There are very obvious problems with renewable energy.

-rising electricity costs compared to other countries with an increase in renewables, despite the repeated claim that more renewable energy would reduce costs

-massive environmental destruction which goes largely unreported

-a total lack of published costings for the renewable energy transition

-the problem of financing non-dispatchable energy sources

-the massive public subsidies being paid to renewable energy companies

-the repeated claim that we have no time to waste to avoid the approaching catastrophe, a common pressure tactic of con artists

-the fact that nuclear power is a proven low carbon/low cost dispatchable energy source capable of being built over a very short time frame, as demonstrated by the French half a century ago. In contrast:

-No wind and solar powered dispatchable energy system has ever been built, and given the system cost one will likely never be built

I suspect that within a decade several industrial conglomerates will be pumping smrs off the production lines much like jet aircraft are today, marking the beginning of a new era of prosperity driven by cheap energy.

Fester,

These lists always look persuasive until you hold them up to light. Most of what you've listed is either misleading, outdated, or missing key context:

Rising electricity prices:
True - but driven mainly by gas price spikes, market failures, privatisation, and poor planning. Renewables are a scapegoat, not the cause. Countries with well-integrated renewables are now seeing price relief.

Environmental destruction:
Sure, wind and solar have impact - but they don’t pump mercury into the air, spill oil, or require endless fuel extraction. Coal and gas environmental damage makes wind farms look like gentle nudges.

“No costings” for the transition:
False. AEMO, CSIRO, and the IEA have published extensive costings and forecasts. If you haven’t seen them, that’s not because they don’t exist - it’s because you haven’t looked.

Non-dispatchable financing issues:
That’s why batteries, pumped hydro, and interconnectors exist - and are already being used. South Australia didn’t wait for a blog post to tell them what’s possible.

Renewables get public subsidies:
Yes - and fossil fuels have been subsidised for over a century. If subsidies make something a scam, coal beat everyone to it.

“No time to waste” is a con tactic:
Or it’s just the scientific consensus on climate risks. Urgency isn’t always marketing - sometimes it’s just a warning we’d rather not hear.

Nuclear is cheap, fast, and proven:
Not in this century. Current builds are expensive and slow. SMRs are still in development - not “rolling off production lines.” You’re not describing reality - you’re describing a hopeful brochure.

“No wind or solar dispatchable system exists”:
South Australia runs on high-renewable input with batteries and firming. It’s not theory - it’s already happening.

You’ve listed a bunch of confident claims. But confidence isn’t evidence, and suspicion isn’t an argument. If renewables were as hopeless as you say, they wouldn’t be outcompeting fossil fuels in the actual market.

My goodness, the IBM strikes again.

Here I was thinking we were facing an existential climate crisis and along comes the IBM with a bs story explaining why a nuclear reactor would take, well, forever to build here.

"You’re not describing reality - you’re describing a hopeful brochure."

Well IBM, that's the whole problem with wind and solar: All glossy brochures, no substance. Funny how your boundless optimism for unproven w and s deserts you when proven nuclear power is mentioned. The big problem becoming apparent with w and s is that you need 100% backup with conventional generation, making the whole thing very costly as well as environmentally harmful. Personally I hope the penny drops soon. It will save people a lot of unnecessary harm and hardship.

Here is a review of Green Breakdown, a book describing why renewable energy is a big con.

https://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?id=2113

As for glossy brochures, I would suggest that the strategy of Rolls Royce is to have viable low carbon generation available when the wind and solar con is more widely realised.

That’s not argument. Its declaration.
John Daysh,
You're accusing me of doing what you're doing ! Want evidence ? It's out there you just need to accept the pollution & economic failures of the product you're trying to push !
Plenty videos on Youtube of billowing fires form batteries & cars & wind turbines ! Smoke emission that is many times more harmful than coal smoke !

Fester,

Ah yes, Rolls Royce’s theoretical SMRs will save us - just as soon as they finish the brochure, get regulatory approval, build a factory, finish the prototype, and bring the cost down by a factor of four. Meanwhile, South Australia is already running on 70%+ renewables, with firming solutions that actually exist.

You keep calling wind and solar “unproven,” but they’re generating real power for millions of people today. Not in theory. Not in 10 years. Right now. Batteries, hydro, demand response, and interconnectors are already firming that supply - not a glossy idea, not a blog post, not a libertarian think tank article.

And here's the kicker: If wind and solar are such a scam, why do energy companies keep building them without needing to be forced? Why are they consistently the cheapest new generation options according to AEMO, CSIRO, the IEA, and even Bloomberg New Energy Finance?

Yes, nuclear works - in France, in the 70s, with massive state backing, a standardized design, and a very different economic and regulatory environment. But today’s nuclear projects in democratic countries are chronically delayed and over budget. That’s not ideology - it’s just reality.

If you want to pin your hopes on SMRs, go ahead. But calling proven tech a scam while hyping vaporware is the exact kind of contradiction people do notice eventually.

The future isn’t being decided in think tank articles - it’s being built on grids, in real time. And reality, inconvenient as it is, doesn’t run on vibes.

By the way, usually the nicknames around here make sense. I don't know what you mean by "IBM", but I'm guessing it's not a compliment.

----

Indyvidual,

You say I’m making declarations - but I’ve consistently backed my points with data, system-level analysis, and real-world deployment examples. You’ve replied with vague accusations, YouTube links, and the claim that “the truth is out there.”

That’s not evidence. That’s deflection.

Yes - batteries and turbines can catch fire. So can coal plants, gas pipelines, and petrol cars. The relevant question isn’t “Can bad things happen?” It’s how often, how serious, and how it compares across the full energy lifecycle.

And on that front, the data is clear: coal causes more pollution, more health harm, and more emissions than any major energy source in history. If you think a rare turbine fire is “many times worse” than decades of sulphur dioxide, mercury, particulates, and carbon emissions from coal... you’re comparing smoke to science.

This isn’t about pushing a product. It’s about understanding that no energy source is perfect, but some are clearly cleaner, safer, and more sustainable over time. Wind and solar aren’t flawless - but they don’t need to be. They just need to be better than the thing that’s causing the climate crisis. And they are.

If you have proper evidence, bring it. But until then, "search YouTube" isn't an argument. It's a shrug wrapped in smoke.