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.