There is something that I have found confusing about renewable energy. When it was first advocated by our politicians it was claimed that because wind and solar produced cheaper electricity, renewable energy would reduce electricity prices from the start. Well, just the opposite happened, supposedly because of the upfront capital costs to integrate wind and solar into the grid. But that didn't make any sense to me when I looked at other power grids around the world and how new projects affected the electricity price. The Vogtle project was finished after long delays and well over budget, yet the residents of Georgia pay at most half as much for their electricity as the residents of California. And Finland just completed Okiluoto 3 way over time and budget only to see a great drop in power prices.

Looking at the AEMO data dashboard seems to explain the paradox. It appears that renewables are either producing far too much or too little power for the grid, with most of the excess power they produce going to waste. Further, fossil fuel backup for the entire grid is required. Unfortunately the cost of wind, solar, wasted power, infrastructure, backup and renewable subsidies is well above that of fossil fuel generation alone.

I think it high time to end the renewable energy odyssey. The damage to the economy from higher prices and to the environment from renewable energy construction are all too apparent. Time to try something else.

The trouble with costing each type of power is that its way too easy to manipulate the results to suit the political need. So many things go into determining the actual cost of this or that power module that leaving some items out or putting others in will alter the results.

So for example, when determining the cost of a wind project do you include the cost of the back-up module required to cover for the wind downtimes or not. Include it if you want to increase the costings for wind. Ignore it if you want to enhance the attractiveness of wind.

In reality, the only way to look at this is to examine it as a whole. That is, does the inclusion of renewables in a grid increase overall costs or decrease them.

We are constantly told that these renewables are cheaper than coal/gas/nuclear and logic would therefore suggest that more renewables means lower costs. That hasn't been the case to date and there are as many excuses for that as there are ways to fudge the original costings.

To my way of thinking the best way to look at the overall picture is to compare costs against the level of renewables across a range of jurisdictions.

As here....

http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/01/25/who-would-have-thought-nations-with-more-renewables-have-more-expensive-electricity/

The data here clearly shows a direct and enduring link between the level of renewables in a system and the cost of that system.

We will catch on eventually.

Fester,

There is no paradox, but there does appear to be a misunderstanding on your part of how the transition to renewable energy works and its associated costs. The seeming paradox arises from a short-term perspective that focuses on immediate costs rather than the long-term benefits and savings of renewable energy.

Yes, many expected renewable energy to immediately reduce electricity prices. However, the upfront costs for integrating wind and solar into the grid were higher than anticipated. These costs include not just building the facilities but also upgrading the grid to handle the variable nature of renewable energy.

Comparing renewable energy projects to nuclear ones like Vogtle in Georgia or Okiluoto 3 in Finland isn’t exactly fair. Both nuclear projects faced significant delays and cost overruns, which are pretty common for large-scale nuclear plants. Electricity prices in these regions are influenced by a variety of factors, including state policies and market dynamics. Georgia has benefited from historically cheap coal and gas, while California’s prices are influenced by high demand and strict environmental regulations.

Variability is a challenge. As I’ve mentioned and described previously, however, advancements in energy storage and grid management are increasingly addressing these issues. Excess power can be stored in batteries or used in applications like pumped hydro storage.

Currently, fossil fuel backup is necessary for grid stability. But as technology improves, the need for fossil fuels decreases. It’s also important to consider that the true cost of fossil fuels includes environmental and health impacts, not just generation costs.

Given their long-term benefits, it’s incredibly short-sighted to entirely dismiss renewables over the understandably-higher costs involved during the transition phase. Decreased reliance on imported fuels and opportunities for innovation and job creation in the green energy sector, as just two examples. The environmental impact of renewable construction is a valid concern, but pales in comparison to the ongoing damage caused by fossil fuels.

mhaze,

The costs of different energy sources can be manipulated to fit political agendas. But this isn’t exclusive to renewables. Fossil fuel industries have long been cushioned by subsidies and have hidden costs like environmental damage and health impacts that often aren’t included in their market prices.

Including the expense of backup power or storage solutions in costings makes sense when calculating the cost of wind energy. But the principle should apply to fossil fuels, too, which require infrastructure for fuel supply, pollution control, and waste disposal. Ignoring these costs gives fossil fuels an unfair advantage in cost comparisons.

Evaluating the overall cost impact of renewables on the grid is reasonable. While integrating renewables may initially cost more due to grid upgrades and storage investments, these lead to long-term savings and greater energy security. Areas with a high share of renewables, for example, often benefit from lower fuel costs and reduced price volatility compared to those heavily dependent on fossil fuels.

Saying that renewables always drive up grid costs isn't entirely accurate. High renewable adoption has coincided with higher electricity prices in some places, but this is due to a mix of factors beyond just the cost of renewables. Policy choices, market structures, and existing infrastructure all play roles. For instance, Denmark and Germany have higher electricity prices partly due to taxes and fees that support social programs and grid upgrades. On the other hand, countries like Norway, which relies heavily on renewables, have lower electricity prices thanks to abundant hydro resources.

The link from Climate Depot suggests that countries with more renewables have more expensive electricity. However, Climate Depot is known for its denialist stance, often using selective data to support its arguments. Independent, peer-reviewed studies offer a more balanced view, showing that the relationship between renewables and electricity prices is complex and depends on various factors, including policy frameworks and market conditions.

Renewables come with integration challenges, but they also provide significant long-term benefits like reduced emissions, better energy security, and lower operational costs.

Wind and solar is nonsense following on from the nonsense of CO2 causing climate change (which has never been proved).

The nonsense is wrecking the Australian economy with some of the highest electricity prices in the world. It is also wrecking our environment.

Australia has had the advantage of seeing renewables failing miserably first in other countries, but our dumb political class seems to be completely out of touch with the rest of the world; that, or they are deliberately wrecking Australia for reasons unknown to the population.

An election is coming, and voters can put a stop to the nonsense if they really want to.

Renewable energy would be great if it could be achieved, alas ! Whoever believes something can be produced from & with oil & then expects no fallout or waste is more stupid than plain stupid.

"However, Climate Depot is known for its denialist stance, often using selective data to support its arguments. "

Do tell. So it should be easy to show where their data is wrong.

Personally I try to never evaluate the message based upon the messenger. I prefer to look at the actual data. I've looked at the data on this issue in several locations over the years and always find the same trend. More renewables equal higher costs. The link I showed just summarised this rather well.

We keep getting told that there are special reasons why costs are going up all around the world as the percentage of renewables goes up. Just wait and then we'll see the costs come down as promised. Even, or especially, the adherents to this fairy-tale buy into the fantasy which is why Albanese et al were confident in predicting lower electricity prices within three years of their election. I notice no one is mentioning that any longer.

Here's another prediction. Come 2035 they'll still be telling us that cheaper electricity is just around the corner.

John,

The paradox for me are the contradictions of making electricity more expensive by introducing the cheapest generation sources into the grid and making electricity cheaper by introducing the most expensive generation source into the grid. How is that possible?

The sales pitch to the punters was always one of power prices dropping from the moment wind and solar was introduced. Now it seems we still need a few decades, vast expense and massive environmental destruction to achieve the goal of having cheap power from wind and solar.

To me it sounds like a version of a Nigerian scam, where the promise of a return is always about to be delivered, but minor problems keep popping up which always seem to keep the reward tantalisingly out of reach. You might think, "It's cost so much but I am so close.", but that is always the worst decision to make.

"Saying that renewables always drive up grid costs isn't entirely accurate."

Not accurate when hydroelectric and geothermal are your main sources of power, but totally accurate where wind and solar are concerned. Look at South Australia: Further along the wind and solar road than the rest of Australia and power prices 50% higher. Shouldn't the prices be lower with all the extra wind and solar?

All Australians will have to look forward to are higher power prices, dead koalas and the destruction of our natural heritage for as long as this wind and solar madness continues.

The existence of any "renewable energy" goes counter to the laws of thermodynamics.

There being no renewable energy, both statements:
1) "All renewable energy is cheaper than non-renewable energy" ; and
2) "All renewable energy is more expensive than non-renewable energy"

Are True!

"Given their long-term benefits, it’s incredibly short-sighted to entirely dismiss renewables over the understandably-higher costs involved during the transition phase."

Transition phase? Wind and solar are the cheapest generation sources. CSIRO's gencost report say so. So why should there be a transition phase of higher prices with wind and solar instead of power prices dropping suddenly when you introduce prohibitively expensive nuclear? It makes no sense John.

"Decreased reliance on imported fuels and opportunities for innovation and job creation in the green energy sector, as just two examples."

The fuel savings are probably from economic damage due to all the industry leaving or not investing in Australia because of higher energy prices, and sadly all the green jobs aren't materialising.

"The environmental impact of renewable construction is a valid concern, but pales in comparison to the ongoing damage caused by fossil fuels."

Unlike wind and solar, fossil fuels provide cheap and reliable energy that powers the high living standards of human beings today. The only "transition phase" for human beings using fossil fuels has been a remarkable improvement in longevity, quality of life and prosperity. By all means replace fossil fuels with something better as that will benefit all, but nowhere in the world has a wind and solar transition delivered cheaper power. Maybe one day, but you cannot benefit from something before it exists.

Oh dear. Look at AEMO now. South Australia, the state leading the way to our wind and solar Nirvana, is generating nearly 90% of its power from diesel and gas and is drawing over 150 megawatts from Victoria. Its power price is up to three times that of other states.

https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/data-nem/data-dashboard-nem

"Evaluating the overall cost impact of renewables on the grid is reasonable. While integrating renewables may initially cost more due to grid upgrades and storage investments, these lead to long-term savings and greater energy security. "

John, have you ever heard of amortisation? It means that you depreciate an asset over a period of time such as its economic life span. The implication is that your capital costs are spread over the life of the asset instead of hitting you from the start. This is what happens with nuclear, with power prices staying the same or falling, so why do power prices steadily rise when wind and solar are introduced? You might also note that the CSIRO Gencost report did not add any hidden costs to fossil fuel generation, yet wind and solar were still found to be the cheapest generation sources.

I'd also question how a generating asset could contribute to our energy security when it sits idle for most of the time and could be destroyed by a hail storm?

Sun shine is free, that is a big start to supplying power, Ass storage power is set up the input will even out. Dutton inflaming the roll out of solar does not help the transition timing. ALbo promised we would have cheaper power in 2025, as long as finances roll in as planned with out interruption from those not in power. Transition lines are needed as pylons have disintegrated in SA + Vic as they are 70 years old + and need replacing along with the wiring of years gone by. The 1960's when first pylons went across vic, and caused the same imaginary problems as today. Some people do not like wind turbines in their vision. no one owns vista. Sky news says the destruction of farming property, some will like them as an income and others will not as they get no income. Sheep and goats say they are the bees neez of shelter. The destruction of farming land is caused by housing development not solar.

"ALbo promised we would have cheaper power in 2025, as long as finances roll in as planned with out interruption from those not in power."

Thanks doog. South Australia is currently paying nearly $10,000 per megawatt, so I hope that Big Brother keeps his promise for once. Hey, down to $4,000 already! Thank you Big Brother, source of all wisdom.

https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/data-nem/data-dashboard-nem

Don't know what page you are looking at, probably one written by Dutton
ELECTRICITY PRICE AND DEMAND
Spot Price (30min)
$45.00/MWh
Scheduled Demand (30min)
7,710.71 MW
Forecast Spot Price (Pre-dispatch)
$56.00/MWh
Scheduled Demand (Pre-dispatch)
7,649.20 MW
FOR NSW
Some states go into negative spot pricing, and getting more common every month that passes. TO much renewables in the grid.
new costings every 30 mins.
Bad news for some.

"Don't know what page you are looking at, probably one written by Dutton"

No, AEMO, and it got up to nearly $13,000 per megawatt.

https://aemo.com.au/en/ehttps://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/data-nem/data-dashboard-nemnergy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/data-nem/data-dashboard-nem

I don't care where things come from. What matters is that they are factual and work. Wind and solar are represented as the cheapest sources of energy, so it makes no sense for prices to be rising with their roll out.

AEMO does not sell power, they generate power, to buy power you have to buy on the spot price market. Which varies every 5 minutes. Each state has it’s own market. Which is supply and demand. The more sunshine and wind in the grid the lower the spot price, We are doing very well being the middle of winter. In summer all markets will be in negative figures / KwH. That will not effect your electric bill because you pay what your retailer says so.
Yesterday QLD was being sold in negative figures of -32c /KwH It is not the generation of power that sets the retail costings, it's the spot buying + your power provider. Get a cheaper one.

1 A SMR costing
This bloke just double crossed himself. What has wiring to the house got to do with solar.
There is nothing to base any costings on as the US has abandoned work on an SMR because the buyers have pulled out after rising costs. [ Westinghouse]
Canada will not start on a SMR until 2030

There is no costings because work on the first 300 MwH reactor has been abandoned as buyers have pulled out because of rising costs.
Who would buy an untested machine any way. I mean for years.

1 A transmitting
Total electricity generation in Australia remained steady in 2023 with an estimated 273,106 gigawatt hours (GWh) generated. Renewable sources contributed an estimated 95,963 GWh, making up 35% of Australia's total electricity generation, up 3 percentage points on the share in 2022.23 Apr 2024
Australia would need 25 nuclear reactors to meet a third of its electricity needs by 2050, according to the Australian Government. These nuclear reactors would be built near our coasts and major population centres to be close to water and markets.
Nuclear energy has the highest estimated capital costs of any energy technology used in the United States. As of 2023, capital costs for nuclear power plants ranged between 8,475 and 13,925 U.S. dollars per kilowatt.24 No

doog,

You might want to consider how much of the wind and solar is being used and how much is being curtailed (wasted). In models of an optimal wind/solar system, between a quarter and a third of the generated energy is wasted. Does the figure you quote include the curtailed energy? I think it might.

As an aside, did you know that the CO2 emissions for wind and solar are greater than nuclear when you consider the system cost (12grams per kwh for nuclear vs 67-96grams per kwh for wind/solar)?

I am not sure of what you are talking about there fester. The output of nuclear is up to 50 grams of CO2 / kwh produced. Depending on MwH capacity. Some say nuclear produces no CO2 but that is not the case.

What ever solar, hydro or wind that are connected to the grid is decreasing output from Gas and diesel then decreasing output from coal.
There is no solar etc being dumped from the grid.
sky news will tell you there is but that is propaganda.

doog,

What I meant was that you have to look at the the CO2 output for the whole system and not just one component. With wind and solar you have the add ons like batteries, hydro storage, transmission infrastructure and backup generation. Add these on and your CO2 emissions are higher than they are for nuclear.

And yes, there probably is wind and solar generation being wasted, and there will certainly be more wasted the more of it is built. Curtailment is a given with wind and solar.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/wind-and-solar-hit-record-share-of-main-grid-as-curtailment-underscores-need-for-more-storage/

Anything there besides nuclear does not produce co2. IN summer the grid will be full of reenables and gas will be back up. I very much doubt AEMO with entertain nuclear.
Nuclear would go to waste as of the figures we see during winter. nuclear has to run full time to be any good. You cannot run nuclear with solar + other reenables. That is a bad way to go.
With another hydro coming on line we will have hydro and gas as back up.
SMR,s do not exist above 100 KWH / day. large nuke plants can not be costed they require an open check book.
Even the mention of nuclear has disrupted investment in solar etc; That is very poor goings on from an opposition govt. Who never did anything about power for 10 years

Wholesale prices surge as wind and solar output falls to zero in South Australia
http://reneweconomy.com.au/wholesale-prices-surge-as-wind-and-solar-output-falls-to-zero-in-south-australia/

So much for that pipe dream.

"Anything there besides nuclear does not produce co2. "

Like gas fired power and batteries, or the concrete, steel and earthworks to build hydro, and not forgetting all the maintenance activities? Hopeful for sure, but completely false.

" I very much doubt AEMO with entertain nuclear."

Since when were the plebs answerable to that bunch of Cnuts? They might as well tell the tide what to do as expect me to do as they tell me.

"You cannot run nuclear with solar + other reenables. That is a bad way to go."

That is true in the same way as it's not a good idea to mix cars with horses and buggies.

Armchair: Whole sale prices are not for retailers of electricity providers. That is for private electricity users or on sale to caravan park users. To be used at will whenever the need arises. Get with the game.

With such important commodities as electricity. Our govt; has no jurisdiction with out supreme court order. Either to cut power supply or not. Etc; Its not that simplistic. This forum is fourth grade level. No wonder people are influenced by what they think. You need to spend the time to find out the truth before you talk B/s That is spreading propaganda.

Hi doog,

I was highlighting the 'Wind and solar output falls to zero in South Australia' part of that headline,
- Rather than the 'Wholesale prices surge' part of that headline.

Fourth graders. Exactly, and from time King Cnuts come here trying to move the tide, even second rate ones like you. A shame that the fourth graders can spot the many flaws in the guff that gets pushed on them.

" You need to spend the time to find out the truth before you talk B/s That is spreading propaganda."

Everyone has an opinion. The fun of places like this is to learn about yourself and others. You have the wrong idea coming here trying to convince others of anything.

You are writing to an audience, so it is appropriate to have elements of truth within or else someone may get confused and steered just like sky news does.
1 A Dutton
The minister for everything Morrison is the irresponsible ass for doing nothing for 10 years.
'A sickening smokescreen for its commitment to coal and gas...
Dutton’s scheme is: let the climate burn, let the mega fires burn, let the sea levels rise, let the heat become unbearable. Let’s send our children towards climate disaster.

Merc EV and 40 other cars burn

A Mercedes Benz EV started smoking in an underground carpark in Incheon, South Korea last Thursday at 6:15am. After the immolation, 40 other cars were burnt and another hundred suffered some damage.  At least 16 people were taken to hospital for smoke inhalation. Some 48o households lost electricity, and later 121 people had to be relocated.  It apparently burned for eight hours. Allegedly, eighty fire engines (or pieces of equipment) turned up with 177 firefighters.  Some 209 residents were in the apartment at the time, and “nearly half” were rescued by firefighters from stairs and balconies.

The Merc wasn't on a charger, and had been parked in the same spot for 3 days. Seoul authorities are looking to ban EVs from underground car parks.

In Germany, EV sales are down by 37% on last year; normal cars up by 7%.

Nuclear offers a lower carbon outcome than AEMO's wind and solar plan at half the cost.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6EyJcMet_c

Some batteries can release poisonous hydrogen sulphide gas, lead acid I believe.

"Seoul authorities are looking to ban EVs from underground car parks."

The author of a letter to the SMH yesterday remarked that evs would make ventilation stacks unnecessary. One or two ev fires in the wrong places might change that misconception.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352152X24008739

There is no costings because work on the first 300 MwH reactor has been abandoned as buyers have pulled out because of rising costs.
Who would buy an untested machine any way. I mean for years.

"There is no costings because work on the first 300 MwH reactor has been abandoned as buyers have pulled out because of rising costs.
Who would buy an untested machine any way. I mean for years."

doog,

That statement makes no sense and likely came from an ALP ideas session. There are nearly ninety proposals for smrs around the world. There are five in operation, six being constructed (Natrium and Kairos have recently started construction), and fifteen are close to construction. That the CSIRO and you only consider one failure (Nuscale) is hardly a surprise. ANSTO makes mention of the XE-100.

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/small-nuclear-power-reactors

If the nuclear ban were removed I would suggest that there would be private sector interest in building and operating conventional nuclear reactors. Unlike wind and solar, nuclear is 24/7 power, so nuclear suppliers can offer long term supply agreements which are necessary for project financing. The reason for the difference is that wind and solar are spot price dependent as they are intermittent. With supply saturation the spot price is effectively zero, which explains the loss of investment in new wind and solar despite the annual multi-billion dollar taxpayer subsidies.

Experts in science and technology have more to offer than political cults and renewable energy con artists.

AEMO reveals that the East Coast electricity grid relied more on coal in this June quarter than it did in the same period in 2022.

The speed of the renewable energy roll-out has been “sluggish, slow and anaemic”. Investment in wind and solar has slowed to a trickle. Demand for rooftop solar has also slowed.

Apparently, the renewables in the system have to increase by 160% by 2030 to meet the government target; rooftop panels by 70%. But “social licence” is getting harder to obtain.

And, as already discovered in Europe, the dream is “colliding with reality”.

All this when AEMO is forecasting that demand for electricity will rise by 16% by 2030, by half that again by 2050.

mhaze,

It’s important to recognise that data can be presented in ways that support a particular narrative, which is why the context of Climate Depot’s denialist stance matters so much.

The link from Climate Depot shows a correlation between higher renewable adoption and higher electricity prices, but correlation isn’t causation. In places like Germany and Denmark, high electricity prices are influenced by a range of factors, including taxes, levies, and specific policy choices, not just the cost of renewables. So while it may look like more renewables lead to higher costs, it’s really the broader policy environment that’s at play.

Regarding the long-term promise of renewables, I understand the scepticism, especially given the initial costs. But we’re already seeing costs come down as technology improves and systems adapt. This transition isn’t about instant results; it’s about setting up a sustainable energy future that balances environmental, economic, and social needs.

As for Climate Depot’s data, it’s not so much about whether the numbers are wrong but about how they’re used. Selective data presentation can lead to misleading conclusions, which is why I’m cautious about relying solely on such sources. Independent studies often show a more nuanced picture, where the relationship between renewables and electricity prices is influenced by multiple factors, not just the presence of renewables alone.

In the bigger picture, renewables bring long-term benefits that go beyond immediate costs. Yes, the transition is challenging, but the alternatives (i.e. continuing with fossil fuels and their hidden costs) are far more problematic in the long run.

Fester,

The idea that introducing the cheapest generation sources into the grid is making electricity more expensive is still not a paradox, but stems from a misunderstanding of the factors at play during this transition period.

Wind and solar, when viewed in terms of marginal costs, are indeed among the cheapest sources of electricity. However, the short-term reality has been that integrating these renewables has required substantial upfront investments. These costs include not just building the infrastructure but also upgrading the grid and developing storage solutions to handle the variability of renewable energy. This has led to higher electricity prices in the short term, which I understand can feel like a broken promise.

Yes, SA has embraced wind and solar more than other parts of Australia, and yes, its electricity prices are higher. But those higher prices aren’t solely due to the presence of renewables. South Australia’s market structure, its reliance on gas for backup power, and its limited interconnection with other states have all contributed to the higher costs. This isn’t to say that the transition hasn’t been challenging, but it’s a mistake to pin the blame solely on renewables without considering the broader context.

The constant assurance that cheaper prices are just around the corner, only to face continued delays and rising costs, is frustrating. However, I see this more as a long-term investment rather than a scam. The initial costs are high, but as technology improves and systems adapt, the potential for renewables to provide cheaper, cleaner power is real. We’re already seeing cost declines in renewable technologies, and as storage and grid management solutions continue to advance, the benefits should become more apparent.

The environmental concerns you raise are also valid. The impact of renewable energy projects on wildlife and natural landscapes is a significant issue that needs to be taken seriously. However, we must also weigh these concerns against the ongoing environmental damage caused by fossil fuels. The key is to find a balance where we can transition to cleaner energy in a way that minimises harm to the environment.

Our Far Left PM has put a ban on the Jabiluka uranium mine on behalf of 37 members of the so-called Mirrar clan - better described as a family group.

That's the nutjob in charge of Australia's economy and future.

Fortunately, there will be court challenges to his lunacy, and commonse might prevail.

Fester

Removal of the Albanese Labor, not ventilation stacks, is the best idea.

Albanese and Bowen are like children. They cover their ears and eyes, and kid themselves that what has been proved - that sun and wind will not work - overseas doesn't apply in Ockerville.

Just the loss of a very expensive Swedish ship and load of cars after one of these Tonka Toys went up in flames should have been enough warning even for for moronic Ockers punting for unreliables. But no, they have forgotten that incident and seem to have slept through all the other examples of dangerous, economically ruining, regular examples of the failure of their dream, now a nightmare.

John

"The constant assurance that cheaper prices are just around the corner, only to face continued delays and rising costs, is frustrating. However, I see this more as a long-term investment rather than a scam."

Assurances like that are always a red flag. According to the CSIRO, wind and solar are the fastest and cheapest, so a higher priced transition makes absolutely no sense when you consider that projects can be amortised over their economic lives.

The problems that I see with wind and solar are fundamental to the technology, insoluble with technical advance or requiring unrealistic cost reductions. The primary problems stem from capacity factors below 30%, which combined with seasonal variability means that your wind and solar generation must be up to six times the average demand (or higher depending on location) to make them dispatchable. This has three major consequences:

One is that you need a huge amount of infrastructure overbuild to make the supply dispatchable. For example, if your wind and solar were six times the average demand your transmission infrastructure would need to cope with six times the average demand an your battery and pumped hydro would need to cope with at least five times average demand. Given that transmission infrastructure accounts for 40% of power costs, this alone guarantees a much higher cost from transmission and storage before you consider generation cost.

A second problem relates to the generation overbuild inherent with wind and solar, guaranteeing that a quarter to a third of the energy is curtailed (wasted), increasing the cost of your generating infrastructure by up to fifty percent.

The third problem relates to the market effect of oversupply, which would mean that generators would not get an economic return. Fluctuating prices would also make project financing impossible.

Fester,

First, the issue of capacity factors and infrastructure overbuild do lead to higher upfront costs, particularly for transmission and storage. But as we continue to invest in storage technologies, and as these technologies improve, the need for such massive overbuild decreases. So while the initial phase of transition is expensive, it’s not a permanent situation. The costs associated with overbuild and curtailment are expected to decrease as our energy systems become more sophisticated.

On the point of curtailment, where energy is “wasted,” it’s a current challenge, but it’s also a challenge that’s being actively addressed. For instance, better grid management and demand response programs can reduce curtailment by matching supply with demand more effectively. Additionally, innovations like converting excess electricity into other forms of energy (such as hydrogen) are on the horizon, which would make better use of what’s currently curtailed.

Regarding the market effects of oversupply, you’re right that fluctuating prices can make it difficult for generators to get a good return on investment. However, energy markets are evolving. Mechanisms like contracts for difference (CFDs) and capacity markets are designed to stabilise these returns, ensuring that renewable projects can be financed and remain viable despite price fluctuations. These tools are not theoretical; they’re already being implemented in various markets with success.

It’s important to recognise that the transition to renewables isn’t just about replacing one form of generation with another; it’s about transforming how we manage and distribute energy. Yes, it’s expensive and complex right now, but that’s what happens when you’re building something new and innovative. The long-term trend is moving toward lower costs and more reliable energy as technology improves and economies of scale are realised.

So while the concerns you’ve raised are grounded in the current reality, they don’t doom the transition to failure. They’re challenges that are being met with ongoing innovation and strategic adjustments. The idea that we’re forever stuck with high costs because of these issues doesn’t hold up when you consider the trajectory of technological progress and market adaptation.

The road is rough, but it’s far from a dead end.

ttbn,

Promises will only get them so far and will be fast undone when people see the failures. The reliance now is on saving the planet and "it's too late to change". Hopefully the destruction of the natural environment will make people realise that the wind and solar solution is far worse than the problem.

Haven't seen Alan B. in the main forum for a while.
Shame he isn't around to see this:

China to build first thorium molten salt NPP in Gobi Desert
http://www.neimagazine.com/news/china-to-build-worlds-first-thorium-molten-salt-npp-in-gobi-desert/

How Innovative is China in Nuclear Power?
http://itif.org/publications/2024/06/17/how-innovative-is-china-in-nuclear-power/

>>As Jacopo Buongiorno, a professor of nuclear science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), observed, “China is the de facto world leader in nuclear technology.”1 Indeed, China likely stands 10 to 15 years ahead of where the United States is in nuclear power (referring especially to the ability to field fourth-generation nuclear reactors). China’s government has assigned considerable priority to domestic nuclear reactor construction as part of Beijing’s broader energy strategy. Looking ahead, China appears likely to use this established domestic capacity as a foundation for competitive reactor exports, much as its “dual-circulation” strategy has accomplished in other areas, such as electric vehicles and batteries.<<

As Japan Semiconductor Sales To China Soar, Beijing's Nuclear Power Plants Triggers US Panic
http://youtu.be/-5e_ExHNRsI

I said 300 MwH. All reactors SMR size are 10 KwH, 100 KwH or submarine reactors, None of which can produce 300 MwH capacity. They are classed as the non lethal fuel sourse. They are sealed tanks containing radio active light water. Lucas heights is a sealed tank reactor. There is no 300MwH reactors ever been completed let alone constructed.

We do not need 24/7 nukes
.
There is no difference in the way power is sold every power generators power is sold spot pricing. You have to bid to supply power to the grid . If you are accepted you then get allotted an amount of power to be supplied to the grid. That is to assure no excess power is put into the grid. Wasted electricity does not get paid for. Some large scale users buy by wholesale chunks of power to be used at later dates.

Wind, Solar, Hydro, will get first priority supplying to the grid and discharging stored power to the grid. There about 10 privately owned generators of electricity. And they all get a share of supplying to the grid when the need arises.

AEMO are electricity generator regulators according to demand that varies every 5 minutes day and night. They say who supplies power to the grid.
Solar and Wind has no off switch, all other generators comply with AEMO.

There is no space for 24/7 nukes.

Power demand keeps rising year on year, as long as our population increases power supply will rise.

Why have something against Renewable, sun shine and wind and water are free. Some block heads say solar panels only last 10 years, they are warranted for 25 years.

The supply of electricity is very involved guess work does not happen.
That is why you will not see nuclear in Australia.

doog,

Much of what you are being told is untrue.

"There is no 300MwH reactors ever been completed let alone constructed."

That statement is false. The CNP-300 has been in use for over thirty years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNP_/_ACP_nuclear_reactors

"Why have something against Renewable, sun shine and wind and water are free."

So are Uranium and Thorium. The expense comes from building the infrastructure to capture the energy. But if wind, sunshine and water are free as you point out, then why are we paying for power from those sources?

"Solar and Wind has no off switch, all other generators comply with AEMO."

Exactly, and because wind and solar are both below a 30% capacity factor, you need several times the average demand in generating capacity if you want to go 100% renewables. The consequence of this is that you will waste up to a third of the energy generated in an optimal system.

"Wind, Solar, Hydro, will get first priority supplying to the grid and discharging stored power to the grid."

The output from wind and solar is highly variable, so firming the output is extremely challenging, wasteful of resources, and costly. That is why wind and solar are such a terrible idea for the grid.

"There is no space for 24/7 nukes."

24/7/365 supply contracts are very attractive for energy retailers and industry. I suspect that the wind and solar industry is terrified of the prospect of nuclear as they are incapable of competing.

The ban needs to be removed.

List of nuclear and radiation fatalities by country
Individual disasters, incidents and sites
Lists by country
• 2024 Nuclear incident at Khabarovsk, Russia
• 2022-2023 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant leak
• 2019 Radiation release during explosion and fire at Russian nuclear missile test site
• 2017 Airborne radioactivity increase in Europe in autumn 2017
• 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster
• 2001 Instituto Oncologico Nacional radiotherapy accident
• 2000 Samut Prakan radiation accident, Thailand.[3]
• 1999 and 1997 Tokaimura nuclear accidents
• 1996 San Juan de Dios radiotherapy accident
• 1994 Theft of radioactive material in Tammiku, Estonia.[4]
• 1993 Tomsk-7 accident at the Reprocessing Complex in Seversk, Russia, when a tank exploded while being cleaned with nitric acid. The explosion released a cloud of radioactive gas (INES level 4).[5]
• 1990 Clinic of Zaragoza radiotherapy accident
• 1987 Goiânia accident
• 1986 Chernobyl disaster and Effects of the Chernobyl disaster
• 1985 Explosion during refuelling of the K-431 (formerly K-31) submarine
• 1982 Lost radiation source in Baku, Azerbaijan, USSR.[6]
• 1980 Houston radiotherapy accident.[6][7]
• 1979 Church Rock uranium mill spill
• 1979 Three Mile Island accident and Three Mile Island accident health effects
• 1974-1976 Columbus radiotherapy accident.[6][7]
• 1969 Lucens reactor
• 1968 Thule B-52 crash
• 1966 Palomares B-52 crash
• 1964 SNAP 9a satellite releases plutonium over the planet earth, an estimated 6300GBq or 2100 person-Sv of radiation was released.
• 1962 Thor missile launch failures during nuclear weapons testing at Johnston Atoll under Operation Fishbowl
• 1961 SL-1 nuclear meltdown
• 1961 K-19 nuclear accident
• 1959 SRE partial nuclear meltdown at Santa Susana Field Laboratory
• 1958 Mailuu-Suu tailings dam failure
• 1957 Kyshtym disaster
• 1957 Windscale fire
• 1957 Operation Plumbbob
• 1954 Totskoye nuclear exercise
• 1950 Desert Rock exercises
• Bikini Atoll
• Hanford Site
• Rocky Flats Plant, see also radioactive contamination from the Rocky Flats Plant
• Techa River
• Pollution of Lake Karachay

How much does a 300 MW nuclear reactor cost?
SMR nuclear projects could provide an option in construction costs of as low as $3,000 per kW. Thus, a 300-MW project might cost $900 million, as opposed to conventional, massive new nuclear projects, such as Vogtle or Sizewell C in the UK, costing $30 billion or a ballpark estimate of $9,000 per kW
The CNP-300 is a pressurized water nuclear reactor developed by the China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC).
It is China's first domestic commercial nuclear reactor design, with development beginning in the 1970s based on a nuclear submarine reactor design
The unit began operation in 2000. Another unit was completed in 2011
You mean it took 30 years to make it work.

Ask yourself why the Albo cult wants you to lie to people.

"You mean it took 30 years to make it work."

No, operating since the early 1990s.

"The first CNP-300 unit started operations in Qinshan Nuclear Power Plant in 1991.[1]

The CNP-300 was the first Chinese nuclear reactor to be exported, with the installation of the first unit at Chashma Nuclear Power Plant in Pakistan.[4] The unit began operation in 2000. Another unit was completed in 2011 and two more units began operation in 2016 and 2017 at the same plant. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNP-300

And you might also like to know that nuclear power has the lowest mortality rate per terawatt hour of power generation, so if you are worried about the danger to human life you should support nuclear. If your main concern is protecting the environment and stopping the murder of koalas, you should definitely support nuclear.

https://www.engineering.com/whats-the-death-toll-of-nuclear-vs-other-energy-sources/

Labor used to be about protecting the rights of the little guy. Now it is about protecting the interests of its rich mates, killing koalas and desecrating our natural heritage. RIP

Hi AC,

Yes, I miss AlanB too. I very much enjoyed his optimism that a bright future was possible for all.

Now I wouldn't be so rude as to try and convince you of anything, but I have just had a lot fun watching this piece on Russian state sponsored pulp fiction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCI6es9G0oo

Truth is stranger than fiction they say.

Cheers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_naval_reactors#Power_plants

"Reactor sizes range up to ~500 MWt (about 165 MWe) in the larger submarines and surface ships. The French Rubis-class submarines have a 48 MW reactor that needs no refueling for 30 years."

John,

"Mechanisms like contracts for difference (CFDs) and capacity markets are designed to stabilise these returns, ensuring that renewable projects can be financed and remain viable despite price fluctuations."

What you mean is that the government will bankroll the transition, making investment more attractive by putting most of the cost and risk on the taxpayers. This approach will drive inflation and debt with no guarantee of a viable grid.

https://ieefa.org/resources/energising-australias-green-bank

"Yes, it’s expensive and complex right now, but that’s what happens when you’re building something new and innovative. The long-term trend is moving toward lower costs and more reliable energy as technology improves and economies of scale are realised."

It is totally irresponsible to be building an untested, highly complicated and massively expensive ($1.5 trillion investment required to achieve 2030 target) system on a national scale. Saying how things might be in the future makes no difference to the costs and complexities of the present. Further, such a claim ignores the possibility of technical innovation and cost reduction for competing technologies. As is being and has been demonstrated around the world, nuclear power can provide dispatchable energy at much lower cost than wind and solar.

Fester,

No, what I mean is that government support through mechanisms like CFDs and capacity markets helps to create a stable environment for investment in renewable energy. This isn’t about offloading all the cost and risk onto taxpayers but rather about facilitating a transition that benefits everyone in the long run. Governments have historically played a role in major infrastructure projects (whether it’s highways, telecommunications, or energy systems) because these projects often require a level of investment and stability that the private sector alone can’t provide.

Yes, there’s a significant cost involved, but the intention is to avoid greater costs down the line, such as those associated with climate change, energy insecurity, and reliance on volatile fossil fuel markets. This isn’t about driving inflation and debt without a clear outcome; it’s about investing in a future where our energy systems are cleaner, more sustainable, and ultimately more cost-effective.

The complexity and expense of the transition is indeed a massive undertaking, but calling it untested isn’t entirely accurate. The technologies we’re talking about are already in use around the world and are proving their viability on increasingly large scales. The investment required is substantial, but it’s also important to consider the ongoing costs of maintaining and expanding a fossil fuel-based system, which includes not only financial costs but also environmental and health impacts.

The possibility of innovation and cost reductions in competing technologies is absolutely something worth keeping in mind. However, nuclear power comes with its own set of challenges: high upfront costs, long development timelines, waste disposal issues, and complex regulatory environment. These factors often make nuclear less competitive compared to the rapidly declining costs of renewables, especially when you factor in the speed at which renewables can be deployed.

The decision to invest heavily in renewables isn’t about ignoring other technologies; it’s about recognising where the trends are heading and where we can get the most value and sustainability in the long term. While the challenges are real, the benefits of moving towards a renewable energy future (both economically and environmentally) make it a responsible and forward-looking choice.

It's incredible how the far right has become. They still do not believe in climate change but now they are green as grass.

Fester,

I just took a closer look at the link you provided to the IEEFA article, and while it does discuss the role of government in financing renewable energy projects through the CEFC, it doesn't necessarily support the idea that this approach will drive inflation and debt with no guarantee of a viable grid.

In fact, the article highlights the CEFC's role in catalysing private investment and reducing financial risk for clean energy projects, which is intended to be a positive driver of innovation and sustainability. The CEFC's goal is to leverage government support to encourage private sector investment, not to offload the entire cost onto taxpayers. This kind of financing is meant to accelerate the transition to a cleaner energy system while also providing economic benefits, rather than burdening the economy.

The IEEFA generally advocates for this transition as a necessary step for both environmental and economic reasons, and while it acknowledges the challenges, it doesn’t portray the strategy as inherently risky or economically damaging in the way you suggested. It’s important to consider the article in its full context when drawing conclusions about the role of government support in the energy transition.

John,

What caught my attention was the 1.5 trillion investment by 2030 and the 7-9 trillion investment by 2050. To me that means higher inflation and seems far more costly than the wildest estimates for nuclear power.

Whatever happens, I would guess that private investors will do their due diligence. I'd prefer to see nuclear rejected as an option for economic reasons rather than reasons of legality.

doog,

And here I was feeling sorry for you being a cult member. My empathy is now amplified with the realisation that you are a member of a doomsday cult. I'm sure that the climate god will duly punish the capitalist sinners for refusing to glorify Them with the erection of windmills, solar panels and the sacrifice of koalas. And the punishment will surely be all the worse for their dabbling in the heresy of nookular power. Do remember to say hi to cult leader Albo for me.

How can inflation come into the building of renewable power. That is either star wars or propaganda. The latter is a constant:
Elements of the far right with no costings or direction swear by nukes. It's hard to put a reason on that, unless you are young and dumb and believe in b/s.
Where do those unbelievable figures for reenables come from. Pie in sky estimations no doubt.
nukes have gone quiet lately what does that signify. Is the passion waning or has spud gone fishing.

Poor doog. Cult leader Albo is treating you like a mushroom it would seem. Yes, seven to nine trillion dollars with wind and solar, but maybe Australians will have until 2060 to cough up. Several times the area of Tassie will be involded as well, a full on environmental Armageddon, but I'd guess that's another secret your cult leader is keeping from you.

https://www.fenex.org.au/to-get-to-net-zero-australia-needs-to-make-big-changes-and-fast/

And here is a site that cult leader Albo would forbid his loyal mushrooms from visiting as it provides ample evidence for the wind and solar con.

"...4,748 TWh of “almost entirely” solar and wind power generated in 2023 came to all of 17.1 EJ, which is just 2.7% of the 620 EJ of world primary energy consumption. Could you have imagined that it could be so little, after decades of over-the-top promotion and trillions of dollars of subsidies?"

https://stopthesethings.com/2024/08/06/energy-numbers-decades-of-data-detail-wind-solars-pathetic-performance/

1 A transmitting
Total electricity generation in Australia remained steady in 2023 with an estimated 273,106 gigawatt hours (GWh) generated. Renewable sources contributed an estimated 95,963 GWh, making up 35% of Australia's total electricity generation, up 3 percentage points on the share in 2022.23 Apr 2024
Australia would need 25 nuclear reactors to meet a third of its electricity needs by 2050, according to the Australian Government. These nuclear reactors would be built near our coasts and major population centres to be close to water and markets.
Nuclear energy has the highest estimated capital costs of any energy technology used in the United States. As of 2023, capital costs for nuclear power plants ranged between 8,475 and 13,925 U.S. dollars per kilowatt.24 Nov 2023
Solar energy has come a long way over the past few decades, and today it has become the cheapest source of electricity in history, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). But how did this happen? What factor or factors led to the massive reduction in solar energy prices? Let's take a closer look.17 Apr 2023
According to the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), solar panels last between 20 and 30 years. Some well-made panels may even last up to 40 years.19 July 2024

12.30pm 12.08.24
Solar 77 GwH $59.50 / MwH
Hydro 77 GwH $109.27
Wind 84 GwH $210.57
battery discharge 2.0 GwH
Gas 44.1 GwH $ 126.43
Brown Coal 85 GwH $ 126.49
Blk Coal 252 GwH $ 129.35

63 posts by just 7 people.

I don't think any conclusions will be reached; and the result will be the same: renewable energy will fall in a heap, hopefully before too much more money is wasted on it, and the economy can still be repaired. Lots of people are going to look very silly; unfortunately they won't be held to account for their lunacy.

ttbn,

"I don't think any conclusions will be reached;"

Anyone coming here and expecting otherwise misunderstands the purpose of this place. For me it is about understanding why people hold their opinions and learning where points of interest to me in a subject might lie. From this thread for example I gained the knowledge that world wind and solar generation was only a few percent of world energy generation, despite the massive subsidies and many trillions invested. I also learned that new fossil fuel generation greatly exceeds new wind and solar generation. Why would this be the case if wind and solar are claimed to be so much better?

I think that Australia should have stuck with producing cheap coal fired power until the gen four reactors started rolling off the production lines. Wind and solar will do bugger all for reducing CO2 emissions.

Fester,

It seems like you’ve drawn some hasty conclusions from this discussion.

That wind and solar only account for a small percentage of global energy generation, despite significant investments, overlooks the broader context. Renewables like wind and solar have only been scaling up over the last few decades, while fossil fuels have had over a century to dominate the energy landscape. The fact that renewables are already making noticeable contributions in such a short time is actually a testament to their growing potential, not a sign of failure. As costs continue to drop and deployment rates increase, their share will only continue to grow.

Regarding subsidies, while it’s true that renewables have received substantial support, these subsidies are designed to level the playing field against a century of fossil fuel dominance and to accelerate the transition to a cleaner energy system. Fossil fuel industries have benefited from substantial subsidies for decades, helping them to maintain a dominant position in the global energy market. It’s estimated that global fossil fuel subsidies amount to hundreds of billions of dollars each year, with some estimates suggesting that the true cost (i.e. including the environmental and health impacts) could be even higher.

Your claim that "wind and solar will do bugger all for reducing CO2 emissions" doesn’t hold up against the evidence. Numerous studies show that renewable energy sources like wind and solar significantly reduce CO2 emissions by displacing fossil fuels. Countries that have increased their renewable energy capacity have seen corresponding reductions in emissions.

Rather than dismissing renewables based on selective data or short-term challenges, it’s important to recognise the long-term trajectory towards a cleaner and more sustainable energy future. Wind and solar are not just about immediate impacts, and the idea that they can’t significantly reduce CO2 emissions is not just misguided; it goes against the overwhelming body of evidence showing that they are essential to achieving global climate goals.

Let’s consider the full picture and avoid cherry-picking data that fits a preconceived narrative - both in scholarly papers as well as forum comment threads.

John,

My concern is that the roll out of wind and solar is way too slow to make a difference, and despite your optimism for improvement the current market favours the building of coal fired power over wind and solar, and likely will for some time. And were intermittency not a fatal flaw, think of the environmental destruction entailed in powering Australia and extrapolate that for Earth's population. I'd prefer the predicted problems from rising CO2 over the certain catastrophe from wind and solar.

Bill Gates has the right idea: Industrial scale production of nuclear reactors.

Fester,

I haven't relied on optimism as an argument in favor of renewables. What I've consistently provided is objective reasoning, showing that significant advancements in renewable and grid technology are inevitable.

As you should know by now, intermittency is far from a “fatal flaw.” These technologies are still evolving, making significant strides, and are already being implemented successfully around the world. The notion that intermittency is a fatal issue is outdated - something we’ve discussed numerous times.

We've also repeatedly discussed the environmental impact of renewables. It's surprising that you still compare their relatively small impact to the effects of fossil fuels. The preference you express for fossil fuels seems especially perplexing when considering the catastrophic effects that unchecked climate change will have on all aspects of human existence.

It's crucial to weigh the impact of renewables against the alternatives. While constructing wind and solar farms has some environmental impacts, these are generally far less severe than the ongoing damage caused by fossil fuels—both in terms of CO2 emissions and other pollutants, as well as long-term harm to ecosystems. With careful planning and innovation, we can further mitigate the environmental footprint of renewable energy projects.

Your preference for nuclear power is understandable, especially given its low-carbon profile and reliability. However, nuclear also comes with significant challenges and risks, which I’ve mentioned many times before. While the industrial-scale production of nuclear reactors, as advocated by Bill Gates, is promising, it’s not a quick fix either.

The choice isn’t between the "predicted problems" from CO2 and the "certain catastrophe" from renewables—it’s about finding a balanced energy mix that addresses both the urgency of climate change and the need for reliable, sustainable power. Wind and solar, along with other renewables, will play a crucial role in that mix, complemented by nuclear where feasible and appropriate.

We need to keep pushing forward with all the tools at our disposal, including wind, solar, nuclear, and other clean energy technologies. The path has challenges, but the stakes are too high to dismiss any of these solutions outright.

John,

"I haven't relied on optimism as an argument in favor of renewables. What I've consistently provided is objective reasoning, showing that significant advancements in renewable and grid technology are inevitable."

But that is the very definition of optimism, and optimism is an extremely risky and (I believe) unacceptable basis for a national electricity grid. What is needed is proven technology that does not rely on predictions of technological advances and/or cost improvements. As Australia lacks water and geothermal options, all that leaves is nuclear as a dispatchable option.

"However, nuclear also comes with significant challenges and risks, which I’ve mentioned many times before."

Yes, and yet you have never quantified the risk, always leaving it as a menacing haze. As I pointed out, nuclear power has the lowest mortality rate of any generating source. Comparatively, wind kills over one and a half times the number of people, solar kills nearly five times as many and hydro kills over 15 times as many. So if your main concern is the safety of people, nuclear is the logical choice.

https://www.engineering.com/whats-the-death-toll-of-nuclear-vs-other-energy-sources/

"Wind and solar, along with other renewables, will play a crucial role in that mix, complemented by nuclear where feasible and appropriate."

While I'm not a fan of wind and solar, I don't think they should be banned. What I'd advocate is removing the nuclear ban and having it compete on its merits.

Current world energy production amounts to nearly 20,000 gigawatts. To do that with solar you would need nearly three times the area of Australia. That is unfeasible as it would very likely have a drastic impact on the environment and food production.

Fester,

If there is an objective reason as to why something favourable is inevitable, then it’s not accurate to portray it as blind optimism, as you had suggested was the case. The objectivity negates the element of risk - particularly to the extent to which you believe it is there. If we were to consistently apply your philosophy of only using systems that have proven themselves in the past, then we would never implement new systems. It would have also excluded nuclear as an option decades ago.

I would be happy to quantify the risk of nuclear power. Any lack of me doing so in the past has not been a deliberate ploy. But it’s not just about the dangers. It’s also about cost, waste management, and long development timelines. That said, I fully agree that the nuclear ban should be lifted. It should be allowed to compete on its merits.

The figures for deaths related to renewables in the link you provided are dubious at best. They cast a much wider net for renewables. For example, people falling from their rooftops when installing solar panels is an occupational risk, not a risk inherent to solar energy production.

As for the area required for solar, the idea that we’d need "nearly three times the area of Australia" for solar energy is a bit misleading. Solar technology is becoming more efficient, and energy generation isn’t just about blanket coverage - it’s about strategic placement, integration with other technologies, and ongoing improvements in efficiency. Large-scale solar farms aren’t the only option, either. Rooftop solar, for example, is built on existing structures without taking up additional land.

AU electric consumption is Renewable Penetration Highlights
The below figure is the maximum renewable penetration rate ever recorded
MAX
72.1%
A newly-published report by the Australian Energy Regulator shows that wholesale electricity prices have fallen sharply. Significantly, the AER notes that “once retailers’ wholesale costs adjust to the lower prices going forward, prices faced by consumers should reflect these lower costs”.

In the privatised market, retailers decide their prices independently of government. Wholesale prices are a major component of the costs which retailers consider when setting their offers to households.

The AER report for the fourth quarter of 2024 showed that in South Australia average wholesale prices were $53 per megawatt-hour.

This was less than half the $114/MWh average in the previous quarter and down from $80/MWh in the same quarter of 2022.

For the full year, prices fell 44 per cent.

The AER report follows a similar quarterly report published just last week by the Australian Energy Market Operator. The AEMO report recorded that wholesale prices had nearly halved and attributed the decrease to more generation from cheap renewable power.

In 2023, more than 75 per cent of electricity generated in SA was from renewables. Today’s AER report noted that SA’s base future prices recorded the biggest drop among the states in the National Electricity Market, falling $38/MWh in the quarter.

There was also a decline in net imports of electricity from Victoria as SA generators met more of SA’s demand.

This report is further evidence that electricity prices are heading in the right direction, going down after the international energy crisis of 2022.

There can be no more excuses from retailers - they simply must pass on these savings to consumers, not simply pocket extra profits.

It’s pleasing to see the Australian Energy Regulator expects consumers to benefit, because the AER will need to factor this into their benchmark default market offer for the 2024-25 year.

South Australia’s high proportion of renewables – which exceeded 75 per cent of generation in 2023 – is key to our state’s wholesale prices being far lower than the black-coal states of NSW and Queensland.

Generation and network costs are by far the biggest components of household electricity bills. Retailers must acknowledge that their costs have fallen – and pass those savings on to households and businesses.

The very smart Jo Nova - who doesn't rely on AI to guide her - writes that the NSW government is hiding the cost of renewables by keeping Eraring open until a couple of months after the next election.

“Presumably his reelection chances would be worse if (he) “saved the planet”, and shut the coal plant a few months before the election instead.”

They obviously know that voters don't want the “transition” to very expensive power, because “coal power is cheap and renewables are hideous(ly) (expensive)”.

ttbn,

It is possible that the wholesale price of wind and solar will drop substantially, and I'd guess that this might get some promotion. Unfortunately, this won't be due to them being intrinsically low cost. Rather, it will reflect their coming online over a similar time frame and flooding the market, as happens in South Australia. That might explain why investors aren't as keen build to new generating capacity as they were, even with the multi billion dollar subsidies.

Power [solar] into the grid today in SA is generating for .018 cents / kwh. any lower and it will slip inti negative costings. Iit went to minus 35 c / KwH in qld. Good for the grid but will not do anything for you blokes as you criticise govt; instead of attacking retailers, that is where the blockage is. wholesale price is only for block buying of electricity bundles. not for general public as it is volatile costings. Retailers buy from spot pricing only.
Next year is the year for power drops that we have not seen for a few decades. Retailers are going to be eliminated. Albo always said it would happen in 2025.

doog,

The more wind and solar capacity you have installed, the lower the wholesale price will be for wind and solar generators. That won't encourage investment, at least not before a massive amount of storage is built and the grid gets upgraded. Guess who pays for that, and everything else for that matter? And prices will go down? Yeah, like they always have as surely as the koalas are being clubbed and the GDR is getting smashed up.

Oh, and here's a fun Fukushima fact for you. There was a nuclear power station on the coast closer to the quake epicentre that stayed operational. Why? Because Onagawa implemented the safety advice that Tepco ignored for Fukushima.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant

How do you think a wind or solar installation might have fared?

Someone said on this thread that governments have always funded large scale infrastructure projects. When I read this I though- hang on- both the initial rollout of electricity/ cars privately driven through visionaries Edison, Tesla, Ford.

Roman rulers funded large scale infrastructure in the form of aqueducts and roads. Others funded projects- Hoover Dam.

I believe that as far as "tested technology" is concerned aqueducts, roads, dams are different than solar/wind/battery electrical and transport systems.

The wind/solar isn't the only factor in question but the energy storage that these systems rely on- a factor conveniently ignored in discussions.

Marxism wants to create a world where the people can't escape from Marxism- because no one wants to live in a Marxist country. The same is true that no one wants to live in a country that has an enforced policy of "renewables". The cost of electricity is growing seemingly exponentially. But seemingly those pushing "unsustainables" don't feel the pain of the people over the ecstasy of their visionary Woke Marxist utopia. The Woke Marxists are winding back history to a time before electricity and mechanization in the name of progress.

The biggest sustainability problem in the world seems to be the unsustainable populations of people in India, China, Africa all at 1.4 billion. India and China have a larger aggregate population than the aggregation of the next 18 nations combined.

Also from memory both China and India have large investments in nuclear energy, but sell solar panels to Western nations. The Woke Marxist Green campaign seems to be a function of the well known envy principle "Marxists don't love the poor but hate the rich". Some say that the academics are the vanguard of Woke Marxism in the West. As we can see the universities have gathered authoritarian hegemonic power within western nations over the last one hundred years. At least Western capitalist power was based on productivity, despite some faults, where the people benefited from cheaper prices.

Maybe this is part of the economic war of Woke Marxism against "The Great Capitalist Satan" of the West.

Yes Fester. After three mile island from memory General Electric implemented safety systems that some of the Japanese companies didn't want to pay for. The Japanese companies/government/society had the right to decide for themselves the cost/benefit/risk equation that worked for them. It's hard to learn from other peoples mistakes.

Canem Malum,

That “someone” would be me, only you have misinterpreted what I said. Just because governments have always funded large-scale products, that doesn’t mean they’ve funded EVERY large-scale project. Perhaps I should have said that governments have “historically” funded large-scale projects?

Some large-scale projects are unlikely to have ever happened if it weren’t for government funding. Transcontinental railway lines and bridges in particular come to mind.

By the way, your persistent use of emotive terms like "Marxists" and "Marxism" is language designed to evoke an emotional response. Personally, I haven’t encountered a Marxist since my uni days where some of my fellow naive and idealistic students wearing Che Guevara t-shirts would push pamphlets onto me as I passed them.

Hi CM,

Nuclear has an interesting history, but I find the economics of things complicated enough without weaving a whole lot of politics through it. I also find the Marxist thing a bit hard to swallow with keen supporters like Forrest, Holmes a Court, Cannon Brookes and Turnbull. What I can believe is a whole bunch of people beating up the climate change catastrophe in order to secure billions of taxpayer dollars to build massive projects without environmental checks or any due diligence to estimate what the cost might be or whether it would even work. It is like the idiotic and unchecked spending on the "grand project" of a dictator.

The ban on nuclear seems more about protecting the gravy train for the people building the crap than serving the interests of Australians and the environment. Nuclear would be expensive to build, but far cheaper than wind and solar. What is more, it works and offers a future for us and koalas. That's what really gets me: The thought of those greedy bastards destroying our heritage and clubbing koalas so they can get their billions in subsidies and send Australia up a creek without a paddle.

Fester,

Your last comment was disappointing to read. I never pegged you as a climate change denier. I would have also given you enough credit to assume you knew what Marxism was.

John,

No argument that the world is warming, but very skeptical of catastrophists and long term forecasts. History shows that catastrophes tend to come without warning. History is also replete with people warning of catastrophes that never happened. In those cases the harm came to people who took measures to avoid what never happened. You could make a much greater catastrophe attempting to avoid one. I see nuclear as a lesser of two evils, and probably a good thing in the longer term as the technology is developed.

Fester,

Accepting that the planet is warming isn’t saying much, these days. Even the most stubborn deniers now acknowledge this. Reactive positioning is one of the hallmarks of pseudoscience. When did you last hear that warming stopped in 1998, for example?

Catastrophes tended to come without warning throughout history because we didn’t have the knowledge or the know-how to adequately predict them for the vast majority of it. The same goes for catastrophes that were predicted but never eventuated.

Therefore, catastrophes that weren’t predicted at all are in no way analogous to the science of climate change. The same goes for catastrophes that were predicted by religious prophets that never eventuated.

The rubbish that these people read out weighs science. It’s a far right policy to deny. Dutton can do no wrong. After 40 years they still deny.
Abbott won an election built on lies, Nothing of what he said ever seen daylight again, stripped the guts out of internet and it still being patched up today.
Who could ever trust that mob ever.

John,

"The same goes for catastrophes that were predicted by religious prophets that never eventuated."

The data shows warming, but thinking that validates predictions of many decades hence makes you no more educated than the followers of those past failed prophets. Nor does it justify uncosted, untested and environmentally destructive measures to be taken on a national scale. You might think of how long it took Kevin Rudd's NBN grand vision to be obviated by technical advance with the development of the smart phone and wireless internet. Further, you might think of Messmer reacting to the dire emergency France faced in the 1970s (oil was going to run out apparently), only to abandon the project fifteen years later with the French oversupplied with expensive power.

Yet half a century later people like you, reacting to a predicted problem nearly as calamitous (remember that 99% of people would die if we just stopped oil), think a nuclear build impossible in 25 years, and instead, with the assistance of your taxpayer subsidised billionaire buddies, want to go on a koala clubbing, continent destroying odyssey, taking God knows how long, and leaving Australia covered with a dysfunctional mess of wind turbines and solar panels. I'd guess you might wonder why I'm such a stick in the mud and won't warm to the idea?

Here's a fun video showcasing an example of the wonderful Utopias people dream up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl5gyzezgL8

Fester,
The data doesn’t just show warming, it shows that human activity is responsible for 100% of it.

All the data points in one direction, too, so it’s not surprising that you’re resorting to false analogies to sustain a pseudoscientific belief. All the predictions from climate modelling thus far have been shown to be either accurate or too conservative. So, the data “validates predictions of many decades”.

There are no measures being taken to mitigate climate change that are uncosted or untested. Nor are they more environmentally destructive than nuclear power and fossil fuels. I think we’ve covered this sufficiently in the past.

Smartphones and wireless internet both utilise and require the NBN; they compliment it and require it. They have not superseded it. The NBN has proven to have been more necessary than we had even realised when it was proposed. Remote industrial and surgical operations, autonomous vehicle operations, and high-frequency trading systems are just a few examples of tasks that require the stability and speed of a physical network.

As for the French response to peak oil, the project wasn’t abandoned because it failed, it was abandoned because it met its goals. It led to France having a low-emissions energy sector. Moreover, the peak oil fears were speculative; the science behind climate change, on the other hand, is backed by decades of extensive research with all of the data pointing in one direction

Both your analogies are invalid.

Thanks Fester for your feedback. Many Woke/ Marxist's just deny the existence of Marxism in modern politics. In simple terms leftist parties follow Keynesian economics and rightist parties follow Friedman Monetarist economics. Not everyone can see the Marxism in things- I can see it- maybe you are just not ready to see it. But by mentioning it you will be able to watch and see if I'm correct- or not. I'm not going to force you to believe what I do- you need to act in your own interest- and trust in your own judgement.

Andrew Forrest is a fan of China being one of his biggest customers it seems so perhaps a fan of Marxism.
Turnbull is an ex-banker, probably sees the world through the lense of Ayn Rand and Naive Idealistic Libertarianism, but vulnerable to the principle "capitalists will sell you the rope to hang them". At least Ayn Rand understood that you can't do business with those that want to destroy you (such as China and Maoist Marxism).
Not sure about Holmes a Court, Cannon Brookes but I assume that the faults with them are similar issues of so called Left and Right Liberalism as opposed to Traditionalism.

Sadly Libertarian's (Right Liberals/ Capitalists/ Industrialists/ choose your synonym) only see things through the lense of money, money is very important, but this can make them vulnerable, and blind.
Turnbull seems to be as pure a capitalist possible, compared to other types of industrialist.

I could explain what Marxist principles are ...
- From those with the ability to those with the need
- Dialectic materialism- The false consciousness of culture and economic power
- How Marxism/ Classical Fascism relate to Hegel the father of Naive/ Absolute Idealism. And Hegel from Kant the father of Idealism.
- How Marxism relates to blank slate nihilism and tearing down the superstructure of society.
- Gramsci and cultural hegemony and the march through the institutions.
- On education of children
- On total war
- The evolution of Marxism from the French Revolution according to Dostoevsky.
- "Two Concepts of Liberty" was the inaugural lecture delivered by the liberal philosopher Isaiah Berlin (See Adam Curtis' Documentary's). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Concepts_of_Liberty
- Existentialist Nietzsche's Genealogy Of Morals and "the opposing Aristocratic and Priestly Codes" (See Jeffrey Kaplan on Youtube).
- Many others...

I see western environmentalism through the Greens and others, known as Watermelon's (Marxist on the inside), as a weapon to destroy western (business) strength to reduce the wests competitive advantage over other nations.

The best lies contain some truth.

Fester said that he finds it hard enough to keep track of the economics let alone politics. He may be referring to the economics of renewable energy or more generally. But please see a simple explanation of "political economics" below.

In simple terms-
- Keynesian (Left Liberal/ Democrats/ Labor ALP) economics see unemployment as the problem.
- Friedman Monetarist (Right Liberal/ Republican/ Australian Liberal) economics see inflation as the problem.
- Marxist economics is sort of Keynesian in a sense but where all businesses and production are state ideologically controlled.

Essentially it seems that Marxism entails rule by the Academics (according to Bob Whittacker). You can see how DIE (Diversity, etc), green, political correctness, etc policy allow academics to heavily influence policies ideologically within the means of production (companies). Traditionally the means of production drew from a broader (or at least a different) cross section of the community. The means of production was controlled by the productive- no longer. The Academics are the new priesthood of society- they have global reach- and are seemingly loyal to no nation. And don't care about normal people. In the recent interview Elon Musk (endorsing Donald Trump) talked about the two impediments to economic efficiency- red tape and government spending. One of the functions of the Academy appears to be to hold the people hostage by controlling the ideology of production.

Canem Malum,

That’s a very long-winded way to say “anything left-of-centre is Marxist.” I’m afraid you still don’t understand what Marxism is, though.

In all your meandering there, you mentioned a few concepts related to Marxism with varying levels of overlap. Hegel, Kant, and Nietzsche aren’t Marxists. Hegel influenced Marx, but Marx rejected Hegel’s idealism in favour of materialism. Kant had no direct connection to Marxism.

Your claim that environmentalism is a Marxist plot is absurd and would encompass Richard Nixon, too, given that he established the EPA. Environmental movements address real issues. Labelling them "Marxist" is just a lazy way to avoid engaging with them.

The idea that modern Marxism involves control of production by academics is mere conspiracy and reeks of paranoia. Marxism focuses on class struggle and the control of production by the working class, not by academics. Labelling academics a "new priesthood" is just a modern right-wing talking point with no basis at all in Marxist theory.

Let's face it, "Marxism" is just a blanket term for everything you disagree with. If you want to debate political issues, then you need to first understand the various political ideologies instead of just throwing around labels to dismiss anything you disagree with.

John,

"All the data points in one direction, too, so it’s not surprising that you’re resorting to false analogies to sustain a pseudoscientific belief. All the predictions from climate modelling thus far have been shown to be either accurate or too conservative. So, the data “validates predictions of many decades”."

That's extrapolation, and I would also suggest that the predictions of what the warming entails is very much aligned with doomsday cults. Take the BOM's "fire and brimstone" summer predictions last year, gleefully reported by the ABC. Well, that turned into a rainy El Nino, something I've never heard of before, costing primary producers who acted on the predictions.

"There are no measures being taken to mitigate climate change that are uncosted or untested. Nor are they more environmentally destructive than nuclear power and fossil fuels. I think we’ve covered this sufficiently in the past."

Utter garbage John. You offered no explanations, just doubled down on your false claims. Suggesting that leveling several times the land area of Tasmania to power Australia with wind and solar would be no more harmful than nuclear beggars belief in its dishonesty. And all independent costings (the government provides none) show wind and solar to be several times the cost of nuclear. Further, the system CO2 emissions from going wind and solar are higher than nuclear.

"As for the French response to peak oil, the project wasn’t abandoned because it failed, it was abandoned because it met its goals."

It delivered 150% of France's power needs in fifteen years, proving that nuclear generation can replace fossil fuel generation quickly if the idea is committed to. Yet nearly half a century later you think it impossible to provide Australia's electricity with nuclear in twenty-five years despite being convinced we are headed for calamity. The French intended to replace all power needs with nuclear, so it did not meet its objective as you falsely claim.

Hi CM,

I'm more supportive of the social democrat model as it seems to give more egalitarian outcomes. I ascribe to the belief that centralised power and free market models both tend to lead to a feudal system with poor social outcomes. Healthcare is a good example, with the USA and North Korea providing good care for the elite only, and Americans paying far more for their health care for worse outcomes than the social democratic models of Western Europe.

Fester,

Extrapolation is a fundamental part of science when based on empirical data, not speculation. Comparing it to doomsday cults ignores the rigorous methodology behind climate models, which have consistently provided accurate or conservative predictions.

The BOM’s summer forecast was based on available data, and El Nino events, though rare with heavy rainfall, are documented phenomena. Predictive science isn’t infallible, but it’s far from cultish. Your emotive language does you a disservice.

I have never once doubled-down on anything. I have consistently provided you with figures and links to my sources. I discredited your false claim about the required land for Tasmania (starting here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23028#395861) .If there is anything you would like me to expand on now, just say the word.

Ironically, you are the only one here doubling-down.

The impact of land required for renewables is far less destructive than the cumulative effects of fossil fuel extraction or nuclear waste. The notion that wind and solar are more costly or emit more CO2 than nuclear is contradicted by numerous independent analyses, which factor in long-term operational costs and externalities. (Would you like some figures?)

The French nuclear program also highlighted the complexity and risks associated with nuclear power. The objective was to secure energy independence, which it largely achieved. It wasn't about an absolute replacement of all energy sources but creating a resilient energy mix, which is something we should aim for now.

Fester said "centralised power and free market models both tend to lead to a feudal system with poor social outcome".
Yes that was essentially liberal Isaiah Berlin's argument when he advocated for "Stewart Mill negative style do as you like liberty" (see Adam Curtis- Century Of The Self) but Curtis comes to the conclusion that there are different types of "Aristotle virtue based positive freedom".

Libertarian's believe that certain principles lead to relative wealth and other principles lead to relative poverty and so the rulers of a wealthy society need to lead society in positive virtues. Not everyone is suited to all roles in society or all wealth levels because they don't want to participate. Sometimes this is because they don't understand and sometimes for some other asthetic reason. Libertarian's see the role of the ruler is to provide "equality of opportunity". Also they see "equality of outcome" as a form of tyranny. This is a basic summary of what Libertarian's seem to believe. Ayn Rand is a significant influence in Libertarian thought.

Traditionalists see the Libertarian view as narrowly focusing on money as the defining characteristic of a wealthy society. Traditionalists see the holistic security of human relationships as a more important measure of wealth.

Fester said "Healthcare is a good example, with the USA and North Korea providing good care for the elite only, and Americans paying far more for their health care for worse outcomes than the social democratic models of Western Europe"

Benjamin Franklin was a Republican and advocated building hospitals for the poor because it was good for the rich.
The US is still fighting the civil war and faces a different situation to the Northern Europe models that the ALP point to- but Nortern Europe is progressively importing similar problems to the US.
Africa is one of the largest land masses on the Earth.
Woke Marxists are authoritarian too. They see Liberal's as useful idiots.
But I've pointed the way. You can take direction or not

I agree with you that nuclear is an important part of Australia's short to medium term energy security. I would use the nuclear capability to try to boost Australia's defensive capabilities against China, but if you favour "social democratic" systems you may disagree.

Take care Fester.

Marxists see both Left and Right liberals ("do as you likes" (ALP)/ free traders (Australian Liberal Party)) as stupid and easily manipulated. I think it was said somewhere that Traditionalism is Marxism's greatest challenge because they weren't motivated by the same things as Liberals.

CM,

I'd rather see a system that reacts against the concentration of power, so separation of powers is essential. From what I've seen of Albo with his handling of the Voice and the failed referendum, I think he sees the democratic process as something to manipulate rather than respect. He might have even less respect for koalas, especially if they stand between him and his super.

Happy thinking!

Fester said "I'd rather see a system that reacts against the concentration of power".

Yes Traditionalist also prefer to rule themselves.

Fester said "separation of powers is essential".

True.

Fester said "I've seen of Albo with his handling of the Voice and the failed referendum, I think he sees the democratic process as something to manipulate rather than respect."

Good to hear that you see things this way.

I haven't heard about Albanese's Koala's- but Koala's are a sacred Australian mammal.

Canem Malum,

By “Albo’s koalas”, I suspect Fester’s doubling-down on his claim about renewables being more environmentally destructive than nuclear power.

--

Fester,

If I’m right, then you’re wrong. (About the koalas, I mean.) The idea that land clearing for renewable energy poses a greater threat to koalas than nuclear power, and that we should therefore choose nuclear energy, doesn't hold.

The land that solar and wind farms are usually built on are marginal lands or in agricultural zones, and strict regulations and environmental assessments help to minimise the impact when this is not the case. Projects for renewable energy sources can include conservation initiatives to enhance local biodiversity, too.

Uranium mining for nuclear power may not not be located in koala habitats, but environmental risks of radioactive contamination is still cause for serious concern.

The physical space required for nuclear plants is smaller than large solar or wind farms, but the risks associated with accidents, waste storage, and long-term contamination and have significant and broad implications.

That aside, the money we’d save on a cheaper energy source that aligned with the rest of the world would leave us plenty to allocate to the maintenance and restoration of koala populations.

John,

You accuse me of believing in pseudoscience for my skepticism of multi-decadal climate models of the Earth, perhaps the most complex system ever to be modeled. Yet you believe that someone living next to a normally operating nuclear power station will be slowly poisoned by the radiation emanating from it. You believe this despite the fact that you would need to live next to the power station for several years to get a extra day of average background radiation. You believe this despite observational evidence that variations in background radiation up to twenty times the average are not found harmful, as well as evidence suggesting populations with higher exposure have lower rates of some cancer and longer lives. To hold such a view is not being pseudo scientific, it is being pseudo scientific on steroids.

"The objective was to secure energy independence, which it largely achieved. It wasn't about an absolute replacement of all energy sources but creating a resilient energy mix, which is something we should aim for now."

Um, yes the Messmer plan was about "all nuclear, all electric". You are probably using the same reasoning which founds all your other nonsensical beliefs. At least you could have the good grace to report historical facts honestly.

Fester,

My mention of pseudoscience was in reference to a broader set of beliefs centred on the denial that humans play a significant role in climate change, as suggested by your comparison of climate models to religious prophets and your lack of knowledge of their accuracy thus far.

No, I don’t believe that someone living next to a nuclear power plant will necessarily poison someone. You’re latching onto this and riding it for all it’s worth because it’s all you’ve got, but it’s a skewing of what I said. This is the second time I’ve linked you back to what I said there. Hopefully there won’t be a third:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23028#395925

Thanks for the correction regarding Messmer. What I should have said was that the objective was to secure energy independence, and that while it focused on an extensive nuclear build-out, creating a resilient energy mix is what we should aim for in the more immediate future.

Just because John Daysh is "right", and I don't believe he is in general, doesn't mean people with different opinions are wrong, in a sense. Often it's only in comparing different ideas that fallacies become apparent.

Previously, from memory, John Daysh essentially said-

The government should create a legislative framework to support/ enforce renewables.

But no one knows what technology will succeed or fail- remember Betamax, remember Edison's direct current power networks. Therefore predicting the future technology is a risk.

One of governments roles is to reduce risk for society.

Therefore governments shouldn't enforce technologies that aren't well tested in the environment in which they are to operate.

Therefore governments shouldn't enforce renewables.
_____

Often salespeople will try to create urgency for products, but salespeople don't have to deal with the failure of the products.

I think that people should be saying to themselves "that sounds great- you go first". When the sales people destroy themselves the people will know what not to do. Some ideologies are like salespeople. Let them go first...

John Daysh can go first, and if he's still alive after ten years maybe we can, in our own time, follow his example

Canum Malam,

I have never said anything even remotely close to suggesting that the government enforce renewables.

Your comparison with respect to Betamax and Edison's DC networks is invalid. In a fast-moving market, Betamax was an end-product proffered as an option, while Edison's DC networks were finally overtaken because it was technically limited. Renewable energy technologies are tried, tested, and proven under different environmental conditions worldwide.

Furthermore, Betamax and Edison’s DC didn’t have the volume of data and evidence backing their necessity and/or likelihood of succeeding. Nor is the choice between renewables and nuclear a matter of personal preference, as was the case with Betamax and Edison’s DC, or BlueRay and HD-DVD.

That sounds great- you go first!

"No, I don’t believe that someone living next to a nuclear power plant will necessarily poison someone. You’re latching onto this and riding it for all it’s worth because it’s all you’ve got, but it’s a skewing of what I said."

My goodness, John. You cannot help yourself, can you? I'm pleased for you that you have changed your opinion (no need to thank me), but to claim misrepresentation on my part is perplexing. I thought that someone of your intelligence holding such a view made no sense, which is why I specifically asked you about the matter, and you did reiterate and justify your opinion. Remember? This is the first acknowledgement of you changing your opinion that I was aware of.

As for it being all I've got, you might want to look at a comparison of mortality per terawatt of power generation by source, as it may make you realise that your belief of nuclear power as dangerous is also erroneous (again, no need to thank me for pointing this out to you).

In general, I think the major failing in your reasoning to be a lack of considering quantity. For example, you defend the NBN, yet its numbers have been falling by such an embarrassing amount that they have stopped publishing data for the first time in ten years.

Fester,

In what way can I not help myself? I don't think you yourself know what you're referring to there.

I haven't changed my opinion either. I had simply never said what you claimed I had said. Third time's a charm:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23028#395925

I'd ask you to link me to the discussions where you corrected me on those things that I also didn't say, but we both know they don't exist (which is why you haven't linked to them.)

The NBN's numbers declining don't negate my point about the advantages or necessity of a physical network. So, your claim that wireless technology has superseded it is still wrong and your analogy is still invalid.

"I haven't changed my opinion either."

So you are a liar, John? Just pathetic. Grow up. Would you like me to link your dishonesty? It's there alright. That's the trouble with the internet: You can't change what you've said in the past.

Now, are you going to own up to claiming that radiation emissions from a normally operating nuclear power plant slowly poisoned people living in the vicinity, or are you going to persist with your pathetic, childish behaviour and confirm my gut feeling of you as a pathological liar?

Fester,

No, I'm not a liar. I simply didn't say what you claimed I had said (which is presumably why you don't quote me either.)

Yes, I would like you to link me to my alleged dishonesty. Quote's would help, too.

//Now, are you going to own up to claiming that radiation emissions from a normally operating nuclear power plant slowly poisoned people living in the vicinity...//

When you can quote where I said this, yes.

John,

from https://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23028&page=0#395891

From your comment:

"Nuclear plants release small amounts of radiation during normal operations, which can affect nearby communities over time."

I responded:

"Where has this happened? Complete BS."

From your reply:

"Yes, nuclear power plants release small amounts of radiation during normal operations, which can affect nearby communities over time. Cumulative radiation exposure, even at low levels, can increase health risks, particularly cancer and leukaemia, as indicated by studies like the KiKK study in Germany"

All I can conclude from this is that you are either a liar else you are using AI generated responses which you haven't bothered to read. As for the KIKK study, the leukemia cluster was extensively studied and no causative link to radiation from nuclear power plants was found, e.g.:

"When drawing conclusions about the health effects of radiation, it is important to consider all the evidence. Thus any claims of a link between childhood leukemia and radiation from nuclear power plants are unfounded and not supported by a wealth of evidence resulting from multiple epidemiology studies."

https://www.cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca/eng/resources/perspectives-on-nuclear-issues/the-kikk-study-explained-fact-sheet/

Fester,

Thanks for that. You’ll notice that what you were claiming I said was a misrepresentation of what I had actually said.

You've been distorting my words to exaggerate my statement by claiming I had said that living near a nuclear power plant would "slowly poison" people. My words were far more measured that that. To paraphrase, nuclear plants release small amounts of radiation during normal operations, and cumulative exposure to this radiation could increase health risks over time.

Apparently noticing this yourself, you are now focusing on my mentioning of the KiKK study. What you have failed to notice, though, is that I didn’t rely on it exclusively. I had also mentioned radiation exposure from radioactive materials, the potential for this to enter the food chain, and the effects of this over time.

The KiKK study was only mentioned to show that there is research suggesting a link between nuclear power plants and increased health risks.

My approach was far more cautious than what you have been portraying it to be.

On a broader note, that was just one of 17 reasons I listed as why nuclear energy is bad for the environment. Even if you removed that, my point there would still have remained, but you completely missed this in your ‘cherry-picking-on’ of just one of my points. Worse still, you’re still going on about it to make it look like everything else I have said should therefore be brought into question because of that.

This is both desperate and dishonest.

Note there are small amounts of rdiation from coal fired power
stations also, although I do not know what are the relationships.

John,

You said,

"nuclear plants release small amounts of radiation during normal operations, and cumulative exposure to this radiation could increase health risks over time."

So you do believe in pseudoscience. There is no evidence to support your claim that people come to harm from nuclear power plants during normal operations. The kikk study you mentioned, linking leukemia with proximity to a nuclear power station, was not supported by numerous followup studies. Further, your other claims of possible harm are vague and have no evidential support either. The amount of radiation that people might receive is incredibly small, perhaps a day of background radiation from living next to a nuclear power plant for ten years, so it is little wonder that there is no indication of harm from them.

Nuclear power is safer than all other forms of power generation. On a death rate basis, nuclear has a mortality rate of 0.03 deaths per terawatt hour of generation, midway between solar (0.02) and wind (0.04). Because solar and wind require firming from other energy generation (biomass (4.6 deaths per terawatt hour generation), natural gas (2.8 deaths per terawatt hour generation), hydro (1.3 deaths per terawatt hour generation), a system using them could easily have a death rate tens of times higher than nuclear.

"Nuclear energy, because of the sheer volume of electricity generated and low amount of associated deaths, is one of the world’s safest energy sources, despite common perceptions."

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/charted-safest-and-deadliest-energy-sources/

Fester,

No, I still don’t believe in pseudoscience. I just finished explaining why, too.

Why are you still focusing on that KiKK study? Let’s both agree that it’s been thoroughly discredited. So what? It makes no difference to what I said.

I’ve already addressed your claim that nuclear has resulted in less deaths than wind and solar in a previous discussion. Are we going to go through it again?

Fine.

Here’s what your figures don’t account for:

-Falls from rooftops installing solar panels and falls from wind turbines are occupational hazards, not inherent dangers of renewable energy itself.

-Renewable energy sources like solar and wind generate less electricity per unit compared to nuclear.

-Nuclear energy's long-term risks are harder to quantify and aren’t counted in the immediate death statistics.

-The death rates for renewables may include fatalities from the entire supply chain (e.g. mining, manufacturing) leading to an exaggerated comparison.

-The potential under-reporting of nuclear’s long-term health effects.

By the way, I still listed 16 other hazards of nuclear power that you haven’t addressed. Providing dodgy figures and clinging on for dear life to the 17th doesn’t negate them.

John,

You are only further demonstrating your pseudoscientific bent. Prime example of pseudoscientific thinking:

"Why are you still focusing on that KiKK study? Let’s both agree that it’s been thoroughly discredited. So what? It makes no difference to what I said."

Exactly. For the pseudoscientist the evidence is irrelevant to the belief held. So while the pseudoscientist might present evidence as a basis for their belief, that belief will remain intact if the evidence is discredited, as is yours apparently.

"By the way, I still listed 16 other hazards of nuclear power that you haven’t addressed. Providing dodgy figures and clinging on for dear life to the 17th doesn’t negate them."

All of those examples of harm you gave are based on the idea I criticised, so yes they are negated if the premise is false. That's how science works. For the pseudoscientist however, every bit of rubbish presented stands in its own right. And seriously, would disproving all of them alter your opinion? You're a pseudoscientist John. Your opinion is not evidence based. A further example:

"-Nuclear energy's long-term risks are harder to quantify and aren’t counted in the immediate death statistics."

Yeah, harder to quantify because nothing gets found to form an evidence based opinion that there is any harm. Yet for pseudoscientist John that's not a problem.

And this gem from you:

"-Renewable energy sources like solar and wind generate less electricity per unit compared to nuclear."

The comparison is on a per unit of generation basis, so that comment makes no sense. Never mind John. Anything that does not support your silly beliefs must be false.

Fester,

How did you get to “further” in “You are only further demonstrating your pseudoscientific bent” when every one of your attempts to show this have failed so far? This next one fails, too, I’m afraid. Let’s look at why that is:

I didn’t present the KiKK study as evidence for my claim. Scroll up and read what I said again. You’ve also ignored the fact that my point still holds without it.

Strike.

//All of those examples of harm you gave are based on the idea I criticised, so yes they are negated if the premise is false.//

No, they bore no relation at all. Radiation was the only overlap, and not in all cases either:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23028#395906

Strike.

//Yeah, harder to quantify because nothing gets found to form an evidence based opinion that there is any harm.//

No, nuclear energy's long-term risks are harder to quantify due to factors such as long latency periods (making it hard to directly link health issues to nuclear exposure) and underreporting (especially in less developed regions).

That’s three strikes.

//The comparison is on a per unit of generation basis ...//

Yes, but it still doesn’t account for the many factors I listed earlier.

John,

You are just splopping out ACF dogma. Very unoriginal. Try forming your own opinions. Right or wrong they are yours and you are free to alter or discard them as you wish, so argument can only be of benefit to you.

Make your own arguments: It's character building.

Fester,

My claims are derived from peer-reviewed data. I don’t care what the ACF says (although, it doesn’t surprise me that they’re saying the same things.)

I HAVE formed my own opinions. You, on the other hand, have staked your position out in advance out in advance, and now sort through the data employing confirmation bias as you go by looking for evidence that supports your pre-existing beliefs while dismissing or ignoring data that contradicts them.

Which is textbook denialism.

Had none of the above been the case, then you would just tell me why each of my points are wrong instead of dressing up denialism as ‘forming one’s own opinion’.

Try following the evidence rather than sorting through it and cherry-picking the bits you like: It’s character-building.

https://youtu.be/RadP67779II?si=q8cl7qHx9T3F9UT9

For everyone who thinks they're not indoctrinated !

John,

I am a real person presenting real opinions. You are a pretend person here spouting the Australian Conservation Foundation's view pretty much verbatim. As for cherry picking, that is yet another dishonest accusation from you as my challenge to you has been to give the positive example of wind and solar, something you have as yet failed to do.

Here's a cold hard fact (as opposed to a cherry) for you to mull over: Biomass generates four times as much CO2 per unit of power generation as coal. So for all the hundreds of billions of Euros that Germany has spent on its transition to renewables, it is currently producing as much CO2 from its biomass generation alone as it would have generated had it gone 100% coal. And thanks to the Greens all their nuclear reactors have been shut down.

Utter lunacy!

Fester,

I visited the ACF’s website just moments ago for the first time in my life, so it is amusing to see you suggest that I’m just mindlessly parroting what they say.

If the ACF say the same things as me, then that’s because that’s what the science says, as my many scholarly, peer-reviewed links have demonstrated.

//As for cherry picking, that is yet another dishonest accusation from you as my challenge to you has been to give the positive example of wind and solar, something you have as yet failed to do.//

So, my accusing you of cherry-picking (and demonstrating it with examples, by the way) is “dishonest” because you have challenged me to give “the” (a?) positive example of wind and solar and I have apparently failed to do this?

What little sense your statement makes amounts to a non-sequitur. The two parts to the statement are unrelated to each other.

It’s also not true.

Your so-called “cold hard fact” is yet another oversimplification. Burning biomass can emit more CO2 per unit of energy than coal, but biomass is part of the carbon cycle - the CO2 released is offset by the CO2 absorbed during plant growth. Coal, on the other hand, releases carbon that’s been locked away for millions of years, adding to atmospheric CO2.

Germany’s energy mix includes wind, solar, and other renewables that don’t emit CO2. Biomass is just one part of this mix and is intended to be used sustainably. Your suggestion that Germany’s biomass emissions are equivalent to going 100% coal is absurd.

Germany’s phasing out of nuclear was done due to safety concerns, particularly after Fukushima, it wasn’t solely due to pressure from the Green Party. Nuclear power might be low in CO2 emissions, but, as you should well know now, it comes with significant environmental and safety risks.

The "hundreds of billions of Euros" spent by Germany is an investment that aims to reduce fossil fuel dependence, enhance energy security, and lower long-term CO2 emissions. Your cold hard furphy misrepresents Germany’s energy transition and the role of biomass.

I’ve just taken a look through all the pages on the ACF’s website about nuclear power and
there’s nothing there that resembles what I’ve said “pretty much verbatim”. This was the closest I could find:

http://www.acf.org.au/six-reasons-why-nuclear-is-bad-for-australia

But the information there is just a fraction of what I’ve said, and a trimmed down version of it at that.

I’m guessing the idea was to again make it appear as though I’m incapable of thinking for myself, while presenting denialism as a virtue.

I’m also guessing you were counting on me not seeing that reply, given how carefully timed your posting of it appears to have been.

Cast in whatever light you please, but there is nothing wrong with forming opinions by basing them on reliable data. In fact, it’s a far better way to form an opinion, and it’s certainly more character building, than staking out a position in advance and then sorting through the data for evidence that supports your position while dismissing the data that contradicts it.

"Your suggestion that Germany’s biomass emissions are equivalent to going 100% coal is absurd."

No John, unlike your ramblings it is a fact. Germany generates at least 25% of its electricity from biomass. Coal generation has 25% the CO2 emissions of biomass, so yes, Germany would generate the same amount of CO2 from 100% coal as it does from biomass alone.

"Germany’s phasing out of nuclear was done due to safety concerns, particularly after Fukushima, it wasn’t solely due to pressure from the Green Party."

Far from bipartisan and tinged with dishonesty:

https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/german-greens-minister-robert-habeck-under-fire-over-2022-nuclear-shutdown/

"I’m also guessing you were counting on me not seeing that reply, given how carefully timed your posting of it appears to have been."

Perhaps that could be a point of discussion between you and your medical practitioner? In the meantime you might look for some real world examples to validate your claims. Perhaps the ACF can inform you as soon as they find something?

And the destruction of Germany's nuclear power plants has been a disaster for its transition to low carbon energy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany

"While nuclear power was gradually phased out of the German power mix, Germany increased its use of fossil fuel energy by 7% over the period 2002–2022, with a massive increase in usage of natural gas and only modest reductions of coal power and oil power.[9] By some estimates, Germany could have achieved a 73% reduction in its carbon emissions by retaining nuclear power during the period 2002–2022 and could have saved €696 billion on its energy transition.[9]"

The Germans were conned John.

"The analysis of these two alternatives shows that Germany could have reached its climate gas emission target by achieving a 73% cut in emissions on top of the achievements in 2022 and simultaneously cut the spending in half compared to Energiewende. Thus, Germany should have adopted an energy policy based on keeping and expanding nuclear power."

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14786451.2024.2355642#abstract

As for the ACF similarity, I only raised the matter after seeing a letter from the organisation in the AFR. I then had a look about the site and thought how similar its opinions were to yours. If you disagree then give an example of how the ACF view on nuclear and Australia's wind and solar transition differs to your own. Simple enough to do I would think.

Fester,

You're still oversimplifying the situation and relying on selective data.

No, Germany doesn't generate at least 25% of its electricity from biomass. The actual percentage is much lower than that. Your claim that "coal generates 25% of the CO2 emissions of biomass" is also wrong. Again, the lifecycle of biomass offsets much of the CO2 released during combustion.

Again, the decision to phase out nuclear power was based on more than just pressure from the Greens. Safety concerns post-Fukushima and broad public sentiment played a big role, too. The bureaucratic process may have been far from perfect but to suggest that the Greens conned Germany into a disastrous policy is partisan rubbish. The link you provided offers no evidence that nuclear power would have solved all of Germany's energy challenges, especially in the face of a global push to move to renewables.

The study you linked to makes very big assumptions about costs, technological capacity, and political feasibility that don't hold up, and its hypothetical investment in nuclear power is just that - hypothetical. In the real world, nuclear projects face massive delays and cost overruns. Comparing the limited output of Germany’s remaining nuclear capacity to a future filled with large-scale nuclear investments ignores the hurdles Germany would have faced.

Then you bring up the ACF again. It's becoming a tiresome trope of yours - trying to discredit me by association rather than addressing the points I raise, which a fallacy known as the ‘association fallacy’. It's pathetic. The ACF shares similar views to me because we both base our opinions on science, not dogma. You continue to conflate disagreement with dishonesty, too, which is yet another hallmark of denialism.

Sorry, Fester. In all my excitement, I forgot to address this:

//Perhaps that could be a point of discussion between you and your medical practitioner?//

Yes, let's pretend you didn't wait until well after 'One quarter back' needed to be selected to view this thread before you posted a response.

Your shabby and fallacious replies since suggest I was never meant to see your comment on Saturday.

Mark Mills is interesting... trained as physicist, worked as engineer, worked at three mile island during the accident, worked for Reagan as an independent advisor (an Agency that was created under Kennedy).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXkEgF1I2FA

Says that "there is no energy transition from hydrocarbons" from a volume point of view, there has been a 2% change as a percentage, insignificant in his view.

Also hydrocarbons dominate transport in the world.

Also hydrocarbons are used in making plastic and many other products. (Life itself is hydrocarbons.)

Wood and other biomass still dominates wind and solar by 2.5x worldwide.

There is no real solution to the "network of networks" distribution problems.

2/3 of the worlds aluminium comes from wood/ coal fired Chinese power stations/ foundries.