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 The notion that intermittency is a fatal issue is outdated - something we’ve discussed numerous times.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.