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