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.