyles. If the aim is business as usual but replacing fossil fuel energy with solar and wind we will simply not be able to do it. The one bright spot seems to be nuclear fusion - recent advances suggest that if enough money is thrown at it we could have nuclear fusion plants in by 2050 but even that may be too late.