No, that’s the shift, mhaze.

//That’s what I’ve been saying all along… renewables need to be evaluated in relation to the entire economy.//

On 16 August you wrote:

“China emissions 2015… 2023… INcrease. USA… DEcrease. When we see all these claimed Chinese renewables actually start to reduce their CO2e emissions, then we'll have something to discuss.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10647#371572

That’s not “whole economy” analysis. That’s cherry-picking totals to declare renewables meaningless.

Now, after a week of being pressed, the standard has morphed into “the entire economy and lifecycle costs.” That’s not consistency, it’s inflation of the goalposts.

//Its the same thinking as the discussion over total power costs per country… proved that renewables are the most expensive form of power.//

Yet again, cherry-picking.

You held up retail prices in high-tax, fuel-importing countries as “proof,” while ignoring that every credible GenCost and IEA report puts new wind and solar as the cheapest sources today. Those studies already factor in construction, transmission, and decommissioning. Pretending they don’t is just a way to keep declaring “hidden costs” without evidence.

//I agree that nuclear needs to be evaluated based on the full cycle cost. Ditto coal plants and gas plants…//

Then apply the standard evenly.

By your own test, all energy sources built in a fossil-heavy economy are “tainted” by construction emissions. Yet you only ever raise that veto when talking about wind and solar. If you were consistent, no source would “count” until the entire supply chain is fossil-free - which means, by your standard, no source can ever count until the transition is already complete.

That isn’t analysis, it’s a dead-end trap: a way of making sure renewables always “fail” no matter the data.

"“China emissions 2015… 2023… INcrease. USA… DEcrease. When we see all these claimed Chinese renewables actually start to reduce their CO2e emissions, then we'll have something to discuss.”

"That’s not “whole economy” analysis. "

Those figures were for the whole economy. If you didn't understand that, perhaps that explains why you've been floundering through this whole discussion.

mhaze,

No, quoting two raw totals isn’t “whole economy” analysis - it’s just citing numbers without context.

//China emissions 2015… 2023… increase. USA… decrease. When we see all these claimed Chinese renewables actually start to reduce their CO2e emissions, then we’ll have something to discuss.//

That’s not an evaluation of “the entire economy.” That’s a selective snapshot, stripped of the very factors a real whole-economy analysis would weigh:

China’s GDP growth and industrial expansion vs America’s flat demand.

Sectoral breakdowns (steel, cement, exports) that inflate China’s totals but aren’t electricity.

Intensity metrics (emissions per kWh, per capita, per unit of output).

Whole-economy analysis means asking why totals move - not just pointing at them and declaring “renewables don’t work.”

That’s the shift I’ve been calling out. Your opening wasn’t “economy-wide lifecycle costs,” it was “totals up, so case closed.” Only after that line collapsed did the standard balloon into “the entire economy” and “full lifecycle.”

Quoting raw totals does not equal whole-economy analysis. It never did.

Present alternative energy i.e. wind & solar can not produce steam, coal & nuclear do. Without steam there is no energy to run power plants to provide the electricity everybody & every industry demands.
99% of everything we consume is being transported by ships, many with with steam turbines & there are now close to two hundred nuclear powered merchant cargo ships on the seas apart from Navy/military vessels.
Germany is now dismantling many wind turbines as the folly became too obvious. The sooner the rort that is wind & solar is done away with the sooner more money can be freed up for clean energy.
Here's some info on shipping for those who want to stop using oil.
https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/rmt2024ch2_en.pdf

That’s simply wrong, Indyvidual.

//Without steam there is no energy to run power plants to provide the electricity everybody & every industry demands.//

Modern gas turbines, hydroelectric plants, wind, and solar PV all generate electricity without steam. Steam is one method, not the definition of energy.

//99% of everything we consume is being transported by ships… nearly 200 nuclear merchant ships…//

Close, but not quite.

Yes, shipping carries ~80-90% of trade by volume. But there are not “hundreds” of nuclear merchant vessels - there are fewer than 10 civilian nuclear-powered ships in operation worldwide, mostly Russian icebreakers. The rest are oil-fueled.

Your own link makes that plain.

//Germany is now dismantling many wind turbines as the folly became too obvious.//

Misleading.

Retiring old turbines at end-of-life is normal - and Germany has been replacing them with taller, more efficient models. Net wind capacity in Germany has been rising, not falling.

The “dismantling” story is cherry-picked spin.

//The sooner the rort that is wind & solar is done away with the sooner more money can be freed up for clean energy.//

Wind and solar are clean energy, and they’re the fastest-growing sources worldwide. In 2023 alone, China added more solar than Germany’s entire installed base. The IEA projects wind/solar to make up over 90% of new capacity through 2028.

So if you want to make the case against renewables, you’ll need something stronger than outdated talking points, misquotes, and claims your own source doesn’t support.

I’d say it’s time for a montage of your projection and theatrics, mhaze.

(Cue ‘80s music…)

- “Yes, JD, just pure fabrication.”
- “That the only way he can do it is by misrepresenting what was said, we can see the quality of his opinion.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10647#371633

- “I’ve been trying to work out if you’re a joker or a knave. Then I realised it doesn’t matter.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10647#371693

- “Here’s some more statistics that you and your sidekick can misunderstand.”
- “But I wouldn’t feel too embarrassed, Paul. The ramifications of that went over JD’s head as well.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10647#371704

- “It’s an interesting hole JD and his innumerate sidekick have talked themselves into.”
- “And this is how they think we save the planet!”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10647#371713

- “If you didn’t understand that, perhaps that explains why you’ve been floundering through this whole discussion.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10647#371727

Heh. Looks even funnier in hindsight - especially stacked against the one thing missing from it all: evidence.