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