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!