You seem horribly confused, Fester.

//The table I linked showed the average electricity prices since 2009.//

Correct.

Which means it shows correlation at best, not causation. You cited it immediately after claiming “the experience of renewables is one of rising electricity costs for consumers,” so if you weren’t implying causation, then your original point collapses. If you were, then my “correlation is not causation” point stands.

You can’t have it both ways.

//The recent spike was due to the natural gas price spike associated with Russia's invasion of Ukraine.//

Exactly.

Which directly undermines the idea that renewables were the driver. That’s why AEMO’s reports explicitly attribute the spike to gas prices and the subsequent fall to increasing renewable generation.

//I think that coal was less influential because of long term supply contracts.//

Possibly. But that’s beside the point.

//wtf's 'black is really white' claim about the AEMO link is countered by John's 'correlation is not causation' non sequitur.//

That’s not a non sequitur.

It’s exactly what applies when someone uses historical price data to imply causation without controlling for other factors. If you’re now claiming you weren’t blaming renewables, then you’re contradicting your own earlier comment.

//Calculating the cost of energy is an accounting exercise.//

That’s why agencies like AEMO, the IEA, and Lazard use both accounting and statistical modelling.

//It is not a complex and uncertain task undertaken by statisticians and medical researchers. It is true that future costs are never certain, but current costs, like the AEMO data I linked, are precise.//

Precise figures don’t make for precise causes.

AEMO’s data are accurate for prices, but they still require analysis to determine why those prices moved. Without that, all you have is numbers without context, which is how false narratives about renewables driving up costs get traction.

//Perhaps John and wtf could treat olo as a place to share and learn? For all their contributions they never seem to learn a thing.//

I’m happy to share and learn, but that requires dealing in accurate cause-and-effect, not conflating price movements with whichever technology one happens to dislike.

John,

As an Albo cult member you should realise that it is bad form to be rude to the punters. All I observed was that you and wtf were making contradictory observations about the AEMO data I linked. Here is a Centre for Independent Studies talk about the latest CSIRO gencost report.

https://www.cis.org.au/commentary/video/the-csiro-report-that-proves-coal-is-cheaper-than-renewables-zoe-hilton/

"It’s exactly what applies when someone uses historical price data to imply causation without controlling for other factors. If you’re now claiming you weren’t blaming renewables, then you’re contradicting your own earlier comment."

Doubling down on your dishonesty as usual. All the information is in the historical data. The information is precise and there is no need for statistical analysis. Yes, statistics are used in modelling and forecasting, but there is no need when you are counting the historical costs. The "correlation is not causation" is just another deception you have latched on to of late. It got good use by the smoking lobby to preserve profits at the cost of human lives. You may as well lie all you want to keep help keep the scam going until the proverbial hits the fan, hopefully soon.

WTF?

Fester the very first line in the CSIRO final 2024-25 GenCost report is:
"The report found renewables remain the lowest-cost new-build electricity generation technology, while nuclear small modular reactors (SMRs) are the most costly."

The very first line.

Ad hominems only weaken your position further, Fester.

//As an Albo cult member you should realise that it is bad form to be rude to the punters.//

Disagreeing with you isn’t “rude.” Calling me an “Albo cult member” while dodging data is, however.

//All I observed was that you and wtf were making contradictory observations about the AEMO data I linked.//

No contradiction exists unless you can quote where either of us said something mutually exclusive. “Correlation is not causation” doesn’t contradict “prices have moved” - it clarifies that movements don’t prove your chosen cause.

//Here is a Centre for Independent Studies talk about the latest CSIRO gencost report.//

Your own link’s numbers show wind and solar, even when fully firmed, are already close to new black coal costs in 2024 and cheaper by 2030. The “coal is cheaper” spin comes from cherry-picking the 90% renewables scenario midpoint while ignoring the full range in the same report.

//All the information is in the historical data… no need for statistical analysis.//

Historical prices are precise; historical causes are not. The AEMO table shows numbers, not causes. That’s why causal analysis is needed, otherwise it’s like declaring “umbrellas cause rain” because they appear together in the data.

//Counting costs isn’t the dispute…//

Exactly.

The leap from “costs have risen” to “renewables caused it” ignores global fuel prices, network investments, retailer margins, and market design.

//The “correlation is not causation” is just another deception…//

That’s an association fallacy.

“It got good use by the smoking lobby” doesn’t make the phrase false. It’s a basic principle in economics, epidemiology, and physics because it’s valid logic, not PR.

//You may as well lie…//

That’s just invective.

If you have data showing renewables directly increased Australia’s electricity costs after controlling for other variables, post it.

Otherwise, all you’ve done is dress correlation up as causation and hope no one notices.

The CSIRO has been caught out again. It found that black coal produces the cheapest power at $111 per kW hour, but it didn't want that known to the dopey public; nor did it want it known that the codswallop about how "cheap" wind and solar is refers only to a period, way into the future, AFTER all the massively expensive infrastructure, means of getting the power to consumers and reparations for damage done, have been paid for - by consumers, and after the economy has been rooted.

But all you folk, talking through your arses and fighting like school kids, get a life, or go back to w.nking privately.

You might want to double-check that unit, ttbn.

//black coal produces the cheapest power at $111 per kW hour//

$111/kWh would make Australian electricity hundreds of times more expensive than it actually is. The CSIRO figure is $111 per MWh - a thousand times lower - and it’s right there in the report.

No “hiding” required.

//wind and solar is… only cheap way into the future AFTER infrastructure etc…//

No.

The GenCost tables already include transmission and firming in their “fully costed” scenarios. That’s why they give two figures: variable-only and fully firmed.

Even with all that included, wind and solar are competitive with new coal today and cheaper within the decade.

So no, the “dopey public” isn’t being shielded from anything. The numbers are public, you’ve just misread them.