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!