There was an interesting article on the various ABC organs last week from their economics writer, Alan Kohler....http://tiny.cc/gwyd001

Not so much interesting for what it said, but for the fact that the ABC was publishing what used to be heresy.

Essentially he's saying that net zero is dead, can never be achieved and will never be achieved. Saying that even a year ago would have been a firing offence on the oh-so woke ABC.

Kohler is pointing out that, with the US now abandoning all the climate hysteria, combined with the developing world continuing to ignore all attempts to reduce CO2e emissions, the world can never achieve net zero in 2050, or any other time for that matter.

The question now becomes when will the Australian polity catch up or catch on. Clearly both major parties are wedded to telling the populace that the now unachievable remains achievable, one side via renewables the other through nukes. It just becomes a question as to when one or t'other will break ranks and announce that they've abandoned net zero. That it will happen is a given but the when remains unknown.

As electricity prices continue to soar with up to 9% increases slated for later this year, the government's capacity to keep a lid on it via 'one off' hand-outs will diminish although we can expect massive subsidies being announced next week.

But a party going to the electorate with a promise to abandon all the climate hysteria including net zero and pushing for the cheapest form of power rather the politically correct form of power, would garner massive support from a wearied and worried electorate.

Its just a matter of time.

(You might also find this instructive... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN_ARfPY9rY)

It's being said more and more in the rest of the world. Trump has given Net Zero the flick. Unfortunately, we in Australia seem to have particularly pigheaded and stupid politicians on both sides of the fence.

All will be well, with a couple of forum old farts employed to shovel plutonium into the boiler down at Dud Duttons nuclear reactor plant.

Why are you octogenarians so concerned about the year 2050 (the youngest of you will be 105 by then)? Climate Change is with us here and now in 2025, that's what we should be concerned about!

I still stand by my original position.
I wholeheartedly support things that are better for the environment, but I don't think we should cut our noses off to spite our faces.

I think China had the right idea, for years they had a smog haze hanging over some of their cities and people were wearing masks just because of the air quality, but they built themselves up to something better, effectively 'powering out of it' slowly moving towards cleaner energy.

In 2023, fossil fuels accounted for 61% of China's total electricity generation, with coal being the primary source. While coal remains dominant, its share of the electricity mix has been decreasing, with a record-low 53% share in May 2024. As of February 2023, China has 55 plants with 57GW in operation, 22 under construction with 24 GW and more than 70 planned with 88GW.

We were already struggling to be competitive, and what do we do, let the climate change mob and those advocating international treaties and those beholden to large investors like Blackrock dictate the path forward, we shut all the coal plants down, drove electricity prices up, and made ourselves even less competitive.

China has drastically improved air quality in its cities.
'You don't get rid of the old without having the next better thing ready'.
We cut our noses off to spite our faces, and why?
- Because we're a nation run by idiots.

mhaze,

You’ve been calling net zero “dead” for years, yet the world keeps moving towards it anyway.

You've misrepresented Kohler’s argument. He’s not saying net zero is impossible - he’s saying the current approach isn’t working fast enough. That’s a call for better policy, not surrender. If anything, his piece demands more effective climate action, not less.

Your claim that the US has abandoned climate "hysteria" is premature. The Inflation Reduction Act represents the largest climate investment in U.S. history, and the transition to renewables is now market-driven. Even if political winds shift, big business isn’t walking away from clean energy.

The old “but China and India!” argument is outdated. China leads the world in renewable energy investment, and India is expanding solar and wind at an astonishing rate. Yes, they still use fossil fuels, but they’re transitioning - just like everyone else.

Abandoning net zero wouldn’t just be bad for the planet, it would be economic suicide. Businesses and investors are already shifting toward renewables because they’re cheaper than coal and gas. You can shout “bring back coal!” all you want, but the market isn't listening.

Blaming renewables for rising electricity prices doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. The main driver of higher costs has been the volatility of fossil fuel prices, particularly gas and coal, which have surged due to global events like the war in Ukraine. Conversely, renewable provide a more stable and increasingly cheaper source of energy. The best way to reduce costs over time is to accelerate the transition away from expensive, unpredictable fossil fuels.

Polls consistently show Aussies want net zero, with frustration actually being with its implementation being too slow. The only people obsessed with killing net zero are those treating energy policy as a culture war.

You can keep calling net zero “dead,” but the facts don’t support you. Renewables are getting cheaper, fossil fuels more expensive, and the market has already shifted. The real question is how much longer we’ll waste time indulging people who still think fighting renewables is a winning battle.

It’s just a matter of time.

Theodor Herzl's famous quote (in origin regarding a Jewish state): “If you really want it, then it is no fairy tale”

Yes, If you really want it, then it is no fairy tale:
Nukes can achieve net zero - just vaporise all humans!

No matter how you grind it up in the end solar, wind & batteries are
never going to make it.
They cannot beat a wind drought an overcast day, a cold still night
and a flat battery ! Followed by no wind, overcast sky and a battery
still sitting there flat.

"China leads the world in renewable energy investment, and India is expanding solar and wind at an astonishing rate."

Still at it I see, John. Yes, the rise of renewables is astonishing:

"In essence nothing has changed year-on-year. Although renewable energy output has risen by 13%, its share of total energy has only gone from 1.5% to 1.7% (in contrast to EuroNews’ attempts to fool readers with claims of an increase of a whopping 266 gigawatts)."

https://stopthesethings.com/2023/08/15/why-wind-solars-contribution-to-world-energy-demand-will-always-be-trivial/

If only the harm to Australia's environment and economy from pursuing the wind and solar con were as trivial.

Oh yes, as far as net zero goes, we struggle to reduce the co2 in the
atmosphere down by 3 %.
What effect will that have against natures 97% ?
Gawd help us !

Fester,

I see you’ve still at been it, too - cherry-picking stats to make it sound like renewables are irrelevant when the reality says otherwise.

That “1.5% to 1.7%” stat is misleading because it refers to total primary energy, which includes everything - coal, oil, gas, transport fuels, and industrial processes. Of course, the transition looks slow when you lump it in with every bit of fossil fuel burned worldwide. But when we look at electricity generation, where renewables actually compete, the numbers tell a very different story.

Globally, renewables now produce over 30% of electricity, and that’s climbing fast. China alone installed more solar in 2023 than the entire world did in 2022. Wind and solar are now outpacing new fossil fuel additions every year. The IEA has repeatedly stated that renewables are the cheapest and fastest-growing energy source on the planet.

So, yeah, if you zoom out and try to make it sound like renewables have barely budged in “total energy,” you can pretend it’s all trivial. But when you actually look at what’s happening in the energy sector itself, it’s clear: fossil fuels are on borrowed time, and renewables are taking over. You don’t have to like it, but pretending it’s not happening won’t change reality.

Hi Fester and John,

I checked the stats Fester, and what John said; "Globally, renewables now produce over 30% of electricity", is true, making your "total energy has only gone from 1.5% to 1.7%" misleading, as we are talking about electricity production not total energy consumption.

Hi AC,

What is good for China, is good for China. The Australian situation is somewhat different, with old coal and gas fired power stations coming to the end of their lives, we have to look to replacing the shortfall in production from those stations. The fact is no one is interested in privately investing in new fossil fuel stations, nor are they interested in investing in Dutton's nuclear stations, they don't make economic sense, the payback is not there. The Coalition is committing billions of taxpayer dollars to a somewhat dubious government funded nuclear project.

The pathway to the future, although it seems to be a bumpy road, is clear, renewables are the only real alternative for Australia. In the meantime we need a transitional energy policy which includes fossil fuels, but a policy that sees those fuels being phased out over time, in favour of renewables. Agree?

Paul and John,

I would suggest that you are the ones cherry picking. If you want to cut carbon emissions you have go much further than electricity. Cement is an example: Why isn't there more effort to transition to low or negative carbon alternatives?

A fraction of a percent gain per year is less than a twentieth the rate of renewable energy installation required for there to be a transition. Note that the life of wind and solar projects is about twenty years, and I've read of many projects becoming a toxic waste problem over shorter time frames.

A common feature of the misleading nonsense you present here John is your use of extrapolation: In this instance it is the overwhelming momentum of growth in wind and solar. I would suggest to you that wind and solar, like cherry picking, can be integrated into the grid in small amounts, provided there is redundant dispatchable capacity, but things get very difficult and costly as you try to increase the contribution. Again, I would direct you to the cost analysis of Robert Idel which shows that trying to power a grid with wind and solar is about triple that of going nuclear.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JB-x88wPQuKwWoFnxvkDAzbJ7hnM1-sj/view

Here is where the wind and solar con will take Australia:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5W0X9XJujzw

Fester,

I had a look at the Robert Idel report you linked to, and it doesn't actually support your argument that renewables are a dead-end.

Idel’s LFSCOE method assumes wind and solar have to supply 100% of power, backed only by storage. But no serious energy planner is suggesting a grid that relies on renewables alone with nothing else in the mix. That’s an unrealistic scenario that inflates the costs of wind and solar. Even his LFSCOE-95 model, which allows for a 95% renewable grid, shows that renewables become far more competitive, especially in Texas, as storage costs drop.

Even with Idel’s assumptions, however, his LFSCOE-95 analysis (which allows for 95% renewables rather than 100%) shows that wind and solar can become cost-competitive in certain regions, particularly Texas, as storage costs decrease. That undercuts the idea that renewables are always prohibitively expensive.

As for nuclear, Idel's own numbers show it’s not a slam-dunk replacement. The LFSCOE of nuclear in Texas is $134/MWh, while natural gas combined cycle is $46/MWh - meaning gas is still the cheapest dispatchable option, not nuclear. Wind and solar do have high LFSCOE costs under his method, but that's largely because he assumes they must operate independently with massive storage.

Now, let’s talk about the real world rather than cost models with extreme assumptions. Countries with high renewables penetration - Denmark, Germany, and even parts of Australia - aren’t experiencing grid collapse. They're integrating wind, solar, hydro, and some storage while phasing out fossil fuels. And China, which you seemed skeptical about earlier, is still installing renewables at record levels because, at scale, they are cheaper than new coal and gas plants.

So, if the argument is "nuclear is an option," sure - it should be part of the conversation. But if the argument is "renewables can never work," Idel’s own data doesn’t support that conclusion, and neither does the real-world energy market.

I trust this clears up any misunderstanding on your part about who is cherry-picking.

"Mhaze, You’ve been calling net zero “dead” for years, yet the world keeps moving towards it anyway."

Well yes I have. Well not really 'dead' buy comatose. Rather proud of it. But I wonder how you know that given that you've only been on the site for less than a year? Someone like SteeleRedux, who spent years trying to prove me wrong and failing, might have known that, but not someone who's been here less than a year. Or have you been furthering your education by reading all my old posts?

mhaze,

You may not recall, but I did tell you months ago that I stumbled upon a comment of yours from 2013 claiming that the science of anthropogenic climate change was supposedly in its "death throes."

(Ctrl+F can be a powerful tool.)

Yet, 12 years later, here we are - with even more evidence for anthropogenic climate change and still nothing to support the deniers' ideologically-driven motivated reasoning - leaving them to repeat their simplistic or long-discredited claims about Antarctica gaining ice or that it hasn't warmed since 1998.

I'm not really interested in all the claims and counter-claims about renewables since they are no longer relevant. Renewables might be cheap or cheaper. They might yet achieve break-throughs that alter the equations. (Lomborg long ago predicted that storage would be sufficient to make solar base-load by 2040).

But that isn't the point here. The whole failed notion of net-zero by 2050 is falling apart and we, in Australia, need to recognise that so as to not sacrifice our economy and well-being to a false God.

The US has now abandon the climate control nonsense. China never bought it and continues to increase its emissions (they've tripled in the past 20years) although they make all sorts of promises that aren't kept. OTOH their emissions will probably start to stabilise as their aging economy starts to unravel.

Likewise India never bought in. Like China, emissions have trebled since 2000 and show little sign of stopping. India doesn't even bother promising to stop the increase any time soon.

Russia is the fourth biggest emitter and likewise pays no attention to the net zero mantra.

Those 4 make up over 50% of all emissions (and growing) and none are signed up to net zero or even to attempts to reduce emissions.

The EU continues to make the appropriate (unfulfilled) promises but even there more informed voices are admitting that net zero in 2050 is impossible without massive new investments which no one is prepared to make.

So here's little Australia, promising to save the world from a problem that the world ignores. At some point we, or our politicians, will wake up

"You may not recall, but I did tell you months ago that I stumbled upon a comment of yours from 2013 claiming that the science of anthropogenic climate change was supposedly in its "death throes.""

Oh so you are trolling through my old posts to educate yourself. Good to hear.

But I doubt you ever found a post of mine saying anything other than "anthropogenic climate change" was true. My constant point since around 2001 has been that the claims for Catastrophic Global Warming are wrong.
I've always accepted global warming and that man has played some part in it.

Perhaps you need to go back and re-educate yourself using my posts.

BTW, deliberately misconstruing my views was something that SteeleRedux used to be very adept at.

We are constantly told that solar and wind are the cheapest form of power. And its true when they are working. But in the middle of the night, solar is the most expensive for of power ever since you can't buy it for any price.

http://youtu.be/dN_ARfPY9rY?t=350

That talk and the graph it uses shows that the more renewables a nation has the higher the average price of electricity the country suffers. Watch it and learn that the carpetbaggers have been selling you a pup.

Recently, AEMO announced that prices will increase again later this year. One of the main reasons for the rise is the cost of building polls and wires from the renewables farms to where the power is actually needed. People who claim renewables are the cheapest form of power always ignore these additional costs. Sure, it might be cheap to get power from some solar farm in Upper Kumbakta West but getting it to where its needed is vastly expensive. But they don't include that in their calculations. So prices go up and we wonder why.

Recently a lot of people have been fretting over the problems for the aluminium industry because of that nasty Mr Trump. But if they were really concerned about the aluminium industry they'd be fretting over the never-ending rise in electricity prices of which aluminium is a major user. But blaming tariffs is much easier and morally satisfying than looking at the actual problem

The key is to use whatever is the most efficient depending on where you live.

If you live in a place where it's sunny a lot of the time, use solar, no so good if ifs often overcast.
If you live on the side of a hill where there's a lot of wind, throw in some small wind turbines, no so good if it's not windy.
If you live in a place where there's a creek and flowing water, tap into it if you can get decent pressure at the well head.
I've seen videos of people modifying old washing machines to do this.

10kw batteries are only about AU$4k now, and considering the price of grid power isn't cheap, it can be cost effective, use whatever works best for the situation.

And you don't have to use brand new solar panels, second hand ones can be picked up cheap, and still generate 90+% power.
Better they stay producing power - the purpose for which they were created for with fossil fuels than in landfill too soon.

mhaze,

If you're "not really interested" in the renewable debate, it's worth noting that it's central to your own argument. You claim net zero is collapsing and Australia should abandon it because the world supposedly has - but the viability of net zero depends entirely on how feasible and affordable clean energy becomes. That’s not a side issue - it’s the heart of it.

You say the U.S. has abandoned climate action, but the Inflation Reduction Act is still in place, and renewable investment is booming - even in conservative states - because it makes economic sense.

China and India’s emissions have grown, yes, but both are also scaling up renewables faster than any other countries. Their emissions increases are tied to economic development, not a refusal to act. They’re not following a Western blueprint, but they are transitioning.

Pointing to Russia - a petrostate - as a reason for Australia to give up is like saying we shouldn’t pursue healthcare reform because North Korea isn’t interested.

Europe has had setbacks, but countries like Germany and Denmark are still moving forward with significant renewable integration. It’s not smooth, but it’s far from collapse.

You claim net zero is “falling apart,” but where’s the evidence of major economies formally abandoning the goal? Acknowledging the challenges is one thing; declaring the whole effort dead is another.

And no, Australia isn’t "trying to save the world alone." We're part of a broader global shift. More importantly, renewable energy is now in our own national interest - economically, environmentally, and strategically. Acting like we’re lone fools while everyone else walks away just isn’t reality.

//BTW, deliberately misconstruing my views was something that SteeleRedux used to be very adept at.//

Well then, all you need to do now is catch me deliberately misconstruing your views and then you'll have your "smoking gun," eh? But it makes no difference to me if you think I'm SteelRedux other than the fact that I find his posting style a little irritating and smug - and your suspicion a rather amusing demonstration of your apparent imperceptiveness.

" but the Inflation Reduction Act is still in place"

Meanwhile, in the real world....

"WASHINGTON (AP) — In what he called the “most consequential day of deregulation in American history,” the head of the [EPA] announced a series of actions Wednesday to roll back landmark environmental regulations, including rules on pollution from coal-fired power plants, climate change and electric vehicles.

“We are driving a dagger through the heart of climate-change religion and ushering in America’s Golden Age,’' EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in an essay in The Wall Street Journal.

If approved after a lengthy process that includes public comment, the Trump administration’s actions will eliminate trillions of dollars in regulatory costs and “hidden taxes,” Zeldin said, lowering the cost of living for American families and reducing prices for such essentials such as buying a car, heating your home and operating a business.

“Our actions will also reignite American manufacturing, spreading economic benefits to communities,” he wrote. “Energy dominance stands at the center of America’s resurgence.”

In all, Zeldin said he is rolling back 31 environmental rules, including a scientific finding that has long been the central basis for U.S. action against climate change."

________________________________________________________________

I didn't mention Russia as an example for Australia, but simply to round out the list of the top emitting countries in the world. Misconstruing again?

_____________________________________________________________________

As to SteeleRedux I just find it passing strange that you arrived at the moment he left and your styles are very similar. Reinterpret a point and then demand the writer justify this incorrect reinterpretation.

I'mnot worried by it. Just find it interesting. We have had, over the years, quite a few posters who retire one nickname which has become too toxic due to error, only to re-emerge with a new pristine clean slate so to speak. Armchair Critic is one current. We also had a chap named 'ant' who made so many errors he went through 4 nicks that I identified - probably more. We also had one who ran two nicks at the same time, one female, each of which gave fulsome praise to t'other

mhaze,

Fair point. Yes, we’re seeing a rollback of climate regulations in the U.S. at the federal level. But even so, that doesn’t mean net zero is globally dead or that Australia should pack it in. And Trump’s poorly thought-through rollbacks are unlikely to last much beyond his second term - even if another Republican is elected president.

The Inflation Reduction Act, though now under pressure, has already kickstarted huge investments that are still playing out across the U.S. Private companies, states, and even Republican-led regions are pressing ahead with clean energy - not because they’re climate evangelists, but because the economics stack up. The momentum that’s been built won’t vanish overnight, even with federal pushback.

Yes, it’s a setback. But not collapse. China, India, the EU, and large swathes of the U.S. are still moving forward - some out of climate concern, others out of plain economic pragmatism. Australia stepping away now because of a political swing elsewhere would be like jumping off a moving train because someone in another carriage changed seats. It’s reactionary, not strategic.

John,

"Even with Idel’s assumptions, however, his LFSCOE-95 analysis (which allows for 95% renewables rather than 100%) shows that wind and solar can become cost-competitive in certain regions, particularly Texas, as storage costs decrease. That undercuts the idea that renewables are always prohibitively expensive."

Yet another example of your all too common dishonesty. What you fail to mention is that wind and solar becomes cost competitive if the storage costs fall by 95%, and then only with nuclear and biomass, not coal or gas. But wait, there's more.

" But no serious energy planner is suggesting a grid that relies on renewables alone with nothing else in the mix. That’s an unrealistic scenario that inflates the costs of wind and solar. "

Well pardon me for thinking otherwise, not least because it is what people are claiming, not to mention the anti fossil fuel stance of governments causing a pending gas supply crisis. Nor is your statement consistent with your repeated falsehood that wind and solar are the cheapest, not that making truthful and consistent statements has ever been a concern for you. Very fitting though for a fellow who believes truth a simple matter to determine, but I'd guess that the truth as you see it always is.

https://www.unsw.edu.au/news/2024/09/solar-everywhere-how-renewable-energy-will-meet-100-per-cent-electricity-needs-by-2050

Fester,

First, I didn’t "fail to mention" the 95% figure - you’re quoting me acknowledging that renewables become competitive as storage costs decrease, which is exactly what Idel’s own report explores. I simply summarised the main point relevant to the broader discussion, rather than copying in every number. That’s not dishonesty; it’s called editing for clarity. You’re just filling in the detail - not proving a contradiction.

And yes, in Idel’s model, wind and solar become competitive with biomass and nuclear under LFSCOE-95 when storage costs drop significantly. That still undercuts the blanket claim that renewables are always prohibitively expensive, which was the point being challenged.

Now onto your bigger complaint - that I’m somehow contradicting myself by saying wind and solar are cheap, while also saying 100% renewables isn’t realistic in the short term. There’s no contradiction. Wind and solar are the cheapest forms of new electricity generation on a LCOE basis. That’s backed by the IEA, CSIRO, Lazard, and even the EIA. Idel’s LFSCOE is a different model designed to test worst-case scenarios - not everyday grid design.

As for the UNSW article, yes, it does talk about Australia getting to 100% renewables by 2050, but it’s not saying we’ll do it with just solar panels and wishful thinking. They mention the stuff I've gong through with you over and over: grid upgrades, big storage, better transmission, a proper energy mix. It’s a long-term plan, not some fantasy where we shut off fossil fuels overnight and hope for the best.

(Perhaps you'd remember me mentioning these if you weren't so focused on pretending that I have some dishonest tricks up my sleave that you never seem to be about to point to an example of?)

So if your point is that 100% renewables is being discussed, sure - it is. But your claim that governments are blindly trying to run grids on wind and solar alone, right now, without support or backup, is a straw man. The actual discussions - like the UNSW article - are far more nuanced than you're giving them credit for.

Interesting revelations from the Mother Country....

"Net zero could CRASH Britain's economy with poorest in society hit hardest, leaked document admits".... https://www.gbnews.com/news/net-zero-crash-britain-economy-government-document-leaked

The funniest part of this is that the UK government is promising that prices will in fact fall once their fevered dreams become a reality.

Some of us remember that the Albanese then-opposition prior to the last election were promising that power prices would fall when their plans were installed, and would come down by $300 or so before 2026. Instead prices have skyrocketed and they are trying to dampen anger and dull memories by throwing taxpayer money at it.

Now we find AEMO agreeing to allow an up-to 9% increase in electricity prices starting later this year. In the fine print of the announcement was the advice that one of the main reasons for the increase was the cost of poles and wires to carry the power from where the renewables make it to where the public use it.

Its long been recognised that this is one of the major cost factors involved in the rush to renewables. But in the anxiety to pretend renewables are cheap, these add-on costs are ignored or at least not included in the overall cost of the 'clean' farms.

Yet we know that as a matter of simple statistics, the more renewables a country has the higher the power costs.....

http://tiny.cc/zu6e001 (watch the following two minutes of the video).

This is an incredibly important data point - the more renewables a nation has, the higher the nation's power costs.

The US is no longer playing that game and is aiming for power supremacy. China, India, Russia etc were never in that game. Its only a matter of time before Australia wakes up to reality. Whichever party first goes down that track will have a massive political advantage

Only an idiotic mind would believe that Zero emission is a possibility ! It's like saying there's no reaction to an action !

mhaze,

You’re drawing a straight line between renewables and rising power prices, but that leaves out a whole lot of context.

A major part of the reason for rising of electricity prices has been fossil fuel chaos, not renewables. Gas and coal prices spiked thanks to global events like the Ukraine war, and that flowed straight through to our power bills. That happened before most of the current renewable projects had even started delivering serious supply.

And sure, upgrading the grid costs money. But saying that’s somehow a unique downside of renewables ignores the fact that any serious energy transition would need grid upgrades. Our current system is old and wasn’t built for modern energy use - whether that’s rooftop solar or a big coal station in a different location. It’s not some sneaky hidden cost - it’s infrastructure finally catching up.

The idea that more renewables = higher prices is one of those things that sounds right until you look closer. A lot of the higher prices in countries like Denmark and Germany come from energy taxes and early investments when renewables were far more expensive. Meanwhile, places like Spain, Portugal, and even parts of the U.S. are now seeing prices come down because renewables are cheaper to build and run.

That UK leak? Governments write worst-case memos all the time. It doesn’t mean those outcomes are locked in. The UK is still pressing ahead, because doing nothing comes with its own massive costs.

And despite the politics, clean energy investment in the U.S. hasn’t stopped - it’s just shifting to states and the private sector. Australia pulling back now wouldn’t be bold. It’d just be late.

John,

The only net zero being demonstrated is your appreciation of logical argument. You present one comically absurd argument after another (e.g. <wind and solar are the cheapest energy sources, yet no one would rely solely on wind and solar because it would be too expensive>, and <wind and solar are cost competitive because they would be if the cost of storage dropped by 95%>), yet, as far as I can make out, you seem to think that you can make your arguments valid by fluffing them up and throwing in words like "nuanced". You cannot.

Note the recent story of wind farms in the UK being paid 180k pounds an hour for being switched off. The same thing happens in Australia, but it is kept secret. Not for much longer.

Fester,

If you think pointing out the limits of a system is the same as contradicting myself, you might want to slow down and read more carefully.

Saying "wind and solar are the cheapest" and "you wouldn’t rely on them alone" isn’t a contradiction - it’s just reality. They’re cheap to produce per MWh, but they’re also variable, which means they need support from storage, transmission, or dispatchable generation. That doesn’t make them bad - it means they’re part of a broader system, not a magic bullet. Nobody credible is arguing for a grid made of nothing but solar panels and wind turbines with no backup or planning. That’s a straw man.

As for the storage point, again - you’re twisting it. I never said renewables are currently cost-competitive under full-grid replacement models. I said that even under Idel’s extremely conservative LFSCOE model, once you ease the assumptions (like allowing 95% instead of 100% supply, and reducing storage costs), renewables start to look competitive even in that rigid scenario. That doesn’t make them a silver bullet today - but it shows they’re not inherently doomed, which was your claim.

Now about the UK wind curtailment - yes, it happens. Sometimes wind generation outpaces demand or transmission capacity, and operators are paid to curtail production. It’s not a secret, and it’s not some dark conspiracy - it’s a known side effect of a transitioning grid. The same kind of inefficiencies exist in fossil systems too - like keeping expensive gas plants online for rare peaks. Grid management has always involved trade-offs and occasional waste.

If you want to argue that renewables need planning, infrastructure, and good policy to work, we agree. But if you’re saying they’re inherently flawed because they don’t work like baseload coal, you’re not making a logical point - you’re just demanding perfection from one side while ignoring the mess of the other.

"You’re drawing a straight line between renewables and rising power prices, but that leaves out a whole lot of context."

Well no. The data is doing that. Did you check the Lomborg data I posted? This isn't a one-off thing. This isn't just a phenomena restricted to Australia or a particular time. This is data from all over the world.

The relationship isn't one-to-one but it is clear. No matter where you are in place or time, the higher the percentage of power generated by solar/wind, the higher the electricity costs. Sure there are all sorts of particular reasons in particular places, but the relationship remains the same.

Most nations are now seeing the truth of that. We will eventually catch on as well.

mhaze,

I did look at the Lomborg data - and like a lot of what he puts out, it’s not that the numbers are fake, it’s that the interpretation is overly simplistic.

Yes, there’s a pattern in some countries where higher renewable penetration correlates with higher electricity prices. But correlation isn’t causation, and context matters. Many of those countries (e.g., Germany and Denmark) started their transition decades ago when renewables were far more expensive and less efficient. They also layered in high energy taxes, carbon pricing, and legacy grid costs. Naturally, their prices reflect all of that.

But now look at places like Spain, Portugal, parts of the US, or even South Australia more recently - newer renewable capacity is often bringing costs down, especially during peak daylight hours. The economics of wind and solar have shifted dramatically in the last 10 years, and using older data to argue against present-day viability is misleading.

The idea that "the data proves renewables = higher prices" only holds if you ignore every other factor: fuel import costs, market structures, government policy, infrastructure age, storage capacity, and demand profiles. Energy systems are complex, and pulling one lever while pretending the rest don’t exist doesn’t give you a clear picture.

Most nations aren’t suddenly “seeing the truth” and walking away from renewables. They're adjusting, refining, and improving integration - because abandoning the transition means higher long-term costs, more exposure to volatile fossil fuel markets, and missed industrial opportunities.

We’ll catch on, sure - but not in the way you're hoping. Not by giving up, but by doing it smarter.

John,

It is truly breathtaking how you twist and distort things, then accuse others of doing as much. Idel's analysis shows how expensive it is to pursue wind and solar, but suggests that if storage costs become much cheaper it might be a viable option. You are the one engaged in distortion here by claiming that the analysis shows that wind and solar are cost competitive.

"Nobody credible is arguing for a grid made of nothing but solar panels and wind turbines with no backup or planning. That’s a straw man."

When people say that wind and solar are the cheapest, I would suggest that is exactly what they are claiming, but it is hard to fathom what you are on about here given that you said this to mhaze:

"The economics of wind and solar have shifted dramatically in the last 10 years, and using older data to argue against present-day viability is misleading."

It would appear that you agree that wind and solar are more expensive, yet when mhaze links you to a Lomborg talk showing a correlation of wind and solar generation with price, you dispute the fact.

"you’re just demanding perfection from one side while ignoring the mess of the other."

That's your straw man, John. Coal fired power has delivered cheap energy and the prosperity that goes with it. I'm guessing that the mess you are referring to is from climate change. My belief is that by pursuing wind and solar as we are, the disaster that will unfold would dwarf anything that climate change might throw at us.

"Grid management has always involved trade-offs and occasional waste."

With wind and solar you waste about a third of the energy you produce. That is much greater than for fossil fuel, hydro, or nuclear.

One further point. You argue that upgrading the grid is a necessity regardless of the energy source, but you don't acknowledge that a grid to cope with wind and solar would cost twice as much. Given that the current grid accounts for 40% of the electricity price, it is an important consideration.

Fester,

What’s “breathtaking” is how persistently you oversimplify the arguments and assign positions to me that I never took.

Idel’s analysis shows that wind and solar can become competitive under certain conditions, specifically when storage costs fall and the system isn’t held to an unrealistic 100% supply requirement. I’ve said clearly that this doesn’t mean they’re the cheapest in all scenarios today. What I pushed back against was your blanket claim that they’re inherently and always uneconomical. Idel’s own LFSCOE-95 figures (especially in Texas, among other places), undercut that.

You seem to think that saying “wind and solar are the cheapest” equals “they can power the grid on their own.” But when experts/agencies make that claim, they’re talking about LCOE (the per-MWh cost) not system-wide replacement without storage or backup. Pretending those are the same thing either misunderstands the terminology or deliberately conflates it.

As for your take on my comment to mhaze: yes, I said older data is misleading if used to make sweeping claims about current viability. That doesn’t contradict the fact that full integration has challenges. It just means you can’t use 2010 costs to argue against 2025 technology.

Coal delivered cheap power in its time. But the “mess” I referred to includes more than just climate change: air pollution, health costs, mining damage, and volatile international fuel prices (which aren't minor.)

Curtailment with wind and solar happens, but let’s not pretend fossil fuels are paragons of efficiency. Thermal plants routinely waste energy as heat, and load-following gas plants often run below optimal efficiency just to stay online. No system is perfect; the question is which trade-offs we’re willing to accept moving forward.

Regarding grid costs: yes, integrating renewables requires more infrastructure. But “twice as much” is an unsubstantiated claim. Grid upgrades serve broader goals, resilience, decentralisation, and reliability, not just renewables. Treating them like a renewable-specific penalty is misleading.

We can have an honest discussion about the pros and cons here, but that’s not possible if you insist on framing everything as a contradiction or conspiracy.

Anyway, I trust you have your breath back now.

I find it simply absurd that not a single post touches on environment effects. I bet if we asked a qualified village idiot as to what causes more pollution, a battery or coal, the answer would be a battery ! Yet none of the "knowing" posters can see that. Were we to ask that same village idiot as to where most money can be syphoned off, from battery manufacturing or mining coal, the answer would be, the battery ! And, that is the the bottom line, that's what this con industry is all about at this stage of experimenting. By all means, once a solution is found go for the least environmentally damaging however, until a solution is found coal is more sensible, more practical & far less polluting ! Sorry, renewable energy investors, you'll have to wait longer than expected to collect dividends ! If you have integrity that is !

Rather than add to the waffle, I am waiting for the coming election results to see what real people think about net-zero - if they think about it at all. So much shite has been dumped on us by the political class that it is difficult for the average voter to pick even the ‘least worst’ these days, or the main problem in their lives.

If Net Zero is the root of all evil: the cause of our increasingly high cost of living, then both major parties are forcing it on us. So, if the great unwashed vote Liberal, Labor, Greens or Teals, they will be colluding in their own misery.

The slight differences in how idiotic Net Zero will be attained (it never will happen anyway) are laughable. None of the renewables/nuclear “solutions” can be achieved before the boat goes down.

Given that there is no sign of Net Zero being dropped by either Labor or the Coalition, the main thing for voters to do is to rid themselves of the ALP.

During Albanese's inappropriate PrimeMinistership, Australia's debt has risen by $63 billion, despite record tax revenues, low unemployment, and increased exports.

Spending has been at record levels under the worst Prime Minister in our history.

If voters cannot bring themselves to try candidates different from the traditional drones, Dutton is still a better proposition than Albanese; the latter being more fiscally reckless than Whitlam and Morrison put together. We are almost $1 trillion in debt!

There has been an 8.4% decline in real per capita income.

According to The Australian of March 11, 49% of the cost of building a house, including the cost of the land, is made up of government taxes, government regulatory costs, and infrastructure charges.

Our CPI increases are the highest of all OECD countries.

The Albanese government is bribing voters with handouts to alleviate mass price rises actually caused by the same government, and splashing more than $120 billion on subsidies for child care, age care, health, housing and, worst of all, useless green energy.

80% of the new jobs created by the Albanese Socialist government have been in the public sector, increasing pay to government employees by $11 billion.

There are 700,000 people, over 50% of them under 18 years of age, clinging to the notorious NDIS.

Australians simply cannot afford the Albanese government for another three years.

John Daysh might be Chris Bowen !

ttbn,

Net Zero is the topic of this thread, so tossing in a laundry list of unrelated grievances just makes it look like you're trying to inspire outrage and create a sense of chaos where there isn't any.

You’ve lumped climate action together with childcare, aged care, health, housing, and even the NDIS - as if all government spending is part of a single conspiracy. What exactly does the NDIS have to do with Net Zero? Nothing. It's a social safety net for people with disabilities, not a climate policy. Throwing it into a rant about energy reform is an obvious attempt to distract rather than inform.

Both major parties still support Net Zero because it's not just about emissions - it's about future-proofing the economy. Global markets are shifting, industries are decarbonising, and countries that fall behind will miss out on investment, trade, and tech opportunities. Pretending we can just stick with coal and hope the world doesn’t notice isn’t a plan.

Yes, debt is high. But blaming it all on clean energy is lazy. The $120 billion you mentioned includes things like aged care, health, and housing - essential services, not green folly. Cost-of-living pressures are real, but they’re being driven largely by global factors: fossil fuel price shocks, supply chain issues, inflationary hangovers from the pandemic. You can criticise handouts, but let’s not pretend they caused the problem they’re trying to offset.

And if your solution is to vote Coalition instead of Labor - that’s your call. But dressing up every problem in the country as the fault of Net Zero or renewable energy is just misdirection.

Net Zero is the topic of this thread,
John Daysh,
Net Zero is the title, the topic is everything that affects society & particularly when it is as negative & destructive as Net Zero as it crosses all boundaries from incompetent Government to the choice of a less incompetent one being available. Apart from the environmental side there are the shortcomings to playing Russian Roulette with our economy by throwing billions into the wind literally !
A thread has to have a topic to get started but to strictly stick to it in the purest form gets it nowhere !
We need ideas for solutions, just pushing an agenda which does nothing more than syphon millions into undeserving pockets is what many of us are trying to stop. This might not suit you but that's how it has to go !

Indyvidual,

Saying that the “topic is everything that affects society” is just a way to excuse derailing the conversation. The thread isn’t titled “everything wrong with the government” - it’s specifically about Net Zero, the viability of climate targets, and the political debate around clean energy policy. That’s what mhaze’s original post focused on. It’s what most of us have been discussing.

You’re right that no policy exists in a vacuum, and sure - some economic or social effects can be linked back to energy decisions. But ttbn’s post wasn’t a thoughtful exploration of that. It was a grab-bag of mostly unrelated grievances - childcare, aged care, NDIS, wage growth in the public sector, housing taxes - barely tied to Net Zero, if at all. That’s not building on the topic. That’s hijacking it.

It’s completely fair to expect a thread to mostly stick to its theme, especially when the original post makes its focus crystal clear. Otherwise, every thread becomes a free-for-all where anyone can toss in whatever bugbear they like and call it “connected.”

You say we need “ideas for solutions.” Great, I agree. But calling for solutions requires sticking to the actual problem being discussed. If we’re talking about climate policy and Net Zero, let’s debate that. Throwing in a rant about the NDIS or housing taxes as if they’re proof that Net Zero is destructive isn’t insightful - it’s just muddying the waters.

To clarify, though, my intention wasn't to police the thread or play gatekeeper. It was to shine a light on the irrelevance of the unrelated topics ttbn introduced.

AGED WELFARE accounted for $51.1 billion (41%) of total welfare spending in Australia 2023/24. Hook these Old Farts up to a treadmill 12 hours a day, sun up, to sun down, producing green energy, lights out at 8pm. I hear you say; How much will this Seniors National Service Green Energy cost? A can of beans per day, per old fart. AND when not on the treadmill, fart gas (beans are a great source of gas) powered generators will take over the electricity supply when the human producers are sleeping! My estimated saving from this is $51 billion (99%) pa. Who needs windmills when you've got beans!

John I do believe the above is on topic, as my battalions of Old Farts, will well and truly have reached their net zero by 2050!

John daysh,
Try as much as you will but there's no denying that there's only one very long term renewable & that's Nature. Nothing mankind created is renewable at Net Zero ! That is one of my points. Another point is that renewables are much, much more costly in every which way than coal. Oil should not actually be in the equation as even renewables are heavily oil dependent ! There's no battling renewables because there aren't any at this stage & the only factor that keeps the renewable bandwagon rolling is dumb as dog crap bureaudroids handing over billions of our Tax Dollars to con merchants !

Indyvidual,

This is exactly the kind of rhetorical fog that makes productive discussion so difficult. You’ve shifted from debating policy or outcomes to broad declarations like “nothing mankind created is renewable at Net Zero.”

What does that even mean in practical terms?

Are you suggesting that because no human-made system is literally infinite, all clean energy efforts are a scam? That logic would disqualify everything we’ve ever built - including coal plants, roads, and even agriculture.

Your claim renewables don’t exist “at this stage” is yet another manifestation of your confusion about what the term "renewables" refers to. It's shorthand for "renewable energy," not "renewable energy hardware."

And while oil is currently used in manufacturing and construction - including for fossil fuel infrastructure - it doesn’t follow that renewables are therefore invalid. Every energy source requires materials and logistics. The difference is that renewables don’t burn fuel every day to keep producing energy. Coal and gas do. That’s the core point of transition - cutting ongoing emissions, not pretending we're building utopia.

As for the "billions handed over to con merchants" line - if you think rorting and mismanagement are unique to clean energy, I’ve got bad news. Fossil fuels have received far more in direct and indirect subsidies, and have been home to some of the biggest corporate welfare arrangements in history. If you're angry about waste and grift, fine - so am I. But let’s aim that at bad governance, not the entire concept of renewable energy.

You can be sceptical. You can ask hard questions. But sweeping claims that renewables "aren’t real" and that nature is the only true energy source aren’t serious arguments - they’re slogans. And they don’t move the discussion forward.

John Daysh,
Your attempts to confuse the debate aren't working.
As for; "And they don’t move the discussion forward".
Well, if it prevents more good funding wasted on the folly of "renewables" then that is a good thing in the eyes of those whose Tax Dollars don't reduce pollution & merely line the pockets of those who knowingly accept funding for no result in return !
As someone recently stated "first they told us to stop cutting trees because they're so vital to the environment & now they're cutting down even more trees to make space for Wind farms" !
Paradoxical alright !

Indyvidual,

Accusing me of “confusing the debate” doesn’t make your argument clearer - it just avoids having to defend it. What I’m doing is pointing out when you make sweeping, absolute claims that don’t line up with reality.

Saying it's “a good thing” if this discussion stops funding for renewables isn't moving a debate forward - that’s shutting it down. No modern energy system is free of trade-offs, including coal and gas. The question isn’t whether renewables are perfect - it’s whether they’re better than what we’re currently stuck with long term. And the data overwhelmingly shows they are, especially when it comes to emissions and long-term operating costs.

As for the “tree cutting” comment - it’s a simplistic meme, not a serious argument. Yes, some projects have raised land-use concerns. But if your standard is “never cut down trees,” then coal mining and oil extraction should’ve been off the table long ago. Let’s not pretend fossil fuel projects have a gentle footprint - they flatten forests, blow up mountains, and poison rivers. At least renewable projects can coexist with farming, be decommissioned more easily, and increasingly include replanting and offsets.

Contributing nothing but one-liners designed to rile people up doesn't to help your case. You’re free to oppose renewables, but if you want to be taken seriously, you’ll need more than recycled punchlines and blanket cynicism.

It seems both major parties are now promising to put more gas (you know that icky fossil fuel stuff) into the system.

Tell me again how we are going to get to net zero by burning MORE fossil fuel.

It looks like we've already abandoned net zero even though the pollies won't admit it... yet.

Indy, I hope you have opted for a burial rather than a cremation...we're burning too much FOSSIL FUEL as it is!

mhaze, NET ZERO is a long term goal, and adding gas to the system in the short term is not relevant to the final outcome. Australia will have to rely on fossil fuel power generation for some time. The reality is coal is in decline, whilst renewables are on the increase. There is no prospect of new investment in coal, and the existing assets are rapidly approaching end of life. Nuclear at best is a rather vague thought bubble preposition from Dutton, with no business case relevant to Australia. Under the Coalition, a decade was wasted with no energy policy, and that led to uncertainty in the market, with a lack of investment. Labor came to power and quickly established their energy policy. For good or for bad, at least we now have a coherent policy, which is giving certainty to the market.

No modern energy system is free of trade-offs, including coal and gas.
John daysh,
That's precisely what I've been on about all along. It's you who keeps bleating Net Zero from non-renewable renewables !
Talk to me again when you get your hands on renewables that are indeed renewable & don't have to be discarded in landfills for future generations having to deal with the pollution effects of your taxpayer funded idealism !
Over & out !

Labor came to power and quickly established their energy policy.
Paul1405,
Lol, Labor's policy is at best a frail hope that the destruction & pollution of the environment will worsen weather patterns i.e. increasingly severe storms that can keep the wind farms turning faster !

Indyvidual,

You say you've been arguing about trade-offs all along - great. Then you should know that every energy source, including coal, has lifecycle costs, waste, and long-term impacts. But only one still pumps out carbon every single day it operates.

You criticise renewables for end-of-life waste, yut fossil fuels create ongoing pollution every single day they're used, and that pollution isn't just theoretical - it’s killing people. The air pollution from coal, oil, and gas contributes to millions of premature deaths globally every year. That’s not future landfill we’re talking about - it’s real harm, happening now.

And as for your “non-renewable renewables” line - yes, components wear out, get replaced, and need recycling. So do turbines in coal plants, oil rigs, pipelines, and pretty much every other piece of industrial infrastructure. That’s not a renewables problem - that’s an engineering reality.

You demand perfection from everything new, yet you expect nothing from the status quo.

So do turbines in coal plants, oil rigs, pipelines, and pretty much every other piece of industrial infrastructure.
John Daysh,
Against my better judgement I'll reply again. All of these on your list are metal & metal can be recycled. Wind generators & Solar panels can not, they'll be pollution forever & they use up way too much land !
In my opinion, the alternative energy movement would be of much more use if they focussed on recycling & using recyclable materials than littering the country side with fibreglass & plastics.
A focus on using less electricity to satisfy frivolous demands would also help a lot more.
I'm all for finding better means of creating energy but I draw the line at billons of dollars worth of clearly unsustainable practices & experiments to line the pockets of investors who only want money !

Far from ending in this backward country, Net Zero is alive and well. The ‘Net Zero Economy Authority' was established at the end of 2024 to “…promote a Net Zero economic transformation for Australia through facilitating investment, supporting workers, fostering inclusive engagement, and ensuring coherent and effective policies to empower communities, regions, and industries”: by, “Building community engagement and coordinating Net Zero related policies and programs”.

The lunatics in government and the bureaucracy seem to be doubling down on Net Zero rather than saying “Bye-bye” to it.

The ratbag ‘Workplace Gender Equality Agency’ intends to increase “women’s workforce participation across male-dominated industries” to “support the transition to Net Zero”!

While the rest of the world looks like turning away from Net Zero, encouraged by the US, Australia gets madder and madder.

The Australian private sector is gradually waking up, but the Albanese budget contains a further $3.4 million for the Australian Public Service Commission to keep the madness going.

Indyvidual,

I knew you wouldn't be able to resist, and I'm glad you couldn't, too, because your last reply leads me to believe that you're more sincere than what I had originally thought.

Solar panels are indeed recyclable, and so are many parts of wind turbines. It’s not hypothetical - recycling programs already exist in Europe, the US, and here. The technology and infrastructure still need to scale, but saying they’ll “be pollution forever” is just not accurate. It’s also worth remembering that coal ash, tailings dams, and slag heaps aren’t exactly disappearing either - and they certainly don’t get recycled into useful materials.

And your claim that “all metal can be recycled” ignores reality. Just because something can be recycled doesn’t mean it is. Huge amounts of scrap metal from fossil infrastructure is either left to rust, dumped, or takes decades to process. Again, no system is perfectly clean - but renewables have a much smaller ongoing impact and a clearer path to improvement.

As for land use - solar can coexist with farming (i.e. agrivoltaics), and wind turbines take up far less ground space than they appear to from a distance. Meanwhile, coal mines level entire landscapes and leave scars that last generations.

You say you're all for better energy - but you reject solutions not because they don't work, but because they’re not perfect yet. That’s sounds more like paralysis than pragmatism.

The irony is, if the alternative energy movement had the kind of broad support you’re suggesting it lacks, recycling infrastructure, efficiency gains, and R&D would accelerate dramatically. So maybe the real problem isn’t the people building wind turbines - maybe it’s the ones trying to stop them.

"NET ZERO is a long term goal, and adding gas to the system in the short term is not relevant to the final outcome. "

If you have a long term goal of giving up the fags, you don't start buying two packs a day when you used to buy one. Adding more of that icky fossil fuel gas to the system is moving away from the claimed long-term goal, not moving toward it.

Long term goal is pollie-speak for saying we'll tell you what you want to hear, but leave it up to others to explain in 20 year's time why its impossible.

They know we can't get there and that even trying is putting too much pressure on the economy and the poor's capacity to pay and that's why they're backtracking. But it'll take the next generation of leaders to tell the slow the truth.

mhaze,

Gas is simply replacing some of the rapidly declining coal fired production, which due to ageing plant, and no new investment is falling, and will continue to fall in the foreseeable future. Renewables are replaying some of that loss, but not all to match the rapid decline in coal. Gas is a short term stop gap measure only, and in turn will also be replaced by renewables.

Why are you banging on about smoking, you once argued here that smoking is good for you. The Marlboro Man told you so, shortly before he died of lung cancer!

mhaze,

If someone’s trying to quit smoking but cuts down on cigarettes overall - while occasionally using nicotine gum to get through a rough patch - they’re still heading in the right direction. What they’re not doing is buying two packs a day.

That’s the biggest flaw in your analogy: Fossil fuel use isn't doubling - the mix is being refined to meet demands. Yet fossil fuel use continues falling across much of the developed and is beginning to fall globally. So your excitement is as premature as that of a climate change denier chuckling smugly because they experienced a cold day where they live.

You talk like “long-term goal” is just political spin - but governments set long-term goals all the time, and society accepts it. Education reform, infrastructure planning, crime prevention, superannuation - all of these involve investments where the benefits take decades to fully materialise. No one calls them lies just because they don’t pay off in the next news cycle.

The energy transition is no different. You don’t rebuild national infrastructure, retrain industries, and overhaul energy markets overnight. That’s not spin. That’s just how large-scale change works. You assert that “they know we can’t get there,” but the evidence continues to say otherwise. Clean energy is growing faster than it was even forecast to. Storage tech is improving. Private investment is accelerating.

Sometimes the hard road is still the right one. But in this case, I suspect the people shouting “It’s impossible!” are just hoping no one tries. As for those who gleefully farewell something that clearly isn't going no where? Take a break from the echo chambers and conspiracy blogs once in a while...

"you once argued here that smoking is good for you."

Well that's a straight up lie. But it is Paul so we can't expect any better.

"[Coal] which due to ageing plant, and no new investment is falling".

Coal is failing because the government decreed that it was finished. There is no new investment because the government decreed that coal no longer had a place in Australia. The plant is aging because there is no incentive to replace or upgrade plant when the industry is effective persona non gratia in Australia.

All of this to attempt to cut our miniscule CO2e emissions while China in 2023 ADDED more coal plant to their system than the entire Australian coal industry.

Both sides of politics are now scrambling to find a replacement for the coal power that they destroyed and gas is, they now realise, the only possible replacement. They used to tell us that it would be replaced by solar/wind but even the charlatans of the renewables industry can't get away with that lie any longer.

So we're back to relying on fossil fuels to power our economy while we continue to pay exorbitant prices for the privilege of having token renewables disfiguring the country-side.

A generation ago Australia had close to the cheapest power system on the planet and that underwrote a very high standard of living. Then we were sold on the need to cut CO2e and we've been going backwards ever since. Meanwhile the majority of the rest of the planet carries on producing the cheapest power they can find without regard to emissions. We'll catch on eventually.

mhaze,

Your rewriting of history does a lot of heavy lifting in your arguments, doesn't it? Coal isn’t failing because gOvErNmEnT - it’s failing because it's icky.

Not helping matters is the fact that investors, insurers, and grid operators have deemed it unviable. The plants are aging because no one - not even private energy companies - wants to sink billions into technology that’s less flexible, less competitive, and facing increasing maintenance and reliability issues. No one had to “ban” coal for it to become economically unattractive - it happened all on its own in a world moving forward.

You keep pointing to China as if its behaviour justifies inaction here. But even China - while building coal - is also investing more in renewables than any other country on Earth. They’re not choosing between coal and renewables. They’re overbuilding everything to meet colossal demand and reduce blackouts, with the long-term goal of becoming the world’s clean energy supplier.

That’s not hypocrisy - it’s scale.

And no, we’re not “back to fossil fuels” because renewables failed. Gas is being used as a firming mechanism - a backup for variability while storage and transmission catch up. That was always part of the transition plan. Acting like this is some gotcha moment is either disingenuous or just deliberately ignoring how energy systems actually work.

Yes, power used to be cheaper. So were houses, petrol, food, and airline tickets. Welcome to global markets, inflation, and reality. Pretending we’d still have 1990s electricity prices if we just stuck with coal is nostalgia - not economics.

We’re not going backward because we’re cutting emissions - we’re adapting to a changing global landscape. The real risk isn’t Net Zero. It’s waiting too long to modernise, while other countries move ahead and we sit here blaming wind turbines for everything from prices to progress.

1600 new coal fired power stations around Asia isn't exactly what I'd call a failing situation.
The Asians have been at the top of civilisation before & they're getting there again now !
The West has become a breeding ground for idiocy & moral bankruptcy !

Indyvidual,

Rattling off “1600 new coal-fired power stations” might sound impressive until you realise that most of them are much smaller, less efficient plants built for short-term capacity - and many are already being paired with clean energy investments.

China and India aren’t clinging to coal because it’s the future - they’re using everything they can to meet massive demand while aggressively scaling up renewables.

In fact, China is the world’s largest builder of wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear. They know where the long game lies. They’re not doubling down on coal as a strategy - they’re overbuilding in the short term to manage energy security while positioning themselves to dominate global clean energy markets.

China and India's build-out of renewable energy is rapidly outpacing coal - and positioning them to lead the global energy market we’ll all be competing in. Unfortunately, we'll be behind the 8-ball because the tribalism, politics, and worldviews of some prevent them from accepting the reality here.

Yes, Asia may very well find itself "at the top of civilisation" again. Ironically, however, it will in part be due to the complete reserve of what it is that you're thinking it will be.

John,

What you are seeing in India and China is the same as in other parts of the world. Integrating small amounts of wind and solar does not have the problems of integrating larger amounts of wind and solar.

Your glossy and vacuous commentary ignores the reality that wind and solar expansion hits a wall when the low hanging fruit is gone.

If wind and solar were an economically viable dispatchable energy source there would be no need for massive subsidies or spruiking by dishonest propagandists. The industrial revolution was driven by the prosperity the technology brought, not spruiking. All wind and solar are delivering are environmental destruction, national insecurity and destitution.

Fester,

Of course adding more wind and solar comes with new challenges. That’s true of any large-scale shift in how energy is generated.

But calling that a “wall” is just framing progress as failure because it’s not instant or effortless. Plenty of places (like Denmark, Spain, South Australia) are already running high levels of renewables and managing the grid just fine. It’s not always smooth, but it’s happening.

You keep bringing up subsidies like they’re a smoking gun. But fossil fuels have been subsidised for over a century - both directly and indirectly. If subsidies disqualify a technology, then coal, oil, and gas would’ve been off the table long ago. Energy markets have always been shaped by policy. It’s never been a pure free-for-all.

The industrial revolution didn’t just magically happen because coal was cheap and shiny. It happened because governments, financiers, and industries pushed it hard for decades - despite the costs. Child labour, toxic cities, colonial exploitation - not exactly a clean start. So let’s not pretend it was all prosperity and no "spruiking."

And calling wind and solar a source of “environmental destruction, national insecurity and destitution” just isn’t serious. Every energy source has its drawbacks. But renewables don’t pollute the air every time they operate, don’t spill into oceans, and don’t rely on finite fuel we dig up and burn. That’s not nothing.

You can criticise renewables all you like, but claiming the whole thing’s a con while ignoring the costs of business-as-usual is just an obvious attempt to shut the conversation down.

saw a joke on Facebook a moment ago; Alternative energy is like strippers, they stop when no money's thrown at them !
Also saw a photo of a large tract of bush cleared on Mount Kosciuszko to make room for wind generators.
Gradually phasing out coal & diesel fired power stations is a much more sensible way than shutting them all down & putting up these inefficient & grossly expensive monstrosities polluting the environment & the views.
Btw, whatever happened to that 1 km high wind tunnel turbine hing proposed many years ago ? That, in hindsight would be a more sensible & much longer lasting infrastructure than the wind mills.

John Daysh wrote: "Not helping matters is the fact that investors, insurers, and grid operators have deemed it unviable. "

Investors have abandoned coal because the government has decreed that they want to destroy that form of power generation. Investors aren't going to put money into an industry the government has already decided to kill. And as we've found over the decades, while governments are hopeless at creating industries, they are expert at destroying them. If by some miracle of commonsense government decided to back coal or just not oppose it, investors would come roaring back.

"You keep pointing to China as if its behaviour justifies inaction here."

It doesn't justify inaction, it just demonstrates that any and all actions we take is futile in the extreme. While we try to limit our CO2e emissions China (and India and Russia and....) merrily continue to allow their emissions to grow unhindered by any concerns about the west's climate fetishes. China's emissions have trebled this century alone and they are now the main CO2 emitter in the world creating 30% of all CO2 emissions in 2024....and growing. India's on the same path. And newly industrialising nations like Indonesia and Nigeria will follow suit. Even if we manage to get to net zero by nuking our economy, the climate effects will be unmeasurable due to the actions of those who don't buy the great AGW scare.

"Yes, power used to be cheaper."

Did you misunderstand what I wrote when I said "A generation ago Australia had close to the cheapest power system on the planet".
I'll try to type more slowly so you can catch up. In 2005 Australia's power costs were among the lowest in the world because it was based on coal. Our costs were low COMPARED to the rest of the world. Now they are among the highest COMPARED to the rest of world. Low compared to similar economies when we relied almost entirely on coal....high compared to others once we abandoned coal. Capiche?

Trumpster,

You say; "while governments are hopeless at creating industries, they are expert at destroying them."

Dutton's nuclear power brain fart is hopeless government intervention, Agree? Dutton like Stalin would have 100% government ownership of these proposed 7 nuk power stations. Obviously $600 billion will do no more than grease the pan, the meat is going to cost a lot, lot more, and it wont be cooking in 10 years, if its ever cooked at all!

John,

I think that the incredible bsing man might have to relinquish his title to you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kmt6IoUEb3g

"You keep bringing up subsidies like they’re a smoking gun. But fossil fuels have been subsidised for over a century - both directly and indirectly."

Over 99% of the world's population would die if fossil fuel production were to stop. The prosperity we enjoy today would not exist without them. As for subsidies, the bulk are tax credits for end users and the fossil fuel industry returns the direct subsidies many times over in taxes and royalties. With wind and solar the multi billion dollar taxpayer subsidies are to help them produce energy, something that seems a bit silly for what is spruiked by you as the cheapest source of energy. There is no net government revenue for all the subsidies it pays the renewable energy industry, just the economy wrecking consequences of higher power prices. And how quickly wind and solar disappear when the handouts stop.

"It happened because governments, financiers, and industries pushed it hard for decades - despite the costs."

With tripe like that you could rewrite history for the commies. In those times as now Johnny, things had to stand on merit. Wind and solar fall into the category of a scam. History provides no end of examples.

mhaze,

//If by some miracle of commonsense government decided to back coal or just not oppose it, investors would come roaring back.//

That’s a hopeful guess, not a fact. Investors haven’t walked away from coal just because of government policy - they’ve left because coal is increasingly uninsurable, politically risky, and economically outclassed. And that’s without even factoring in subsidies for renewables. The economics have moved on. You can’t legislate coal back into viability any more than you can legislate the return of VHS tapes.

//...any and all actions we take is futile in the extreme.//

That’s the go-to excuse for doing nothing: “If we can’t fix it alone, why try?” But climate change is a global issue - it only works if many countries act. Australia has some of the highest emissions per capita. If we don’t lead by example, why would anyone else?

//Even if we manage to get to net zero by nuking our economy...//

This assumes climate action must destroy the economy. It doesn’t. Right now, the biggest global investment trends are in clean energy, EVs, green hydrogen, and battery tech. Renewables are already generating more jobs than fossil fuels worldwide. The real economic risk isn’t acting - it’s falling behind.

//In 2005 Australia's power costs were among the lowest in the world because it was based on coal... Now they are among the highest...//

And once again, you’re skipping over what’s actually driving prices. Power didn’t get expensive just because we moved away from coal. It got expensive because:

- Old infrastructure wasn’t maintained,
- Gas prices exploded due to global volatility,
- The transition became a political football,
- And grid upgrades were delayed or avoided altogether.

None of this is an argument against renewables - it’s an argument for managing the transition better. You keep insisting that net zero is “dead,” but none of the evidence supports that conclusion.

Capiche?

Fester,

If we’re handing out titles for BS, your opening line is definitely a nomination speech.

//Over 99% of the world's population would die if fossil fuel production were to stop.//

Which no one is suggesting. That kind of hyperbole might play well in YouTube comment sections, but not here. Nobody serious is suggesting that we ban fossil fuels tomorrow.

//The bulk are tax credits for end users...//

And yet they’re still subsidies - just structured differently. You can’t dismiss renewable subsidies while handwaving away fossil ones because they’re “end user” or “industry tax offsets.” The effect is the same: billions in foregone revenue or direct support, shaping the energy market. The IMF, the IEA, and countless independent reports show fossil fuel subsidies still dwarf those for renewables in many countries when externalities are included.

//There is no net government revenue for all the subsidies it pays the renewable energy industry...//

Because they’re early-stage infrastructure investments - just like what happened with railroads, highways, telecommunications, and, yes, fossil fuels. Every major energy system we rely on today was built with public support in its early phases.

//With tripe like that you could rewrite history for the commies.//

You can throw “commie” around all you like, but history is what it is. The Industrial Revolution didn’t blossom from free markets alone - it was heavily shaped by empire-driven trade, government-backed infrastructure, and social costs that were ignored for generations. That’s not revisionism. It’s context.

You don’t have to like renewables, but pretending they’re a scam because they received government support - while standing on a mountain of fossil fuel subsidies and policy interventions - isn’t a critique. It’s selective outrage.

John Daysh got it wrong again.
Coal station owners did not walk away for the reason he gave,
they went because the govt rules gave their load away to solar cells.
So their operations on sunny days were uneconomic.
Same at night with wind farms.
It was as simple as that !
So the political idiots including the LNC let them close them down
without having replacement generation in place.
The green stood and cheered when they were blown up !

How stupid can they get ?

John Daysh,

" Investors haven’t walked away from coal just because of government policy - they’ve left because coal is increasingly uninsurable, politically risky, and economically outclassed. "

Now let me get this straight. They walked away from coal because its politically risky which SOMEHOW has nothing to do with government policy!! "oh what a tangled web...."

And coal is economically outclassed? Well we best tell those naive Chinese, Indians, Indonesians about John's insights. Because they somehow think coal is economically viable. Perhaps we should also tell the data which I've shown John previously (although as with most data John sees that he doesn't like, he ignored it) because the data shows that the less coal in a power grid, the higher the prices of electricity.

But if you don't want it to be true, then it isn't true....apparently.

" If we don’t lead by example, why would anyone else?"

Oh, we're leading by example are we? Oh good, can you point me to other countries who are following our example? China perhaps? Are they looking south and saying to themselves that they want to follow us?

The facts are that they majority of the planet don't have the slightest intention of sacrificing their economy to the CO2e Gods and its just a fantasy to think we are setting an example that they will follow. A fantasy that the CO2 fetishists made up to justify their support for economic suicide.

mhaze,

Once again, you’ve twisted what I said just enough to argue against a version of my point that only exists in your imagination.

//They walked away from coal because it's politically risky which SOMEHOW has nothing to do with government policy!!//

That’s not what I said.

Political risk includes government policy, but it also includes public sentiment, legal battles, global climate targets, investor pressure, stranded asset risk, and international finance standards. Government is just one piece. The reality is coal is now a reputational and financial liability in much of the world. No one needs a formal ban to read the room.

//Coal is economically outclassed? Well we best tell those naive Chinese, Indians, Indonesians...//

I've already addressed this. China is both building coal and leading the world in solar, wind, hydro, and electric vehicles. Why? Because they're not clinging to nostalgia - they’re hedging bets, overbuilding to meet demand, and aggressively cornering the global renewables market.

You keep treating this like a zero-sum game when most of the world is saying “both for now, but less coal in future.” The direction is clear. The pace is the argument.

//The data shows the less coal in a power grid, the higher the prices of electricity.//

You’ve shared that stat before, and I responded: correlation &#8800; causation. High prices often come from early adoption costs, legacy grids, energy taxes, or fossil fuel price shocks. That’s not denial. That’s context.

//We're leading by example? Show me who's following.//

Sure. The US (under Biden), the EU, Japan, South Korea - all have net zero targets and are investing heavily in renewables. Not because they’re copying Australia, but because the economic case is global. We’re not “the leader” - we’re part of the movement. And if we lag, we miss out. That’s not virtue-signalling. It’s risk management.

If every country waited for someone else to move first, we’d never have beaten acid rain, fixed the ozone layer, or made cars safer. You can keep arguing the world isn’t changing, but the world is too busy moving to wait for permission from a forum.

John claims our net zero policy is us leading by example.(" If we don’t lead by example,")

I ask who is following our example.

John backtracks with all the rapidity he can manage..." Not because they’re copying Australia"; " We’re not “the leader” -"

I wish getting John to see the truth was always that easy.

Ah, so predictable, mhaze.

When you have nothing left, you re-direct your attention to something you can interpret as an inconsistency or backtracking - hoping that onlookers will fall for it and forget about how thoroughly your arguments just fell apart.

You asked a loaded question - “who is following our example?” - as if the only valid form of leadership is someone copying us step by step. I clarified what I meant, which wasn’t backtracking. It was resisting your usual attempt to oversimplify what was never that simplistic.

Leading by example doesn’t mean being imitated in full - it means acting in alignment with the broader direction of global change, instead of dragging our heels and hoping no one notices. Countries aren’t modelling themselves on Australia. But they are shifting toward the same technologies, market signals, and emissions goals that we’re aligning with - because that’s where things are heading.

If you think rewording someone’s point, dunking on your own misrepresentation, and calling it a win is “truth,” then yeah - I can see why you think you’re always right.

In times gone by whenever someone had a new idea they built a prototype to show off & if it worked, people started buying the product.
Renewable or rather non-renewable energy equipment on the other hand has already had billions forked out yet still, there's no such thing as renewable energy & no energy that has net zero emission nor effect !
It'd be the economic thing to do to have people present their inventions & then get the money !

Indyvidual,

If we applied your “build a prototype first, then get the money” rule to everything, half the modern world wouldn’t exist.

We didn’t wait for someone to build a miniature highway system before investing in roads. We didn’t ask for a prototype Mars landing before funding space travel. We didn’t tell Pfizer to foot the entire bill before developing COVID vaccines. And we sure didn’t build a mini nuclear plant in someone’s backyard before funding reactors.

Big systems - like energy, health, infrastructure - require public investment up front because they can’t be proven at full scale without backing. That’s how progress works.

And as for renewables: they’re not a theory. They’re already running millions of homes and businesses. If you’re still asking where the prototype is, you’ve missed the last 20 years.

They’re already running millions of homes and businesses
John daysh,
Stop trying to convince us of your replacables. They're not cleaner, they're not cheaper, they're not capable of keeping up to the demands & they make the Nation incapable of paying for their upkeep. In the whole scheme of things there are scam, highly polluting one at that !
For the foreseeable future sticking to coal would slow down pollution !
Batteries are several times more damaging for the environment !