mhaze,

I did look at the Lomborg data - and like a lot of what he puts out, it’s not that the numbers are fake, it’s that the interpretation is overly simplistic.

Yes, there’s a pattern in some countries where higher renewable penetration correlates with higher electricity prices. But correlation isn’t causation, and context matters. Many of those countries (e.g., Germany and Denmark) started their transition decades ago when renewables were far more expensive and less efficient. They also layered in high energy taxes, carbon pricing, and legacy grid costs. Naturally, their prices reflect all of that.

But now look at places like Spain, Portugal, parts of the US, or even South Australia more recently - newer renewable capacity is often bringing costs down, especially during peak daylight hours. The economics of wind and solar have shifted dramatically in the last 10 years, and using older data to argue against present-day viability is misleading.

The idea that "the data proves renewables = higher prices" only holds if you ignore every other factor: fuel import costs, market structures, government policy, infrastructure age, storage capacity, and demand profiles. Energy systems are complex, and pulling one lever while pretending the rest don’t exist doesn’t give you a clear picture.

Most nations aren’t suddenly “seeing the truth” and walking away from renewables. They're adjusting, refining, and improving integration - because abandoning the transition means higher long-term costs, more exposure to volatile fossil fuel markets, and missed industrial opportunities.

We’ll catch on, sure - but not in the way you're hoping. Not by giving up, but by doing it smarter.

John,

It is truly breathtaking how you twist and distort things, then accuse others of doing as much. Idel's analysis shows how expensive it is to pursue wind and solar, but suggests that if storage costs become much cheaper it might be a viable option. You are the one engaged in distortion here by claiming that the analysis shows that wind and solar are cost competitive.

"Nobody credible is arguing for a grid made of nothing but solar panels and wind turbines with no backup or planning. That’s a straw man."

When people say that wind and solar are the cheapest, I would suggest that is exactly what they are claiming, but it is hard to fathom what you are on about here given that you said this to mhaze:

"The economics of wind and solar have shifted dramatically in the last 10 years, and using older data to argue against present-day viability is misleading."

It would appear that you agree that wind and solar are more expensive, yet when mhaze links you to a Lomborg talk showing a correlation of wind and solar generation with price, you dispute the fact.

"you’re just demanding perfection from one side while ignoring the mess of the other."

That's your straw man, John. Coal fired power has delivered cheap energy and the prosperity that goes with it. I'm guessing that the mess you are referring to is from climate change. My belief is that by pursuing wind and solar as we are, the disaster that will unfold would dwarf anything that climate change might throw at us.

"Grid management has always involved trade-offs and occasional waste."

With wind and solar you waste about a third of the energy you produce. That is much greater than for fossil fuel, hydro, or nuclear.

One further point. You argue that upgrading the grid is a necessity regardless of the energy source, but you don't acknowledge that a grid to cope with wind and solar would cost twice as much. Given that the current grid accounts for 40% of the electricity price, it is an important consideration.

Fester,

What’s “breathtaking” is how persistently you oversimplify the arguments and assign positions to me that I never took.

Idel’s analysis shows that wind and solar can become competitive under certain conditions, specifically when storage costs fall and the system isn’t held to an unrealistic 100% supply requirement. I’ve said clearly that this doesn’t mean they’re the cheapest in all scenarios today. What I pushed back against was your blanket claim that they’re inherently and always uneconomical. Idel’s own LFSCOE-95 figures (especially in Texas, among other places), undercut that.

You seem to think that saying “wind and solar are the cheapest” equals “they can power the grid on their own.” But when experts/agencies make that claim, they’re talking about LCOE (the per-MWh cost) not system-wide replacement without storage or backup. Pretending those are the same thing either misunderstands the terminology or deliberately conflates it.

As for your take on my comment to mhaze: yes, I said older data is misleading if used to make sweeping claims about current viability. That doesn’t contradict the fact that full integration has challenges. It just means you can’t use 2010 costs to argue against 2025 technology.

Coal delivered cheap power in its time. But the “mess” I referred to includes more than just climate change: air pollution, health costs, mining damage, and volatile international fuel prices (which aren't minor.)

Curtailment with wind and solar happens, but let’s not pretend fossil fuels are paragons of efficiency. Thermal plants routinely waste energy as heat, and load-following gas plants often run below optimal efficiency just to stay online. No system is perfect; the question is which trade-offs we’re willing to accept moving forward.

Regarding grid costs: yes, integrating renewables requires more infrastructure. But “twice as much” is an unsubstantiated claim. Grid upgrades serve broader goals, resilience, decentralisation, and reliability, not just renewables. Treating them like a renewable-specific penalty is misleading.

We can have an honest discussion about the pros and cons here, but that’s not possible if you insist on framing everything as a contradiction or conspiracy.

Anyway, I trust you have your breath back now.

I find it simply absurd that not a single post touches on environment effects. I bet if we asked a qualified village idiot as to what causes more pollution, a battery or coal, the answer would be a battery ! Yet none of the "knowing" posters can see that. Were we to ask that same village idiot as to where most money can be syphoned off, from battery manufacturing or mining coal, the answer would be, the battery ! And, that is the the bottom line, that's what this con industry is all about at this stage of experimenting. By all means, once a solution is found go for the least environmentally damaging however, until a solution is found coal is more sensible, more practical & far less polluting ! Sorry, renewable energy investors, you'll have to wait longer than expected to collect dividends ! If you have integrity that is !

Rather than add to the waffle, I am waiting for the coming election results to see what real people think about net-zero - if they think about it at all. So much shite has been dumped on us by the political class that it is difficult for the average voter to pick even the ‘least worst’ these days, or the main problem in their lives.

If Net Zero is the root of all evil: the cause of our increasingly high cost of living, then both major parties are forcing it on us. So, if the great unwashed vote Liberal, Labor, Greens or Teals, they will be colluding in their own misery.

The slight differences in how idiotic Net Zero will be attained (it never will happen anyway) are laughable. None of the renewables/nuclear “solutions” can be achieved before the boat goes down.

Given that there is no sign of Net Zero being dropped by either Labor or the Coalition, the main thing for voters to do is to rid themselves of the ALP.

During Albanese's inappropriate PrimeMinistership, Australia's debt has risen by $63 billion, despite record tax revenues, low unemployment, and increased exports.

Spending has been at record levels under the worst Prime Minister in our history.

If voters cannot bring themselves to try candidates different from the traditional drones, Dutton is still a better proposition than Albanese; the latter being more fiscally reckless than Whitlam and Morrison put together. We are almost $1 trillion in debt!

There has been an 8.4% decline in real per capita income.

According to The Australian of March 11, 49% of the cost of building a house, including the cost of the land, is made up of government taxes, government regulatory costs, and infrastructure charges.

Our CPI increases are the highest of all OECD countries.

The Albanese government is bribing voters with handouts to alleviate mass price rises actually caused by the same government, and splashing more than $120 billion on subsidies for child care, age care, health, housing and, worst of all, useless green energy.

80% of the new jobs created by the Albanese Socialist government have been in the public sector, increasing pay to government employees by $11 billion.

There are 700,000 people, over 50% of them under 18 years of age, clinging to the notorious NDIS.

Australians simply cannot afford the Albanese government for another three years.