The Queensland government has rejected a Canadian company's application to build a wind “farm” in the Moonlight Range.

Threats to the Powerful Owl, Koalas, the Ghost Bat, Greater Glider, Squatter Pigeon and sundry raptors have been avoided.

In contrast, the previous Labor government was all for the death of wildlife and destruction of thousands of hectares of vegetation.

The outcome is regarded as “a pivotal moment” for some rebalancing in the renewals debate. Climate action “cannot justify every proposal everywhere”. It should also be a warning to foreign companies hoovering up Australian taxpayers’ money in subsidies - whether or not they provide reliable electricity, or any electricity at all.

These largely foreign environmental destroyers were paid by us, the electricity users, $659 million in 2024, according to the Institute of Public Affairs; plus $513 million to solar operators : 72% of them foreign-owned. We are handing money over to mainly foreigners in increased power prices and Albanese TAXES.

The IPA suggests that our energy system is not built to serve the national interest: it is designed to “meet ideological net zero mandates, regardless of the cost.

ttbn,

You frame this as if the Queensland LNP government’s rejection of the Moonlight Range project is some sort of moral correction of Labor’s record, yet their decision was as ideological as your selective outrage.

They didn’t reject the project solely on ecological grounds - they rejected it under pressure from local councils and community backlash. It's part of an overall shift in LNP policy that’s seen multiple clean energy projects scrapped with no clear plan for how to replace coal generation. If anything, it's a political response, not some principled stand for owls and gliders.

You point to potential threats from wind turbines, while ignoring the far greater historical and ongoing destruction caused by roads, mining, agriculture, and fossil fuel extraction. Koalas and Greater Gliders have lost vast amounts of habitat under both parties - yet we only ever hear concern from conservatives when a renewable projects are involved. It’s hard to take that seriously.

For context, wind turbines in the US kill an estimated 140,000 to 500,000 birds per year, which is dwarfed by other human-related causes:

Cats: ~2.4 billion birds per year
Buildings/windows: ~600 million
Vehicles: ~200 million
Fossil fuel power plants: ~14 million

As for foreign ownership - yes, some renewable companies are foreign-owned. So are most of our gas and coal operations. If this were truly about sovereignty and taxpayer exploitation, you'd be howling about Glencore and Chevron. But you’re not, because this isn’t really about protecting Australian interests. It’s about attacking renewables at every turn.

Quoting the IPA only underscores your bias. They’re not an independent think tank - they’re a fossil-fuel-backed lobby group with a vested interest in stalling climate action. Their “analysis” reliably tells you whatever the coal industry wants you to believe.

This wasn’t a “pivotal moment” in the renewables debate. It was a convenient excuse for the LNP to obstruct progress while offering nothing in its place. It was never about wildlife.

Given that net zero is a pipe-dream, its inevitable there'll be a recalibration of renewable energy projects and hysteria and a warming (!) toward required traditional energy sources.

Another example of that is the recent ALP recognition that gas projects (ie fossil fuel projects) are necessary to keep the lights on which of course explains the embracing of the extension of the North-West Shelf project. (Strange how that was announced AFTER the election - mere coincidence I'm sure).

And the Victorian greens are losing whatever marbles they still have over another Labor Government approving a gas storage facility in the deep south.

The retreat from renewables hysteria is happening all over the world but some will take a little longer to notice.

Trumpster,

"The retreat from renewables hysteria is happening all over the world but some will take a little longer to notice."

That's why a record $2 trillion was invested world wide in clean energy in 2024, compared to $1.1 trillion in fossil fuels. Clean energy investment has exceeded fossil fuel investment every year since 2016, and the gap is widening year by year. Makes you statement look as silly as you do

That's right mhaze. Australians are always a bit behind the rest of the world; at least the Leftists and the politicians are.

mhaze,

This sounds awfully familiar. You’ve already had a whole thread titled “Bye-Bye Net Zero,” and it didn’t end well for your argument. You were shown repeatedly that major economies are not abandoning net zero - that the transition is happening unevenly, yes, but still accelerating, both economically and technologically.

So now you’ve shifted from saying it’s “dead” to saying there’s a “recalibration” - which is a pretty soft backpedal, considering how forcefully you declared it over.

Gas being used as a transitional fuel doesn’t disprove net zero - it’s always been part of the transition plan, even in the IEA’s net zero roadmap. The fact that both major parties in Australia still support net zero should tell you something. They’re not reversing course, they’re navigating the practicalities of replacing coal, which is dying of old age and lack of investment, not policy decree.

And while you cite “warming toward traditional energy,” you keep ignoring the global investment trends: renewable energy investment hit a record $1.8 trillion in 2023. Even with political headwinds, companies, consumers, and whole economies are moving forward - not retreating.

Your latest comment is just a recycled version of the same narrative you pushed in March, only now it’s more cautious because the evidence keeps proving you wrong.

Back in 2010, Czech President Vaclav Klaus compared the effect of the global warming hysteria - the cause behind ridiculous Net Zero, windmills, solar panels and economy-smashing electricity costs - with communism:

“It seems to me that the widespread acceptance of the global warming dogma has become one of the main, most costly and most undemocratic public policy mistakes in generations. The previous one was communism.”

In the following 15 years of madness, none of the threatened catastrophes have occurred, and most countries, apart from Australia, are starting to wake up to how stupid they have been.

Very late, with a lot of damage done to Western economies, they are starting to realise that, “The greatest hoaxes are those that are given a scientific flavor and are carried out by governments on a global scale”.

Marxists posing as environmentalists, and wanting to constrain capitalism, dug around and found one obscure paper suggesting that carbon dioxide ‘could’ (that's could, maybe) cause global warming. No proof ever provided. A speculative hypothesis expanded to the assertion that fossil fuels should be phased out.

The biggest scam ever continues, despite hopeful reports that it will soon be over. But, really, only a few minor party leaders, and backbenchers in this country with nothing to lose have the guts or the opportunity to call it a scam. The major parties are disgraceful, handing out, so far, more than a trillion dollars to the scammers and wind and solar billionaires.

The Queensland government's slap down of one of the mob is a good start for a return to sanity.

Drove past a big wind farm today, only a fraction of the fans turning listlessly. Considering the outlay & effort, wind farms are one of the worst & most blatant misappropriation of Tax Dollars !

ttbn,

Yes, Vaclav Klaus - economist, climate science denier, and Cold War nostalgist - just the man to quote when discussing atmospheric physics. What's next? Citing Flat Earthers on satellite trajectories?

Calling climate action “the new communism” used to be a punchline, but you’ve revived it with such sincerity it’s almost charming. Apparently, if enough scientists, governments, businesses, insurers, investors, and military planners agree on something, it must be a Marxist plot. Who knew peer review was such a gateway to collectivist tyranny?

Your timeline is also interesting. “15 years of madness,” you say - and yet, somehow:

- We’ve just had the hottest year ever recorded.
- Floods, fires, and droughts have intensified globally.
- Insurance premiums are skyrocketing due to climate-related disasters.

But sure - no signs of catastrophe. Just a few billion-dollar “weather events” here and there. Nothing to worry about unless you own a house, grow food, or live on Earth.

The idea that the entire scientific consensus rests on “one obscure paper” is impressive in its laziness. The greenhouse effect was demonstrated in the 1800s. Climate models have improved with every decade, and the overwhelming evidence has been replicated by thousands of studies, labs, and instruments worldwide. But let’s ignore all that - after all, some guy with a blog and a Klaus quote said otherwise.

And as for this trillion-dollar “scam” you keep referencing - it's rich coming from someone defending an industry that’s raked in trillions while warming the planet and paying a fraction of its social and environmental costs. If you’re concerned about taxpayer handouts to billionaires, great - let’s talk fossil fuel subsidies.

The Queensland wind project being rejected? That’s your big “return to sanity”? A single project knocked back for wildlife concerns in a state still building out renewables? That’s not a turning point - that’s a functioning planning process.

If you want to keep calling Net Zero a hoax, feel free. Just know that while you’re quoting 2010 speeches and warming up McCarthy-era metaphors, the rest of the world is getting on with the 21st century.

"So now you’ve shifted from saying it’s “dead” to saying there’s a “recalibration” "

No. The net-zero mantra is dead and jurisdictions the world over are RECALIBRATING their policies to take that into account.
Do try to keep up.

"and it didn’t end well for your argument. "

Wow, that's quite an exercise in rewriting history.

The whole hysteria around net zero is unravelling. But pollies can't up and say they were wrong and all the pain was for nought, so they carry on mouthing one thing and doing another. There is now virtually no country that is on track to reach net zero in 2050 and most are now looking for was to fudge or move the date back, although most pollies know they won't be held to account in 2050 having long since moved on. So they leave that problem to the next generation.

Nuclear is now the favoured exit door. Denmark recently reversed its anti-nukes jihad, the US is moving to remove nuclear power inhibiting regulations. Even Germany is revisiting the issue.

SkyNews headline:

“From New York to New Zealand: Net zero targets being ditched worldwide”.

Not in Australia.

Here is an unusual piece of climate change scare mongering using hydrangeas. A Google warrior has declared climate change is the “silent killer” of hydrangeas.

These gardeners’ favourites do like a drop more water than some plants, but this character is warning that we should stop growing them.

My hydrangeas live in pots. Anything in a pot requires more water than plants grown in the ground, and mine get watered only once a week, in summer, just like anything else. They have been drinking in this way for years before climate change was invented, and are still doing so, still admired by neighbours.

But, Mr. Nobody on Google and “professional” gardeners (he says) are warning against planting hydrangeas. Growing hydrangeas could soon be declared a sin by the climate religion.

Fossils indicate that hydrangeas have been around for 23 million years, and they have been cultivated for thousands of years. Certainly they were grown in China in the 8th. Century, and Europe and elsewhere in private gardens in the 18th. Century.

Despite the changes in climate that can be proved to have occurred over the period that hydrangeas have been around, the ‘expert’ who came up with this tosh still uses the climate hysterics and liars favourite word “unprecedented” to describe supposed ‘challenges’ to hydrangeas.

As far as I can tell, this “expert” lives in a part of America where the temperature reaches around 28 in summer, not around 35-40 where I live. I don't think that his troubles with hydrangeas have anything to do with climate change. And I hope Australian hydrangea aficionados will disregard his nonsense along with the rest of the climate change nonsense.

Ah, I see, mhaze.

Net zero is dead, yet governments everywhere are “recalibrating” their policies to suit it. That’s quite the contortion. Sounds less like a victory and more like someone furiously rewriting their own press release.

You claim the world is “mouthing one thing and doing another,” but:

- The EU is legally bound to climate targets.
- U.S. clean energy investment hit record highs in 2024, even with Trump back in charge.
- China installed more solar in 2023 than the entire world did in 2022.
- India is adding renewables faster than coal.

If that’s a retreat, it’s the noisiest, most heavily funded one in history.

As for Denmark and nuclear - Denmark already runs on more than 50% wind. Their interest in nuclear doesn’t mean renewables failed. It means they’re not dumb enough to bet the future on a single energy source. That’s called diversification - something fossil fuel advocates seem to think is heresy.

And “no country is on track”? Welcome to the real world. No complex system hits 2050 targets like a metronome. That’s why they’re called targets. They guide policy and investment. If missing the finish line by a few years makes it all meaningless, I suppose we should scrap the Olympics too.

You can call it recalibration if it makes the backpedal sting less. But let’s not pretend it’s the funeral you were hoping for. The global economy is still marching toward clean energy - it’s just not waiting around for coal apologists to catch up.

//Wow, that's quite an exercise in rewriting history.//

Funny you say that. I’ve just finished pointing out the relevant bits of a past debate where you brushed off a previous skedaddling the same way. Would you like me to correct you here as well?

The huge rate of wind and solar roll out is a joke. Despite the trillions of dollars being spent, wind and solar generate about half as much power as nuclear. The "massive rollout" of wind and solar in China is in fact at a glacial pace when compared with the ten percent per year nuclear rollout of the French half a century ago.

The thing that gets me scratching my head is the thought of how wind and solar projects will attract finance. Aside from the chaotically variable output, wind and solar generation tend to come on at the same time, crashing the spot price of electricity. The more wind and solar in the system, the worse the problem gets. It is no wonder so many projects are failing or being abandoned.

You are not the only one scratching your head, Fester. What you say is true: the more unreliables we get, the higher our power bills get. Australia is mis-ruled by lunatics.

Fester and ttbn,

It’s always fascinating watching people argue that cheaper energy sources are the reason power bills are going up. Wind and solar have consistently driven wholesale electricity prices down, which is exactly why coal and gas are struggling to compete without subsidies.

//Despite the trillions of dollars being spent, wind and solar generate about half as much power as nuclear.//

Not anymore. In 2023, wind and solar generated more electricity globally than nuclear - and they’re still scaling faster. Nuclear had a 50-year head start and far more public subsidy. Wind and solar reached that level in just a couple of decades.

//The ‘massive rollout’ of wind and solar in China is in fact at a glacial pace when compared with the ten percent per year nuclear rollout of the French half a century ago.//

You’re comparing China’s rollout of an entirely new grid across a continent-sized country to a top-down state nuclear build in 1970s France. China is leading the world in both renewables and nuclear, because it doesn't share your ideology about what “counts.”

//Wind and solar generation tend to come on at the same time, crashing the spot price of electricity.//

Yes, and lower electricity prices are supposed to be a bad thing? Spot price drops are a natural result of abundant, low-cost supply. That’s why utilities pair renewables with batteries, flexible pricing, and demand response tools. These aren’t bugs. They’re the evolving grid working as designed.

//The more wind and solar in the system, the worse the problem gets.//

If that were true, countries like Denmark, Portugal, or South Australia would be basket cases. Instead, they’re enjoying some of the lowest wholesale prices on record. When problems arise, they’re usually due to outdated infrastructure or political interference, not “too much sun.”

ttbn, your post hoc fallacy sounds reasonable until you remember that fossil fuel volatility, gas price shocks, and network costs are the real price drivers. Renewables are cheap, it’s the system around them that needs modernising.

You two keep describing an energy system in crisis - yet investment, deployment, and innovation keep accelerating.

//Despite the trillions of dollars being spent, wind and solar generate about half as much power as nuclear.//

A fact check shows this to be another blatant lie from the Usual Suspect.

2023 world electricity global production;

Fossil fuels, coal and gas: 61%
Renewables, hydro, wind, and solar: 30%
Nuclear power: 9.1%

"Australia is mis-ruled by lunatics"; ttbn, not true, the far right lunatics YOU support did not win government at the May election.

"only a fraction of the fans turning listlessly" Indy were YOU out for another day of jousting at windmills as YOU constantly do. Sorry YOU were disappointed. BTW, we have enough blow hard Old Farts on this forum, they could supply all the hot air required to keep dem windmills turning! AND with a good supply of Baked Beans, the possibilities are endless, we can hook YOU up to a gas turdine at the same time. I'll add that task to my Seniors National Service list.

Ah, our prize git is vying for #1 Price git award as per usual.
Paul1405,
you're so keen of cutting earned investment however, when it comes to welfare you're undeservingly benefitting from you remain conspicuously silent. Many, many times more money is spent on the likes of you than all old age pensions combined.
Your Peter Principle salaries amount to no benefit to the Nation whereas pensioners have already contributed for 50+ years before being able to get their hands onto their pension unlike you Peter Principle achievers. The pensioners have already beaten you hands down so far as being of benefit to the Nation is concerned.
I can already see my legacy benefitting in communities whereas yours is already making life difficult for many as your lot is only leaving victims in your wake.

If we are going to get to net zero, then emissions have to DEcrease. Yes, Yes, I know that that is a concept that eludes the likes of Paul and JD, so they'll just have to trust me that its true!!

But gee whiz...lookie hear. The most recent figures show that emissions are INcreasing. Not only increasing this year but higher now than when Albo took over. So despite all the hoopla about what a wonderful job they're doing, we're going backwards on their core promises.

Now I know that the legacy media will seek to hide these facts and the likes of JD with have a myriad reasons why we should pretend that things going up are really going down (reasons that amount to 'I don't want it to be true, therefore it isn't').

If it wasn't for the fact that agriculture had a bad year the who debacle would have been even worse, but I don't think growing less food is a winning strategy.

Add to this the real world evidence that renewables increase electricity prices with the recently announced 9% increase in prices about to hit the consumer and business and we see that the whole house of cards is unravelling.

It'll just take some a lot longer to cotton-on.

Ah yes, mhaze.

Emissions tick up slightly, and suddenly net zero is a “house of cards.” Never mind that short-term fluctuations are expected in any long-term transition. One year’s data isn’t a death knell, unless you’re looking for one.

//If we are going to get to net zero, then emissions have to DEcrease.//

Of course. Nobody’s debating that. But emissions don’t fall in a perfect line - they respond to economic rebounds, energy exports, and weather patterns. The broader trend, not the blip, is what matters.

//The most recent figures show that emissions are INcreasing. Not only increasing this year but higher now than when Albo took over.//

Yes, by a margin. But emissions are still below pre-COVID levels. The increase is modest, driven by post-pandemic industrial activity and energy exports, not some systemic failure of renewables.

Then you offer this:

//Add to this the real world evidence that renewables increase electricity prices with the recently announced 9% increase in prices about to hit the consumer and business and we see that the whole house of cards is unravelling.//

That’s not “real world evidence.” It’s selective blame. Regulators point to network costs, gas price volatility, and retail profit margins - not wind farms - as the drivers of price rises. If renewables inherently raised prices, countries with high penetration like Portugal or Denmark would be broke. Instead, they’re enjoying some of the lowest wholesale prices in Europe.

You keep treating this as some grand unravelling. But what’s actually coming apart is the illusion that fossil fuels are cheap, stable, or future-proof. The clean energy shift isn’t collapsing, it’s evolving. And your argument can’t keep up.

You can yell “fire” all you like, but when investment is booming, deployment is accelerating, and the grid keeps cleaning up, it’s pretty clear what’s actually burning: your talking points.

The South Australian Liberal Party has called on the Federal Liberal Party to drop Net Zero.

It is ok to destroy environment for housing but not ok to destroy environment for power generation.

Yes, ttbn.

And after all that’s been discussed here, even you should know now just how unwarranted such a move is.

Notice how the South Australian Liberals haven’t gone into any real detail about why the federal party should abandon net zero? That’s because the so-called “threats” Antic rattles off would be magnified, not solved, by halting the transition.

He claims net zero is a threat to our energy security - but South Australia itself is the clearest rebuttal to that. The state already sources the majority of its electricity from renewables and has led the way in grid stability through large-scale batteries, smart infrastructure, and diversified inputs.

Meanwhile, it’s gas - the very fuel Antic wants to lean into - that’s caused recent price shocks and supply instability. The idea that fossil fuels offer certainty while renewables breed chaos sounds great until you actually check the data.

And if we’re talking cost, the story’s even clearer: renewables are now the cheapest form of new generation in Australia. Abandoning net zero wouldn’t shield households from rising costs - it would tether them to a volatile global fossil fuel market, with all the geopolitical strings attached.

This wasn’t a policy shift. It was a performance - and one the moderate faction of the state branch of his party are distancing themselves from.

Antic doesn't have a credible alternative - net zero simply offends his culture war sensibilities. There’s no modelling. No roadmap. Just ideology dressed up as pragmatism.

And irony of ironies: he’s doing it from a state whose renewable success utterly disproves his point.

According to Resolve Polling, the scare tactics about climate change aren't working on Generation Z anymore. They are more concerned about the cost of electricity, which is steadily rising. 55% of them support a pause on Net Zero.

As for the cost to carry on with the totally unrealistic, impossible Net Zero bollocks: 90% said that they wouldn't pay more than an extra $100, and they know that their bills have gone up a lot more than that already, and the next increase has been officially announced as an increase of 34% on today's prices.

Ideology is at last being replaced with pragmatism. There's a lot of talk, but when it comes to footing the bill, enthusiasm dries up.

Electricity bills have almost doubled over the past four years, and there has been no effect on the climate whatsoever. Carbon dioxide produced by fossil fuels has nothing to do with climate change. It's a myth, a lie.

The biggest liar and idiot is the Minister for Stupid Pronouncements, Chris Bowen, who was kept under wraps during the whole election campaign. While this idiot was chuntering away, his SA counterpart had to seek permission to reinstate two diesel generators.

Gen Z has finally realised that demonstrations and slogans don't pay energy bills. And stupid though they may have been when activism was hip, they know that Australia has slipped down the growth and economic scale eight times deeper than any similar country, due mainly to the cranky Net Zero dogma and the cranks who started it and still push it despite its obvious failure and the damage it has done to the wealth and happiness of Australians.

European countries have finally woken up. Queensland is on the ball. The federal uniparty is just plain pighead - unable to admit a mistake - or just determined to bring Australia to its knees while making Communist China richer and more dangerous.

It's time the loyalty of the political class was seriously questioned.

ttbn,

So, when the facts won’t play along, just crank up the volume? You've spun a poll showing Gen Z worries about energy bills into full-blown climate denial.

Most people don’t want higher costs, sure. But that doesn’t mean they want to torch net zero. You're confusing hesitation with agreement, and it's wishful thinking.

//Electricity bills have almost doubled over the past four years, and there has been no effect on the climate whatsoever.//

Bold claim. How would you know?

People pushing this line bounce between “the climate isn’t changing” and “it’s always changed,” depending on the mood. But now you’re confident enough in your grasp of global climate patterns to declare the impact of mitigation efforts with certainty?

What’s more likely: the CSIRO, NASA, NOAA, the BoM, and every major scientific body on Earth are wrong… or some anonymous guy in Australia with a grudge against Chris Bowen is?

And no, renewables aren’t driving up prices. Regulators have been crystal clear: the culprits are gas volatility, network costs, and profit margins. If solar and wind caused high power bills, countries like Portugal and Denmark - with the highest renewable shares - wouldn’t have the lowest wholesale prices in Europe. But they do.

//Carbon dioxide produced by fossil fuels has nothing to do with climate change. It's a myth, a lie.//

Right. Well, just as soon as you find the slightest shred of evidence for that, be sure to tell the rest of the world, won't you?

You can throw insults at Bowen, rage about diesel tests, and daydream about the 1950s all you like - but here’s reality: SA’s grid runs mostly on renewables. Your state disproves your argument every day.

//It’s time the loyalty of the political class was seriously questioned.//

That’s mere conspiracy crankery. The kind you find on Facebook, wedged between flat Earth memes and ads for colloidal silver.

When the direction of policy matches the overwhelming weight of evidence from decades of research, it’s not loyalty that needs questioning - it’s the ability to recognise reality when it’s staring you in the face.

ttbn, what a joke!

"The South Australian Liberal Party has called on the Federal Liberal Party to drop Net Zero."

Did they call from the SA Liberal Party phone box, aka party room? Anyway, the Federal Liberals are too busy stabbing each other in the front and back to take calls.

I did hear, that at the last Federal Liberal Party meeting Squeaky Ley screamed; "There's a National in the room! That black shella Nambepambe, sitting in the corner, holding the big knife with my name on it! Men, remember the policy, no chicks allowed! You know what to do!!"...."Angus, no not me, HER!"

SA’s grid runs mostly on renewables.
John daysh,
Why only mostly, what's stopping them from going all the way ?

Good question, Indyvidual.

Ultimately? The political and ideological resistance of a loud minority driven by fear, identity, and tribalism.

We could’ve been further along by now, but instead of investing in solutions, we spent decades debating with people who think every wind turbine is a communist plot.

SA runs mainly on renewables? When it isn't taking power from NSW. I live in SA. Eastern staters don't even know where it is - thankfully. Labor blew up our only coal powered generator. The Greek taxi driver now responsible for energy here was crapping himself during the past Summer, and had to beg for permission to recommission two diesel generators in case we had another serious, state-wide blackout like the one we had when we last lost power from interstate. It was weeks before power was restored in some regions.

I note that John Daysh is still emitting crap out of his arse. I know it is crap from past experience only. I never read anything he bangs out these days.

Thanks, ttbn. I was waiting for someone to raise those points.

//"SA runs mainly on renewables? When it isn't taking power from NSW.//

Yes, SA does run mainly on renewables. And like every other state, it sometimes imports power. That’s not failure - that’s exactly how a national grid is designed to work: sharing load and smoothing peaks.

//Labor blew up our only coal powered generator.//

Because it was old, inefficient, and no longer needed. Renewables had already overtaken it in output, and keeping it on standby was more costly than replacing it with more efficient solutions.

//The Greek taxi driver now responsible for energy here was crapping himself during the past Summer...//

No, he wasn't. Those diesel generators were part of a contingency plan, tested but not used. And they were brought in after 2016 to ensure backup - the kind of responsible planning you'd expect in a transitioning grid.

//...in case we had another serious, state-wide blackout like the one we had when we last lost power from interstate.//

The 2016 blackout had nothing to do with wind or interstate supply. It was caused by damaged transmission towers during a once-in-50-year storm. The grid’s automatic protections kicked in. It was a transmission issue, not a generation one.

//It was weeks before power was restored in some regions.//

Most areas had power restored within hours. A few remote sites took longer due to physical infrastructure damage - again, nothing to do with the generation mix.

//I note that John Daysh is still emitting crap out of his arse. I know it is crap from past experience only. I never read anything he bangs out these days.//

I wouldn't expect that you read anything I wrote - you're protecting your worldview. The fact that you come back with more of the same after it's just been discredited is what makes replying so rewarding. It reveals far more than anything I could say would.

Dear Indyvidual,

«Why only mostly, what's stopping them from going all the way ?»

Because had they completed this particular "project" then they would have to invent another to keep the population in fear of that or the other so they can justify the very existence or their regime.

John,

"We could’ve been further along by now, but instead of investing in solutions, we spent decades debating with people who think every wind turbine is a communist plot."

That is like buying a dodgy car and blaming its breakdowns on the dirty stares that people give you as you drive by. Let me again mention how France built nuclear from the mid 1970s. Do you imagine that there were no critics for the nuclear push? The French did the job one and a half times over in fifteen years. Comparing wind and solar con critics with anti-nuclear critics is like comparing pro-Israel protestors with "free Palestine" protestors. Here is a real world example of the difference:

https://news.sky.com/story/man-charged-with-murder-after-petrol-bomb-and-flamethrower-attack-at-rally-for-israeli-hostages-13378105

As for how the French did it, here is a link to a brilliant docco on the subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WNjyxeBsWc

Fester,

That’s not the analogy you think it is. You're comparing the climate movement to someone buying a "dodgy car" and blaming the critics when it breaks down - but you’ve missed what I actually said.

The point was that the resistance didn’t just "criticise" - it blocked funding, delayed action, distorted public understanding, and influenced policy. That’s like deliberately slashing the tyres and then saying “See? Told you EVs were unreliable.”

As for France’s nuclear build-out, it actually proves the opposite of what you're trying to argue. Once again, the Mesmer Plan was:

- A top-down, technocratic push with no public consultation
- Driven by state control, not market forces
- Heavily resisted by critics - including bomb threats and protests
- Accomplished because the government pushed through regardless

In other words, it succeeded despite the kind of resistance that now dominates the energy transition discourse - the very thing slowing us down today. So thank you for making the case for faster, government-led deployment of clean energy - with fewer brakes from conspiracy theorists.

The whole of the east coast is interconnected + SA and Tas. Power is activated where it's needed at anytime. That is grid stability.

The political and ideological resistance of a loud minority driven by fear, identity, and tribalism.
John Daysh,
Were you to really look into this, you'd realise that it's none of those listed by you. You'd find that people are sick & tired of being fleeced of their money by these unachievable "projects".
The con artists are enjoying a great life due to incompetent & unaccountable Peter Principal qualified bureaucrats handing all that funding over after it's been taken off people who actually produce the funding which is then seized by callous Government & put into the coffers.
Much of it is invariably squandered by people supposedly following "strict" guidelines.
Bring on energy provision with as little as possible pollution however, the present tactics & technology totally don't warrant the insane splurging on "research" without foreseeable results !
Research must produce practical results not just endless guessing at huge expense ! No result, no more than standard wage !

Indyvidual,

Ah yes, “just follow the money” - the last refuge of someone who doesn’t want to look at the data. You say it’s not about fear, identity, or tribalism - and then immediately serve up a textbook example of all three.

People are sick of being fleeced? Let’s talk fleecing:

- Fossil fuel subsidies still outweigh renewable ones globally.

- The climate and health costs of pollution don’t show up on your power bill - but you still pay them, just under “hospital” and “disaster relief.”

- Meanwhile, renewables are now the cheapest form of new energy in Australia - according to AEMO, CSIRO, and the IEA, not "callous bureaucrats."

You talk about "Peter Principle-qualified" researchers - but what’s your alternative? Cut all funding unless results are immediate and guaranteed? That’s not science - that’s gambling. Scientific progress doesn’t run on ultimatums and slogans; it runs on experimentation, iteration, and yes, sometimes failure.

You want “pollution-free energy with practical results”? So does everyone else. That’s literally the point of the transition. The only thing standing in the way isn’t science - it’s politics, ideology, and reflexive opposition dressed up as concern for the taxpayer.

And if we’d started earlier, without the decades-long delay tactics from those same “sceptics,” we might already have the tech you’re now demanding.

An IPA media release today advises that massive increases in Net Zero spending are making us all poorer. We know that. And even the Australian political class is not stupid enough not to know it too. They just lie about it.

The costs to Australians have risen “15 fold” over a decade, and more than 400% in the last term of the Albanese government.

While the combined uniparty is a guilty as hell, the Albanese government - the one we could be stuck with for a very long time since the collapse of the Liberals - the Albanese government has
accelerated annual funding of the doomed scheme from $1.7 billion in 2022, to just over $9 billion annually in its most recent budget.

These massive costs pale into insignificance compared with the “multitrillion” costs to households and businesses.

The report reminds us that ‘net zero’ was mentioned only 3 times during the recent election campaign; but it is mentioned 92 times in Labor’s 2024/25 budget. And, the “embarrassing talk of Australia becoming a ‘renewable energy super power’ vanished entirely …”.

There is no mention of Minister for Stupid Pronouncements, Bowen, being tied to his kennel for the duration of the campaign.

The most productive sectors of our economy (what's left of them) are being crushed because of “flawed and misleading advice and ideology”.

Elsewhere, the question of how Albanese's “noone left behind” brag will be possible with rising energy prices, whacking families in the suburbs, but not touching rich people - like Albanese himself.

ttbn,

Thanks for another IPA press release, dutifully delivered like it’s gospel. Yet, not a single claim is even remotely accurate.

Let’s break it down:

//...massive increases in Net Zero spending are making us all poorer.//

That’s quite the claim - and yet, real-world data doesn’t back it up. The CSIRO’s GenCost report consistently shows renewables are the cheapest form of new generation. Infrastructure investment isn’t making us poorer, it’s laying the foundation for future stability. You don’t build bridges and then complain about the cost before anyone crosses them.

//The costs to Australians have risen “15 fold” over a decade...//

Only if you cherry-pick the lowest year during a period of neglect and compare it to current scaling. Of course the number is bigger now - we’re finally doing what should’ve been done decades ago.

//The most productive sectors of our economy ... are being crushed...//

What, like manufacturing? Which is being supported precisely because renewable energy reduces input costs long-term? Or agriculture, which is under constant threat from climate volatility?

//Net zero was mentioned only 3 times during the election campaign.//

As if that’s evidence of conspiracy. Budgets are about policy detail; campaigns are about messaging. The policies were public. No one was blindsided. You might’ve even seen them if you looked beyond IPA newsletters.

//And, the “embarrassing talk of Australia becoming a ‘renewable energy super power’ vanished entirely …”.//

Hardly. Australia is still the #1 destination for renewable investment per capita. And the ambition remains - the only thing that’s “vanished” is your ability to see past a talking point.

//Elsewhere, the question of how Albanese's “noone left behind” brag will be possible with rising energy prices...//

So… you’re angry that Labor didn’t hit high earners hard enough? That’s new.

Let’s be honest: This isn’t economic outrage. It’s ideological frustration dressed up as concern. The world is moving forward - investment is flowing, technology is advancing, and denialism is losing steam.

You can keep repeating “it’s doomed,” but it’s starting to sound like you’re just trying to convince yourself.

Texan Robert Bryce, author of ‘Pulling The Plug On Net Zero’, was asked for his comments on Australia's ‘energy transition’ - not by the MSM of course.

His first remark was, “I don't see any transition”.

He expressed, as many people do, including Australians suffering from Net Zero, that it was “incredible” that we export our energy resources, but don’t want to use them ourselves.

He described the situation as “totally bonkers”, “regressive”.

Net Zero is impossible. It is “never going to work”. “Sober up and be realistic”.

Australia is “hollowing out its economy” with destructive policies that “effectively have no impact on climate change”.

Bryce intends to visit Australia. I wonder if they will try to block his visa application

Ah yes, ttbn, Robert Bryce - the fossil fuel advocate whose job is literally to oppose clean energy.

Of course he doesn't see a transition. When your entire worldview is built around oil and gas, a wind turbine probably looks like a hallucination.

//His first remark was, “I don't see any transition”.//

Odd. The IEA, CSIRO, BloombergNEF, and AEMO do. So do the tens of billions being invested annually. Maybe he just needs to open his eyes - or Google.

//...we export our energy resources but don’t want to use them ourselves.//

Because global LNG prices pay more than domestic consumption, and Australia’s power stations weren’t built to burn all of our export coal or gas. It’s not ideology - it’s economics.

//Net zero is impossible. It is never going to work.//

Funny, coming from someone who said the same thing about solar and wind viability back when they cost 10 times as much as they do now. He’s been wrong before. He’s just louder about it now.

//...destructive policies that “effectively have no impact on climate change”.//

Yes, the classic denialist contradiction: it’s all meaningless and it’s destroying the economy! Pick one.

You’d think someone supposedly so dangerous to the “mainstream” narrative wouldn’t have a book on Amazon, a Substack, and regular invites to U.S. media. But sure - let’s pretend he’s being silenced. Maybe ASIO will ban his visa for bad takes.

If your strongest case against net zero is that Robert Bryce thinks it’s “bonkers,” then maybe the real hollowing-out happening here is in your argument.

"As for France’s nuclear build-out, it actually proves the opposite of what you're trying to argue."

No John, what it proves is that it doesn't matter what people think if the technology delivers. What ultimately stopped the nuclear build was oversupply of electricity and a lack of international customers. What is holding wind and solar back are fundamental limitations of the technology, with predictable implications such as collapsing the spot price when it's sunny and windy.

https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/wild-winds-blow-up-solar-farm-profits-20240902-p5k73w

"Thanks for another IPA press release, dutifully delivered like it’s gospel. Yet, not a single claim is even remotely accurate."

I notice that you made no mention of the $9 billion in annual subsidies for the wind and solar con.

Fester,

No, I didn’t “fail to mention” the $9 billion. It just wasn’t the smoking gun you seem to think it is.

That figure includes not just generation support, but grid upgrades, transition planning, storage, R&D, and future-ready infrastructure - the kind of investment you’d expect when modernising a national energy system. Framing it as some shady “solar con” is like calling roads a scam because we fund their maintenance.

And your AFR article? It doesn’t show wind and solar are failing, it shows they’re producing so much power during peak conditions that outdated market settings and infrastructure are struggling to keep up. That’s what progress looks like before the system catches up.

Contrast that with France’s nuclear rollout. It succeeded because the government planned for it, subsidised it heavily, and coordinated supply and demand. And yet, even it was paused due to oversupply and falling prices - a “problem” we’re now seeing with renewables. Funny how that gets reframed as success when it suits the narrative.

So let’s not pretend this is about deliberate oversight. I didn’t bring it up because it wasn’t the own-goal you thought it was.

The climate and health costs of pollution don’t show up on your power bill
John Daysh,
You et al from the alternative energy brigade never mention these either ! And, they're worse than from the present misnamed fossil fuel !

Thanks, Indyvidual.

Actually, climate and health costs are frequently mentioned by energy experts, economists, and health professionals - and they consistently show that fossil fuels cause far more harm.

Air pollution from coal, oil, and gas kills millions worldwide every year through respiratory and cardiovascular disease. That’s not fringe opinion - that’s from the WHO, Lancet, and peer-reviewed studies. The cost of these health impacts is staggering, but it doesn’t appear on your power bill, which is why it’s so easy for some to pretend it doesn’t exist.

Meanwhile, what are the health costs of solar and wind? Maybe a bruised ego when a turbine ruins your anti-renewables narrative? They don’t emit particulates, carcinogens, or CO2.

If you think renewables are worse for human health than burning fossil fuels, you're not just wrong - you're dangerously wrong.

Indyvidal,

Take a break from the ratbag with the self-esteem problem and read this from someone who does know what he is talking about.

https://quadrant.org.au/news-opinions/politics/you-get-what-you-vote-for/

ttbn,

Yes, when the facts get too inconvenient, just slap on the label “ratbag” and tell people to stop engaging. Classic move.

Apparently, calmly presenting sourced evidence and dismantling weak arguments qualifies as “troublemaking” now. If I were flinging memes or frothing at the mouth, I might blend in better - but I suppose being too coherent is the real crime here.

You’ve gone from arguing, to sneering, to telling others not to talk to me. It’s pure damage control. “Ignore him” isn’t a counterpoint, it’s a white flag with snark printed on it.

If you truly believe I’m wrong, you’d be quoting me and dismantling what I’ve said. But instead, you’ve decided I’m best handled like an awkward fact - quietly ignored and dismissed with a nickname.

Keep the insults coming if it helps. I’ll keep pointing out the spin. One of us is rattling cages, the other is rattled.

They don’t emit particulates, carcinogens, or CO2.
John Daysh,
Last time I checked they're made from Bauxite, Iron ore, Oil, Fibreglass, Glues, Chemicals, Copper, Plastic, Concrete etc all dug out & brought in by Diesel powered trucks & refined by coal powered electricity.
According to you they must be made from thin air !
No coal fired power station pollutes & destroys as much of our environment than your useless windmills & don't even start about the costs !

No one said they’re made of fairy dust, Indyvidual.

All infrastructure - wind, solar, coal, nuclear - requires materials and energy to build. The question isn’t whether wind turbines magically float into existence, but how they compare over their lifetime in emissions, pollution, and damage.

And here’s the reality: once built, wind turbines generate electricity for 20-30 years without burning a thing. No CO2, no mercury, no particulates. Coal plants, on the other hand, keep polluting every second they run.

If you're going to criticise renewables for the materials used in their construction, I trust you’re just as outraged about highways, skyscrapers, and, well… coal power stations - which also use concrete, steel, copper, diesel, and a whole lot more. Or is it only bad when clean energy uses them?

Wind turbines have an energy payback time of around 6-12 months - after that, it’s clean output. Fossil fuel plants never pay back. They just keep burning and billing the atmosphere.

So no, I don’t think turbines are made from thin air. But pretending they’re worse than coal because of their materials is like saying bicycles are worse than SUVs because both use rubber.

You want to talk costs? Sure - wind is now the cheapest new generation in Australia. That’s why it’s being built. Not because of rainbows and unicorns, but because the economics beat coal. Sorry if that ruins the narrative.

Renewables aren't just held to a different standard by their detractors, they're expected to meet an impossible standard.

Why?

Because, again, it's never really about the concerns expressed. It's about fear, identity, and tribalism - which is why you're not supposed to be talking to me.

"Wind turbines have an energy payback time of around 6-12 months"

I'm guessing that would not include the overbuild, transmission upgrades (Victoria just discovered that a 4.3 billion estimate was more like 20 billion), batteries, pumped hydro, grid stability measures or back up fossil fuel generation. The koala clubbing and environmental vandalism that goes with installation is probably part of the fun.

Oh, and the AFR has an article on the slow pace of renewables rollout in today's edition. The article didn't blame the critical members of the peanut gallery on olo. Instead, the spanner in the works were lobby groups for farmers/conservationists concerned about the environmental destruction that the wind and solar con entails. And the land area involved? Not what lying Johnny would have you believe. 1.7 times the area of Tassie was mentioned, and that might only be the area needed for electricity generation, the re superpower BS.

It's about fear, identity, and tribalism
John Daysh,
Correct, the fear of the proponents to lose ongoing massive funding which as till now has no balance as to cost vs benefit nor any reduction in pollution. Considering that the pollution from the wind farms is in addition to the pollution from coal this is not the kind of equation to boast about.
That whole industry is one of promises & massive waste of funding that could actually be used to curb pollution far more effectively if people actually cared.
Come up with real proven alternatives such as discipline & restraint & pollution will reduce.

Thanks, Fester.

It’s always amusing how quickly we go from cost concerns to koala-clubbing in the span of a paragraph. Let’s unpack it:

//I'm guessing that would not include the overbuild, transmission upgrades [...] batteries, pumped hydro, grid stability measures or back up fossil fuel generation.//

You're guessing correctly, because those are system-wide infrastructure investments, not the energy payback of an individual turbine. It's like saying a car’s fuel efficiency must be a lie because roads cost money.

And yes, the grid needs updating. Because everything changes when you shift to new technology - just like it did when we first built the fossil fuel system. You think coal power didn’t require overbuild, new lines, backup generation, and subsidies?

//Koala clubbing and environmental vandalism...//

Ah yes, the newfound concern for wildlife from people defending an industry that causes actual habitat loss, particulate pollution, acid rain, and oceanic dead zones. The fact that you think turbines are worse than open-cut coal mines or gas fracking says more about your ideology than any environmental principle.

//The land area involved? 1.7 times the area of Tassie.//

Care to mention that most of that land remains usable? Wind turbines don’t blanket the terrain - they’re spaced out, and land beneath is still farmed. Solar farms too, in many regions, are co-used with grazing or set on degraded land. It’s not 1.7 Tasmanias of scorched earth - that’s just the surface-level footprint if you squint and panic.

//Not what lying Johnny would have you believe.//

I know you're proud of that line, but resorting to name-calling every time your points wobble doesn’t exactly scream confidence.

And that AFR article? It doesn’t disprove the viability of renewables - it proves the irony. Many of the very people who could benefit from clean energy are slowing it down due to environmental fears, which, when you trace them, are often stoked by the same groups pushing fossil fuel talking points.

But sure, tell me more about how a wind turbine is the real menace here.

Indyvidual,

There it is, the real fear: that somewhere, someone might receive funding for solving a problem you’ve already declared doesn’t exist.

You keep calling it a “waste” with “no results,” but the metrics are there - emissions reductions, energy output, declining costs - just inconveniently not on the conspiracy blogs you frequent.

And no, pollution from wind farms is not “in addition” to coal. Wind replaces fossil generation - that’s the point. Unless you believe we're firing up turbines on top of running coal at full tilt just to burn money.

Your solution? “Discipline and restraint.” Sounds noble - but discipline alone doesn’t decarbonise a grid, and restraint doesn’t generate megawatts. The transition needs real infrastructure, not lifestyle sermons.

Let’s be honest: this isn’t about cost-benefit or environmental concern. If it were, you’d be calling for stronger regulation, better oversight, and faster displacement of coal - not shouting down every form of clean energy because it threatens your worldview.

You’ve just confirmed my point: it’s not the turbines or the spending that really bother you. It’s the type of people backing them.

That’s tribal panic, not environmental concern.

John Daysh,
That's your most lame retort to-date. You're not trying to out-do Paul1405 by any chance ?

Indyvidual,

John Daysh is just a snake in the grass who doesn't have what it takes to initiate a thread himself. Like all cowards, he can only criticise others. You are enabling him by responding to his nasty bullying.

Indyvidual,

When your best comeback is that something was “lame,” you’ve effectively confirmed it struck a nerve.

You didn’t address a single point I raised - not the emissions reductions, not the cost trends, not the nonsense about wind pollution somehow being “in addition to” coal. You just waved it away and reached for a playground insult.

If you really think I’m wrong, then refute the argument. But if “lame” is all you’ve got, maybe sit this one out next time - you’re only making my case stronger.

______

ttbn,

I know you’re desperate to shift the attention from what was said to who said it, but this is particularly thin gruel. Your real issue isn’t that I haven’t started a thread - it’s that I’ve corrected yours a little too often for comfort.

And the idea that I'm "bullying" by disagreeing with you publicly? That’s rich, coming from someone who throws out insults like confetti, calls people “rats” and “cowards,” and urges others to shun them.

If calling out falsehoods with evidence and logic now qualifies as bullying, then perhaps it’s not me who’s in the wrong forum.

You just waved it away and reached for a playground insult.
John Daysh,
My Neighbour had mechanical problems with his tractor so I left the computer to help him.
Regarding your points; there is now emission reduction, it's an increase & a huge one at that. 3000 electric cars burning on a ship probably doesn't count as pollution in your circles as do the many others all over the world. Costs are over the top to the taxpayers in case you were hiding behind a rock over the past three years or, you simply believe Albo that costs are coming down. I have news for you, ask around & read & listen to people who are paying more instead of the promised less whilst your funding applications are being processed by some irresponsible bureaudroids as directed by your hero Bowen.
Tell us none of that is true !

JD

In this thread, only 2 people except me have responded to you, and nobody has agreed with you. I don't recall anyone agreeing with you since you slithered onto OLO. Most posters don't bother with you at all.

And finally, your 'corrective' mania hasn't changed a thing. You are a lonely loser.

Indyvidual,

No need to invent tractor problems, you could’ve just said you needed time to gather more unverified talking points.

But fine, let’s unpack them:

Emissions are up? Temporarily, yes - as the Climate Change Authority and energy market regulators have noted - largely due to post-pandemic rebounds and drought impacts on hydro. That’s not evidence of failure, it’s a signal we need to accelerate the transition.

EV fires? Are you seriously citing a ship fire - a tragic but rare transport accident - as proof the entire shift to clean energy is invalid? You might want to look up how many petrol vehicles ignite every year.

Costs? Renewables are now the cheapest source of new electricity, and even fossil-friendly AEMO data shows this. Power bills are affected more by gas price volatility and network costs than solar or wind.

If you’re angry about rising prices, you’re directing it at the wrong target. But that’s what this entire debate has been, hasn’t it? Rage first, check facts later - if at all.

______

tbn,

So we’ve gone from “don’t feed him” to “no one likes you.” That’s not an argument, it’s a Year 7 coping mechanism.

The fallacy you’re leaning on here is argumentum ad populum - the idea that if enough people ignore someone, they must be wrong. Strange, though, how you embrace popularity as a stand-in for truth here, while dismissing the scientific consensus on climate change as irrelevant.

You can’t have it both ways: either numbers matter or they don’t.

And let’s be honest - if your views were truly unassailable, you wouldn’t need to rely on headcounts, sneers, and “pretend he doesn’t exist” tactics. You’d be making the case directly.

I’m not here for applause. I’m here to challenge nonsense parading as fact. And judging by how much time you now spend not engaging while still talking about me, I’d say it’s getting under your skin more than you’d like to admit.

But by all means - carry on pretending no one’s listening. I’ll keep showing up with receipts.

That’s not evidence of failure,
John Daysh,
Only in your mind. The great failure is in the fact that alternative energy such as wind generators are massively polluting from planning to final disposal after which no-one has any idea what to do with the useless junk.
I understand that you're in panic mode in case someone in Government wakes up to the con that is Net Zero & associated infrastructure. Granted, it's very good money for many but those who have to actually work so they can be fleeced for the money given to your fairy tale Net Zero pyramid schemes don't share your faux idealism.
As I stated before, the sooner we can have non-polluting energy the better however, your idea of non-polluting fails the Pub test at every turn !

Indyvidual,

So when facts don’t cooperate, shift to pub tests and pyramid schemes?

You say wind turbines are “massively polluting” - from planning to disposal. Yet somehow, even with that life-cycle impact accounted for, they still emit less CO2 per kilowatt-hour than coal, gas, or even biomass. That’s not my opinion - that’s the data from the IPCC, the IEA, and every national energy agency with a calculator.

You call Net Zero a “fairy tale” and a “pyramid scheme,” but offer no evidence of this besides vague grumbling and imagined conspiracies. And yes, some people make money from building infrastructure - just like they do from roads, ports, and power lines. That’s not corruption. That’s called a functioning economy.

As for “useless junk”? You’re a few years behind. Turbine blades are already being recycled into everything from cement to car parts. The rest - steel, copper, rare earths - is highly reusable. Compare that to coal ash, methane leaks, and the tailings from fossil fuel extraction. That’s pollution with no upside.

And finally, your “pub test” is telling. We used to say the same thing about smoking, seatbelts, and climate science itself. The truth isn’t what gets a round of applause after three schooners - it’s what holds up when the hangover wears off.

If you genuinely want non-polluting energy, great - but don’t mistake performative cynicism for a plan.

Hi John,

I've been reading your posts, and your interaction with the pair of regular forum old farts, Indy and ttbn. Its a no contest, like with most things that pair comment on, its self evident they are clueless.

This is a bit rich from ttbn, "Most posters don't bother with you (JD) at all." Considering this old fella is by far the most prolific forum poster, he rarely invokes a response to his daily diatribes at all.

Thanks, Paul. It's always good to see someone still awake at the wheel.

It’s amusing really: I post evidence-based arguments, and ttbn’s masterstroke is to tell people not to engage, as if I’m some kind of cursed object. When substance fails, it’s back to the schoolyard - "Don’t talk to him!” - followed by the delusion that this somehow proves I’ve lost the room.

Yet, I’m not here to win applause or count up likes. If anything, being ignored just makes the job easier. No distractions. Just me, their claims, and the silence that follows when they realise they can’t answer.

If ttbn thinks that social cold-shouldering will make me vanish, he’s read me as poorly as he’s read the energy market. I’m not driven by the same primitive tribal reflexes he clearly is.

Hi Paul,

Yes, the "no one on olo agrees with you" comment caught my attention as well.

John,

I thank you your comments here and am glad you get a kick out of it. As frustrating and annoying as I find you at times, discussions make people think about the world, which must be a good outcome. So good on you for participating.

Fester,

Now there’s something I didn’t expect to read this morning. Thank you - sincerely - for the generous words.

We don’t often agree, but credit where it’s due: you’ve shown more intellectual humility in one paragraph than some posters have managed in a decade.

And you’re absolutely right - it’s the thinking, not just the winning, that matters. Disagreement handled well sharpens ideas. Handled poorly, it just sharpens pitchforks.

Appreciate your comment.

While the Albanese socialist regime is handing $9 billion a year of our money over to the renewables scam, private investment in it has been plummeting for years. A 70% decline 2021-2023. Last year, no wind projects had any private investment, only 2 solar projects had private money.

Transmission costs for these remote renewables have soared from 25%-55%.

AEMO ‘revisiting’ previously non-negotiable transmission projects. The planners got it wrong. They got everything wrong. The model was flawed from the very beginning.

We are now up for a further $10s of billions for transmission.

The charade was “backed by science”. It was “non-negotiable” - now there are negotiations, in the face of ballooning costs.

Engineers, ignored in the past (not scientists, old bean) and economists say that costs,timing and complexity of the “transition” cannot be controlled,

Technical failure. Governance failure. Democratic failure.

Turbine blades are already being recycled into everything from cement to car parts. The rest - steel, copper, rare earths - is highly reusable
John Daysh,
You're having yourself on if you believe recycling is as clean as you dream it is ! Producing + use + dismantling + recycling is massive pollution + massive utterly unwarranted financial & social & environmental Costs !
Why not use the funding & effort wasted at this clearly futile concept & use it all on reducing pollution instead of increasing it because increasing it is !

"Last year, no wind projects had any private investment, only 2 solar projects had private money."

It is not unique to Australia and might be why China is installing so much. I can't understand how any non-dispatchable generation could be financed in a saturated market, which is where many nations sucked in by this con are at currently.

Fester

No, it is not unique to Australia. The rest of the world woke up before Australia did. Either someone has just woken up here, or it's been a fact that has been hidden from us. There is no way that people like Bowen would fess up if the latter was the case. Nor would the MSM reveal it.

The British government is at war with itself over NetZero.
I do not think it will be long before they opt out.
Once the great unwashed experience a couple of blackouts
and realise being stuck in a lift for an hour, or a day
a quick rethink will occur.
BYW, I read some info and asked a neighbor what are the
implications of no inertia in a power system.
His explanation explained everything.
It is the reason why an all solar/wind system is impossible.
All the spinning turbines around eastern Australia are all
exactly synchronised. I had not thought of that.
If one attempts to be a little (a fraction of a degree) out of sync
all the other machines contribute to keep it synchronised.
It is the rotating inertia of all those other machines that
keep the show on the road.
Solar panels and wind turbines have no inertia.
And that was what caused the blackout in Sth France, Spain
and Portugal.
That is why those in the know say it won't work !

Hi Fester,

One thing is for certain, Australia and the rest of the world, will need to "transition" from a total reliance on energy production from fossil fuels to an alternative. There is no problem with energy supply, the Sun, the provider of all energy, supplies more than enough to meet our requirements, how we harness that energy, and put it to practical use is the question. At the same time science tells us that the climate is changing, and changing rapidly, there is ample evidence for that fact, its not in dispute. Science also tells us global warming is being caused by excess CO2 in the atmosphere, the burning of fossil fuels is contributing to global warming, we ignore that problem at our peril.

I believe we have limited choice when looking at alternatives to fossil fuels, renewables are the best option for Australia, although coal and gas will still play an important, but a diminishing roll over time in energy production. I also believe technology with the development of wind, solar and hydro will be to our advantage as we transition. As for nuclear, I think if we were going to go down that path, we should have started twenty years ago, its too late now. Dutton did Australia a disservice with his half baked nuclear plan, it will never fly.

ttbn,

Fascinating that you’ve gone from insisting the science is fake… to now claiming the engineers just couldn’t make it cheap enough. Quite the pivot - but hey, I’m not one to mock progress.

Private investment reflects policy certainty - and that’s been sabotaged repeatedly by the kind of ideological attacks you cheer on. It’s not that renewables failed investors. It’s that the political climate can make them nervous.

As for transmission? Yes, it’s costly - so was wiring the country for coal. But you never called that a scam. Funny how “waste” only seems to exist when the infrastructure threatens your worldview.

And now you’re quoting engineers and economists - the same “experts” whose advice you said was all lies. It’s almost like you’ll cite anyone who sounds gloomy, even if they contradict your last position.

This isn’t a failure of science, or democracy, or engineering. It’s a failure of honesty - mostly from those who were never arguing in good faith to begin with.

Indyvidual,

I didn’t make that up.Wind turbine blades are being recycled - right now - and not just in tiny pilot projects.

Cement manufacturers like Geocycle and Holcim are grinding blades down and using the material as a replacement in cement kilns, which actually lowers the CO2; intensity of cement production. That’s already happening in Europe and parts of the US.

In the Netherlands and Ireland, blades are being repurposed into pedestrian bridges, bike shelters, and even playground structures. The materials are strong, durable, and far too useful to waste.

As for the rest of the turbine? It’s mostly steel, copper, and rare earth magnets - all routinely recovered and resold. There’s nothing futuristic or speculative about this. Companies are doing it now, because it makes economic sense.

You may not have seen this on the sites you frequent, but pretending something isn’t real doesn’t make it go away.

Recycling isn’t perfectly clean, but it’s better than letting fossil fuels burn endlessly with zero recovery. The problem isn’t that renewables pollute too much - it’s that they’re held to an impossibly pure standard by people still defending industries that don’t even try.

Bezza,

It’s always revealing when someone cites “a neighbour” as their source - just before announcing why the entire renewable transition is “impossible.”

Let’s unpack it...

Yes, rotating machines like coal and gas turbines provide inertia. No, that doesn’t make renewables unviable. Modern grids use synthetic inertia via grid-forming inverters - already being deployed across Australia.

South Australia, which runs up to 80–90% on wind and solar at times, is managing grid stability just fine, thanks to smart planning, synchronous condensers, batteries, and yes - those dreaded experts you lot like to ignore until they sound pessimistic.

The 2021 blackout you referred to? That was caused by a software error in a backup system and a cascade of failures in conventional infrastructure, not solar panels being “a fraction of a degree out.” That’s not how phase synchronization works - nor would “the great unwashed” appreciate being used as props for an anti-renewables fantasy.

As for Britain “opting out” of Net Zero - they’ve just reaffirmed their 2050 commitment, passed by law. Internal political wrangling does not equal abandonment. Every major economy is working out how to modernise their grid, not how to crawl back to coal.

If there's one thing I've shown in this thread, it's that net zero is here to stay - and for good reason, too. The real reason people say “it won’t work” is often not technical - it’s political and tribal.

That includes internal political wrangling.

John, I made no reference to a 2021 blackout. It was last month.
I know about rotating condensers and why they are given that name.
They are expensive and I imagine quite expensive to run.
The neighbour to whom I referred worked in power stations all his
life and really does know what he is talking about.
It is one thing to do a bit of power factor correction and quite
another to support a whole grid.

Hi Paul,

I look forward to a time with cheap and safer batteries as well as high efficiency solar panels as it might make going off the grid viable. I'm less optimistic about a renewable powered grid because of fundamental issues like oversupply. Look at the Codrington wind farm closure. It's not being upgraded because it is not economically viable to do so. How is it possible that a location that was viable for wind generation 25 years ago is not viable today when wind generation costs have plummeted and power prices have sky rocketed? It only makes sense if existing renewable supply has saturated the market.

My hope is that gas fired backup gets built before the coal fired power stations pack it in, and then the gas generation is in turn replaced be cheap smrs. One thing for sure is that the future will be a surprise to us all.

Hi Fester,

I think the here and now problem in Australia is best addressed with renewables, but what might be the energy mix for the long term who knows. The investment presently is in renewables, I agree gas as a back up will be important for sometime, certainly until better energy storage methods are developed. Anything nuclear will not be practical for Australia in the short term, what could develop with nuclear in the long term, no one can tell. Transition is not an easy path, mistakes have been made, wrong paths have been taken, and corrections have been necessary from time to time. No matter what, change is never cheap or perfect, there are substantial costs and problems involved, to do nothing might be more costly than doing something.

Bezza,

Right, but last month’s “blackout” wasn’t a blackout. SA issued a public warning about potential supply shortfalls due to extreme weather and interconnector constraints. The lights stayed on.

As for inertia, of course it’s essential. That’s why technologies like synchronous condensers, grid-forming inverters, and battery systems are deployed. They are providing inertia and frequency control (right now) at places like Robertstown (SA) and Darlington Point (NSW). These aren’t hypothetical solutions. They’re up and running on the NEM.

Your neighbour might know power stations, but that knowledge doesn’t become invalid just because it now extends beyond coal. The grid is evolving, and engineering is meeting the challenge. “We need inertia” isn’t an argument against renewables. It’s one of the problems the transition was always going to solve, and is solving.

We didn’t abandon horses because cars couldn’t eat hay.

Alternative energy can't happen soon enough however, until it is achieved we should not keep ruining the environment & throw billions at the charlatans !

On the day that one of Australia's scungiest Prime Ministers, Scott (net zero) Morrison gets a King's birthday gong for retarding Australia's growth and well-being, Ian Plimer advises that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is “dangerously low”.

Net Zero is not just coal and gas “off the menu”; it is removing 6,000 products provided by coal and gas and sending us back to the Stone Age.

The whole climate hysteria is based on models that are demonstrably wrong!

And, it has NEVER been shown that CO2 drives climate change. Try looking for the proof instead of believing everything you are told.

And, if you can't adapt to the “huge” temperature rise of 1.5 degrees (predicted/guessed) you are a bunch of pussies.

You are all being scared witless by people wanting to get rich and richer, you fools. And, most of these greedy arseholes are not even Australians, but encouraged by the arseholes making up most of our political class. Ever wonder what they are getting out of it, on top of the ridiculously high wages and perks we give them?

Of course you haven't wondered. Australians are not curious about anything. Big Brother does your thinking for you.

ttbn,

So we’ve circled all the way back to the classics: Plimer, Stone Age scaremongering, and the trusty old “climate models are wrong” refrain - without ever explaining how. At this point, it’s less a position and more a reflex.

Let’s take a look:

//CO2 is dangerously low.//

A bold take. You might want to notify the entire field of climate science that they’ve somehow missed the part where an unprecedented rise in atmospheric CO2 is actually… a shortage. You’ve turned basic chemistry on its head - with confidence.

//Net Zero removes 6,000 products and sends us to the Stone Age.//

That’s not policy analysis. It’s a campfire story. Transitioning energy sources doesn’t ban industrial production - it decarbonizes it. But I get it: “Stone Age” sounds scarier than “updated grid infrastructure.”

//Climate models are demonstrably wrong!//

Really? Which models, and what did they got wrong? This is like yelling “the maps are fake!” while standing on the freeway and expecting applause.

//1.5 degrees? Harden up!//

Ah yes, the old “real men ignore science” approach. The kind of thinking that brought us asbestos, leaded petrol, and smoking doctors. It's not about our thermal comfort.

//Australians don’t question anything.//

Except… the scientists, the engineers, the economists, the data, the budget allocations, the energy forecasts, the IPCC, the BOM, the CSIRO, the AEMO, and reality itself. But sure, it’s everyone else who’s not asking questions.

You’re not defending a principle here, you’re recycling a narrative. One that’s been disproven, debunked, and dismantled so many times it now runs on fumes. But it persists, not because it’s right, but because it flatters grievance and shields ideology from scrutiny.

ttbn, when we get back to the stone age, will you be there to meet us? The stone age, you never left it!

Except… the scientists, the engineers, the economists, the data, the budget allocations, the energy forecasts, the IPCC, the BOM, the CSIRO, the AEMO, and reality itself. But sure, it’s everyone else who’s not asking questions.
John Daysh,
All taxpayer funded professional guessers ! No actual evidence of merit asked for. Toyota just announced development of a Hydrogen engine as did BMW not long ago. Put the funding towards that & there won't be any need for these outdated dinosaurs that are the wind generators. Power stations driven by Hydrogen is presently a far more foreseeable answer not those wasteful costly fans !
The dilemma for you et al will be how to continue to procure the funding that is presently unchallenged.

Government pushing and subsidising of unreliable wind and solar is retarding Australia's growth.

High productivity fossil fuels are what have always made Australia highly productive and rich.

Expensive low production unreliable energy has hit a dead end.

China and India, using our fossil fuels, are going gangbusters.

Hydrogen is looking really ridiculous.

Unreliables have reduced our living standards by 8% over the 3 years of the Albanese Socialist regime.

Albanese's productivity agenda has been described as “dead on arrival” by an IPA media release of 10/6/25. Net Zero is destroying jobs and businesses.

Productivity and manufacturing cannot grow when energy prices, already at record levels due to Net Zero, keep rising.

Yet, the more Net Zero fails, the more the Albanese regime “chooses to dig Australia into a deeper energy and economic hole by adding more pillars to the policy in an effort to MASK ITS DEFECTS”.

. Albanese still clings to the impossible ‘renewable superpower” nonsense.
. Poor decisions made on poor advice, lies, and ideology have increased power prices.
. Energy reliability has been degraded.
. The most productive sectors of our economy have been crushed.

But the IPA report does fall down on its claim that the “five pillars” of Net Zero have been deliberately designed to bind “future governments to the Paris Agreement”.

They seem to have forgotten that it was the Morrison government that signed us up to it; and future governments can drop Net Zero if they wish to. We have a fine example of the ability for new governments to get rid of it in Donald Trump's America.

Hydrogen is looking really ridiculous.
ttbn,
Not as ridiculous as the dinosaurs they call wind generators they prop up to the tune of Billions of Tax dollars that could improve society now. Just wait for the clean up & rehabilitation costs fairly soon.

Wow, Indyvidual.

The global scientific and engineering consensus - built on decades of research and thousands of peer-reviewed studies - dismissed in one breath as “professional guessers”… while car company press releases are suddenly treated as gospel.

Hydrogen might play a role in future energy systems, but using it to argue against wind power today is like saying, “Let’s not build bridges until teleportation is perfected.” It’s merely a distraction.

Yes, hydrogen is “foreseeable” - so are flying cars, cold fusion, and diet chocolate that tastes like the real thing. But until it’s scalable, affordable, and produced without fossil fuels, it’s not a replacement.

And let’s not forget: hydrogen means centralised power, with most of the same disadvantages as coal and gas - minus the infrastructure, minus the cost-effectiveness, and minus the actual availability. In contrast, wind and solar are decentralised, scalable, and already driving down emissions.

Your actual objection seems to be that renewables exist at all. If it spins or shines, it offends you. After all, real power (literally and figuratively) is controlled - Right? - and by real men who end their work day dirty, sweaty, and smellin' of burnt shi...

And this notion that the entire scientific and policy apparatus of the country is just a “grift”? Come on. If you’re worried about “unchallenged funding,” look to the fossil fuel companies still raking in billions - not the climate researchers trying to keep the grid running.

You’re not backing a breakthrough. You’re backing inaction, and trying to pass it off as sensible precaution.

Indyvidual

The whole shebang will soon be looking ridiculous.

Thanks, ttbn.

Encouraging fellow tribe members to stay the course with such a precisely-timed and relevantly-worded post is more vindication than I could ever ask for.

But rest assured... If ever you find only one person left standing beside you in what is an increasingly fringe belief, it'll be Indyvidual.

Toyoda argues that a single EV is as dirty as three hybrids.
The above is from Akio Toyota of Toyota albeit on Facebook;
John Daysh,
I'm not against progress if it is actual progress. What you're pushing is more focussed on procuring funding to boost the Superannuation accounts of professional guessers i.e. scientists & researchers who never come up with any solutions. What you're in actual doing is to withold vital funding from those real scientists & researchers who actually come up with solutions.
How long should we tolerate to throw good money at such people ? How many of your scientists have actually produced results ? One in a thousand, one in a hundred ? What is an average "scientist's" salary ? By all means reward them with royalties after they find something, not for decades before ! Focus on solutions not utterly unwarranted justification !

We have all heard Albanese gabbling about “Future Made In Australia Policy”, but what does it mean?

It “Mandates extensive government (taxpayer) subsidisation for the renewable sector to compensate for the reduced role of critical industries in the economy which are set to be diminished under net zero policies”.

When we hear Albanese whining about Trump's Tariffs, we need to be aware that the most “harmful imposts” on Australian exporters are not tariffs, but the “self-inflicted” Net Zero.

The pursuit of Net Zero and renewables is estimated to risk up to 650,000 existing jobs, and cancel up to 478,000 future jobs.

Australia could withdraw from the Net Zero nonsense without any legal consequences.

The Albanese government has committed $22.7 billion of taxpayer money over the next decade to Future Made In Australia on what would otherwise be uneconomical unviable manufacturing projects in the hope of encouraging subsidiary private funding.

So much for the free enterprise, capitalist society that has always worked. We are to be dudded by politicians with a long history of failing to pick winners.

$22.7 billion of taxpayer money
ttbn,
Would be interesting to find out how much of that is designated to remain in Australia !

The pursuit of wind and solar by Australia is ridiculous, John. 15 years for 30% of electricity generation vs 150% in 15 years for nuclear by France starting half a century ago. With nuclear the build gets faster and cheaper the further you go: With the wind and solar con the build gets more expensive and complex the further you go. New projects are drying up at a time when they should be accelerating. Capital costs are blowing out, such as the 400% transmission line cost estimate blowout in Victoria (now $20 billion).

But the biggest issue is that 60% of the world is ignoring net zero, and the economic damage inflicted upon nations pursuing the wind and solar con is doing nothing to entice more suckers. Surely if the world was facing an existential crisis there would be a multinational collaboration to develop supply chains and pump out nuclear reactors by the thousand? The French showed that nuclear worked and could be built in a short time frame. All nations like Australia are demonstrating is that wind and solar are far more expensive than nuclear and have build times at least five times as long for the easiest part (i.e. the first 30%).

Indyvidual

As most of the carpetbaggers are foreign, not very much of the money would stay here. Albanese's made in Australia rhetoric is really 'made in China'.

I just wish Albo & Labor would tell us what their plan is with Australia. It simply doesn't look like they're too concerned about the people who built this Nation considering the attention they're paying to those who want to see its downfall !

The argument about petrol vs electric cars will be
not revilement if the current situation closes the
Straits of Hormuz.
Just watch the petrol heads thumbing lifts from EVs.

Just watch the petrol heads thumbing lifts from EVs.
Buzz,
Perhaps but it's more likely the EVs will hitch a ride from Dieselheads. (Bio Diesel)