I do hope so. There is no shame in acknowledging failure and changing course. As a voter, as with The Voice, I would like a choice.

The renewable energy rollout is hitting a pinch point with grid saturation, so even with public support commercial interest will wane without a large increase in public subsidies.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/solar-farms-run-at-a-loss-due-to-curtailment-and-poor-weather/

Fester,

There's no point in asking us or anyone else what the Liberals (their National partners have made up their minds) will do about Net Zero when they themselves don't have a clue what they will do. The last I heard, they were going to take 12 months to think about it!

People seem to forget that if it wasn't for the Liberals, we wouldn't have Net Zero in the first place. Morrison rushed off to Scotland, or somewhere, to sign up to it without consulting voters.

You want a choice. I want a choice. Lots of us want a choice.

But, choice is something Australians no longer have, thanks to our virtual one party system, getting closer to a real one party system, with what Ley calls the “modernisation” of the Liberal Party. Australia is headed towards a truly Socialist system as the Liberal Party ‘modernises’ to get more lefty votes rather than do what they used to do: what is best for Australia.

I'm on the way out. My interest in what happens to Australia in the future is purely academic; but what is coming for apathetic, selfish Australians under about 50 years of age, is only what they deserve.

ttbn,

I appreciate your response, but I think that you paint yourself into a corner. It might have been Morrison's decision, but it's not as if the coalition is a cult party and the leader is the voice of God.

Everyone makes mistakes. More harm comes from digging your heels in.

Fester,

“Economic suicide” is a slogan, not an argument. The article you linked doesn’t say Net Zero is impossible, it says our grid is under-invested and can’t keep up with the pace of renewable build-out. That’s not a death sentence for the transition, it’s a flashing neon sign saying “upgrade the grid.”

Every energy system in history has needed state support at critical junctures:

- Coal was subsidised.
- Gas pipelines were underwritten.
- The Snowy Scheme was taxpayer-funded from top to bottom.

If you applied your standard, Australia should have abandoned coal and hydro before they ever got off the ground.

The Coalition isn’t going to offer some fantasy “opt-out of Net Zero” choice. Their business backers, state governments, and even their rural constituencies are banking on clean-energy investment. That’s why they’re dithering for 12 months - they know the world has moved on, and they can’t afford to jump off without wrecking the economy they claim to defend.

So, the real choice isn’t “Net Zero or not.” The real choice is whether we fix transmission, storage, and planning now - or waste another decade peddling slogans while the rest of the world cashes in.

Fester,

It was Morrison's undemocratic decision: not “ might have been”. He is directly responsible for Net Zero in Australia; so is the Liberal Party, who allowed - probably encouraged him - to do it.

I don't get your “it's not as if the coalition is a cult party and the leader is the voice of God”.

How do you see the Liberals? Still the slightly right of the Labor outfit that was preferable to Labor? Well, sorry mate: it's not that any more. It's just a bunch of self-serving politicians who can't get a proper job. Morrison and Turnbull changed it, with the aid of lefties who would make better Laborites than they do anything approaching a slightly conservative alternative to Labor and Socialism.

“Everyone makes mistakes”? We are not talking about ‘everyone’. We are talking about people entrusted and paid too much to run the country.

The Liberal Party is no longer a ‘choice’ to escape Labor. And, anyway, it seems that the mutton-heads who are forced to vote for one awful side or the other are quite happy with Albanese who, although, in 2022 promised to unite Australia, has polarised us even further. It's no wonder that people who can afford to - the people we need most - are starting to talk about leaving Australia for good.

I know that you are a concerned person, but there are no political movements that Australians are willing to vote for to get us out of the mess we are in.

- Coal was subsidised.
- Gas pipelines were underwritten.
- The Snowy Scheme was taxpayer-funded from top to bottom.
John Daysh,
Whatever is for the use of the community should be paid for by the community ! It's not like Academia, Sport & Art etc. which is of no use to the community yet the community is forced to support them.

Fester,

What we need now is two parties desperate to form or retain government by being different and fighting for our votes for the entire 3 years of a Parliament, not just for a few weeks before an election.

Unlike Australia, most democratic countries use the ‘simple voting’ or first past the post system, results are quick to count; most informal voting is eliminated; stability is provided, and minor parties can win - if they are convincing enough - without 50% of the vote.

Some people think there are disadvantages to the FPTP system; but most democratic countries work well with it, and without undemocratically forcing the population to vote. While it makes sense for people to vote - or shut up - it is not democratic to force them to.

The UK is a good example. No preferential nonsense. First past the post, with a minor party looking like belting both Labor and the Conservatives at the next election.

The Brits can punish their politicians; in Australia, it's the people being punished.

"- Coal was subsidised."

I think there's a little creative history going on there.

It’s worth pointing out that even if Net Zero went to a plebiscite, the denial camp would lose badly. Every major poll for years has shown 70-80% support, including most Coalition voters.

That’s because the reality is already obvious to anyone whose identity isn’t threatened by renewables. Farmers, miners, manufacturers, and big business have all signed onto Net Zero. Every state government has locked it in. Rooftop solar is the cheapest power in the country, and investors are pouring money into storage and transmission.

So a “No” campaign would be slogans about “economic suicide” up against the lived experience of cheaper bills and the global shift already underway. That’s not a winning formula.

Personally, I now pay a fraction of what I used to for electricity since putting in solar. My lawn mower costs me more to run than my car.

Trying to paint renewables as expensive “suicide” is really pushing shite uphill.
___

Indyvidual,

Glad you agree with me then. Energy infrastructure is for the use of the community, which is why it’s always been paid for by the community - coal included.

That was exactly my point.

The irony is, when renewables get the same treatment that coal, gas, and hydro did, suddenly it’s “economic suicide.”

Funny how subsidies only become a dirty word when they’re not propping up yesterday’s technology.
___

ttbn,

Yes, the UK is a shining beacon of stability - five Prime Ministers in six years, governments flipping policy on a whim, and whole elections decided on 35-40% of the vote because the rest was “wasted.”

Truly the envy of the democratic world.

FPTP doesn’t punish politicians, it punishes voters. Millions of ballots get thrown on the scrap heap because they weren’t cast for the “winning” candidate. That’s not stability, that’s disenfranchisement dressed up as simplicity.

Australia’s preferential system isn’t perfect, but at least it forces candidates to appeal beyond their rusted-on base.

If you want more choice, scrapping preferences is the last way to get it.

___

mhaze,

Thanks for picking me up on that.

Coal is STILL subsidised.

Thank you J.D. (and Paul) for your sane, reasoned, always on point and explicitly referenced responses to the intellectual giants on this forum. Most recent example – “ … Academia, Sport & Art etc. which is of no use to the community …” Either that, or they are terrified of the one thing certain in life – change. You have the patience and energy to respond to this dribble. I simply don’t. Instead, I’m off traveling for the next few months. Stay strong.

Funny how subsidies only become a dirty word when they’re not propping up yesterday’s technology.
John Daysh,
Subsidies are good for proven technology but a total waste for guess work that includes cutting down forests, polluting the environment & no means of disposal upon use by date !

You’ve got it backwards again, Indyvidual.

Coal wasn’t “proven technology” when it was subsidised, it was an unproven gamble that governments bankrolled into maturity. Same with hydro. Same with gas. That’s exactly how technologies become “proven”: they scale because public money de-risks them.

As for renewables being “guess work”... they already generate two-thirds of Australia’s electricity on good days, rooftop solar is the cheapest power in the country, and wind and solar are being built faster and cheaper than any alternative. That’s not guesswork, that’s the market speaking.

And if we’re going to talk environmental costs: forests have been cut down, rivers diverted, and toxic waste created for every energy source in history. Coal ash, methane leaks, mine subsidence - all of it conveniently forgotten when it’s yesterday’s technology.

Subsidies didn’t stop being legitimate once coal got its fill. They’re doing exactly what they always did: backing the next generation of energy so the public isn’t left with higher costs and stranded assets.

Indy,

We took a gigantic gamble with YOU, when we subsidised YOU as a Ten Pound POM, or some such thing. All I can say is you win some, you lose some. In your case we just had to take the loss! Gave us $20, we gave YOU millions in welfare payments in return for the next 50 years!

Wait... Indyvidual's a Pom?!

And here I've been reading his posts with an Australian accent.

"Subs’dies are good for proven technol’gy, innit - but a to’al waste for guesswork. Vat’s cuttin’ down forris’s, pollu’in the environment, an’ no bleedin’ way o’ disposal when it’s past its use-by, is there?"

Fixed.

"Coal is STILL subsidised."

True. But only if you utterly mangle the meaning of the word "subsidy".

"so the public isn’t left with higher costs "

"Electricity costs rose 13.1 per cent in the 12 months to July"
ABS Monthly Consumer Price Index Indicator, July 2025

You don’t need to “mangle” anything, mhaze.

//True. But only if you utterly mangle the meaning of the word "subsidy".//

The OECD, IMF and IEA all define subsidies to include tax concessions, royalty holidays, and government-funded infrastructure. By that standard, coal has always been subsidised and still is. Fuel tax credits alone hand mining companies billions every year.

Add taxpayer-built rail and ports, and the rehabilitation costs dumped back on the public when mines are abandoned, and the idea coal was some subsidy-free, self-made success story is just fantasy.

//"Electricity costs rose 13.1 per cent in the 12 months to July"//

Waving around one year of CPI is cherry-picking. Retail bills bounce around with retailer mark-ups, network charges, and global fuel prices. Remember the 2022–23 energy crisis? That wasn’t solar panels pushing up bills - it was coal and gas spiking after Russia invaded Ukraine. Fossil volatility hit households, not renewables.

What actually matters is the wholesale market, because that reflects the real cost of generation. And there the story is consistent: every time renewables flood in, wholesale prices fall. AEMO’s quarterly reports show it, CSIRO’s GenCost shows it, and investors know it - which is why they’re building wind and solar faster and cheaper than any alternative.

In short, if you want to argue renewables are “economic suicide,” you’ve got two problems:

1. You’re redefining “subsidy” in a way that no economist or policy body on earth accepts.
2. You’re blaming renewables for price rises caused by the very fossil fuels you’re defending.

It's back the to drawing board on this one for you, I'm afraid.

John,

"- Coal was subsidised."

If that is the case, then the return has been many times the outlay. In the case of renewables, the outlay is a black hole and the resulting hike in electricity costs has done economic harm. The cheap energy from coal has played its part in our civilisation. The late Sir Leo Hielscher made cheap electricity from coal a major economic driver in Queensland, something the LNP remain appreciative of.

"- Gas pipelines were underwritten."

You bet. Because they can provide gas on demand, you can use supply contracts to arrange financing. That is not the case with renewable energy. Without the handouts they would not get built.

"- The Snowy Scheme was taxpayer-funded from top to bottom."

I was unaware that anyone disputed it as more than a post war employment program.

"The article you linked doesn’t say Net Zero is impossible, it says our grid is under-invested and can’t keep up with the pace of renewable build-out."

What it does show is that solar power is still loss making with massive subsidies and price hikes for consumers. There will be more to come as long as the idiocy continues.

"“Economic suicide” is a slogan, not an argument."

If the predictions for renewable energy of cheaper power were true I would be lauding the economic benefit. Cheap energy is a driver of civilisation and prosperity, so I have no problem with being critical of policy that is making energy markedly more expensive. That is what the pursuit of net zero is doing.

the rehabilitation costs dumped back on the public when mines are abandoned,
John Daysh,
That subject warrants a dedicated thread. I always wonder why closed or finished mine sites require rehabilitation. Many open cuts would make great recreational facilities with very little rehabilitation.
My suspicions are that much of this rehabilitation is nothing more than extorting millions of Dollars for something Nature will do for nothing & probably quicker. Abandoned mine sites would make great training grounds for various activities all the way to Defence.
The eventual rehabilitation of the wind farms will indeed prove to be a massive cost in years to come & some of these towers might come in handy for base jumping etc.
The disposal of the batteries will be a lot more difficult ! I can't see any net zero in that !

Fester,

You’ve just described renewables in the exact terms you reserve for coal and the irony is painful.

Coal subsidies "paid for themselves" not because coal was magic, but because the public bankrolled the mines, rail, ports and power stations until the technology matured. That’s precisely the process we’re watching now with renewables. You can’t call one "investment" and the other a "black hole" without a serious double standard.

Regarding costs, wholesale data says the opposite of what you’re claiming. AEMO’s quarterly reports show renewables consistently push down wholesale prices. That’s why rooftop solar - not coal - now delivers the cheapest power in the country.

Retail bills rose during the 2022-23 energy crisis because fossil fuel prices spiked globally after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. That wasn’t "solar panels causing economic harm." It was dependence on coal and gas exposing households to fossil volatility.

And the idea that renewables are "loss-making" ignores why they’re still being built at record pace: investors chase profit, not ideology. If renewables were just a subsidy sink, you wouldn’t see billions in private capital piling in every year.

You’re right that cheap energy drives civilisation. That’s exactly why the shift is happening.

Coal did its job for the 20th century. In the 21st, wind, solar, and firming are already the cheapest new-build energy. The market knows it. Governments know it. Voters know it. Pretending otherwise is what looks like economic suicide.

At this point the only people calling renewables "loss-making" are commentators, not investors.
_____

Indyvidual,

Rehabilitation isn’t left to nature because abandoned mines leach heavy metals, leave toxic tailings, and destabilise ground for decades. Communities in Mt Lyell and the Hunter know the public health costs firsthand. And taxpayers foot the bill when mining companies underfund rehab bonds and walk away.

That’s a subsidy by another name: profits privatised, clean-up socialised.

As for renewables, end-of-life costs are already planned for. Net Zero is about balancing carbon, not rubbish bins. Battery disposal doesn’t change the maths. Coal left billions of tonnes of CO2, ash, and acid drainage. Against that, recycling steel and lithium looks trivial.

G'day John,

Unfortunately our forum friends from the far right, see renewables as some kind of left wing ideology promoted by the evil Woke/Marxists, trying to pervert the wholesomeness of Capitalism, as personified by the burning of lumps of dirty black coal. No amount of reason and logic on your part is going to convince them otherwise. How sad!

"Waving around one year of CPI is cherry-picking."

Every piece of data you don't like gets described as cherry-picked as though that proves the case. But its wrong. Instead its just one more element in a massive string of data showing that as nations get more renewables they get higher costs.

"Fuel tax credits alone hand mining companies billions every year."

Fuel tax credits aren't a subsidy, they are a return of taxes incorrectly charged. The fuel tax is levied to cover the costs of vehicles on public roads and the tax is returned when used on vehicles and the like tht don't use public roads. But the alarmists always include it in their erroneous subsidy claims because there's precious little other evidence of mining subsidies.

mhaze,

Cherry-picking isn’t about “data I don’t like.” Cherry-picking is about presenting one number while ignoring the wider picture.

You're a bit slow to catch on.

//"Every piece of data you don't like gets described as cherry-picked..."//

No, even the wider picture here is clear. International studies (AEMO, CSIRO GenCost, IEA, Lazard) all show renewables are the cheapest form of new generation. Retail bills spiked during the fossil fuel price surge of 2022–23, not because of solar panels.

If your “massive string of data” exists, produce it.

//"Fuel tax credits aren't a subsidy..."//

That’s simply wrong.

The Productivity Commission, OECD, IMF and IEA all classify fuel tax credits as subsidies, because they’re a tax concession - revenue foregone that directly benefits one sector. And even without them, coal has always leaned on public support with taxpayer-built rail and ports, royalty holidays, underfunded rehab bonds, and state-guaranteed demand.

Either way, nitpicking over whether to call it a subsidy or a rebate doesn’t change the reality. Coal has always leaned on public support - whether through tax concessions, royalty holidays, rehab shortfalls, or publicly funded infrastructure.

Call it whatever you like. The fact remains: fossil fuels haven’t stood on their own two feet, and renewables are just getting the same treatment coal did for a century.

Back in your box...

Indeed, Paul.

A lot of psychological studies have been done on this phenomenon with fascinating findings. You’ll be utterly unsurprised to learn that the concern over renewables has absolutely nothing to do with economics. As Trump’s tariff wars also demonstrated, economic concerns are only a priority for the right when it’s politically convenient.

The distress comes from identity. Coal and gas have been cultural symbols of strength, prosperity, and “real work” for generations. When renewables take over, it feels like those touchstones are being dismantled. That’s why we hear “economic suicide” rhetoric even as AEMO, CSIRO, and private investors all show renewables are cheaper.

What should be an exciting, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for anyone truly economically minded is quickly tossed aside to protect identity. Contrary to what the Reagan/Thatcher era sold us, it appears economics isn't as high on the hierarchy of right-wing concerns as we've believed it to be for decades now.

It isn’t about numbers. It’s about protecting a story that no longer matches reality.

"The OECD, IMF and IEA all define subsidies to include tax concessions, royalty holidays, and government-funded infrastructure. "

Do they? Show me where the IMF says that.

"government-funded infrastructure". That's just rhetoric and mangling definitions. Under that definition, governments filling in pot-holes on city streets is a subsidy to the Uber Eats.

"Either way, nitpicking over whether to call it a subsidy or a rebate doesn’t change the reality"

Oh good. It was a subsidy until it wasn't.

The alarmist community is desperate to dig up false claims of subsidies to coal/gas etc because they realise that the massive subsidies paid in renewables port barrelling exposes the real purpose of the renewables mantra.

"If your “massive string of data” exists, produce it."

Done and done. I showed you the data showing the direct relationship between the levels of renewables and electricity costs. It went over your head.

Nukes are missing in action. Why?
Their arce is still on fire from what they were spruking why not a rerun.
In other words they are hopelessly lost, so what would you suggest for whatever you are proposing that is hidden in plain sight and not to be talked about. In other words you mugs cannot bring to the surface what may cause a total obliveration.

Yes, they do, mhaze.

//Do they? Show me where the IMF says that.//

"Globally, fossil fuel subsidies were $7 trillion in 2022. Subsidies include both explicit subsidies-undercharging for supply costs-and implicit subsidies-undercharging for environmental costs and forgone consumption taxes."
http://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2023/08/22/IMF-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Data-2023-Update-537281

And here are links for the two others you, for some reason, didn’t request:

IEA:
http://www.iea.org/reports/fossil-fuel-subsidies-in-clean-energy-transitions-time-for-a-new-approach

OECD:
http://www.oecd.org/en/topics/fossil-fuel-support.html

//"government-funded infrastructure". That's just rhetoric and mangling definitions. Under that definition, governments filling in pot-holes on city streets is a subsidy to the Uber Eats.//

There’s a difference between universal public goods like city roads, and taxpayer-funded rail lines, ports, and power stations built specifically to serve coal. One is general infrastructure, the other is industry-targeted support. Pretending they’re the same is your mangling, not mine.

//"Oh good. It was a subsidy until it wasn't."//

No, it was always a subsidy. Or, as you would put it: "i DiDn'T sAy ThAt!!1!"

I said even if you stripped out fuel tax credits completely, coal has always leaned on public support: rail and ports, royalty holidays, underfunded rehab bonds, and state-guaranteed demand. You can call it subsidy, rebate, or concession - it doesn’t change the underlying reality.

//"The alarmist community is desperate to dig up false claims..."//

This is just rhetoric. The irony is, I’ve backed every point with international institutions (IMF, IEA, OECD) while you’re stuck asserting without evidence. If anyone’s desperate, it isn’t me.

//"Done and done. I showed you the data..."//

Where?

You waved at "a string of data" and produced nothing. Meanwhile, AEMO, CSIRO, IEA and Lazard all publish real datasets showing renewables are the cheapest new-build generation and consistently drive down wholesale prices.

If you have actual sources, cite them. Otherwise, "I already proved it" is just another empty line.

Unfortunately our forum friends from the far right, see renewables as some kind of left wing ideology promoted by the evil Woke/Marxists,
Paul1405,
well, that's exactly what it is ! An expensive ideology that does not add up in the long run. They should concentrate on real possible technology ! One that doesn't create yet another bandwagon !

Global warming is well and truely here after 40 years of denialism that is how far behind we are. Thailand just had 300mm of rain in no time flat.
Nukes are poison, so what is your alternative.,
Black tar, coal, are in the forbidden bin.
may be we can catch some lightning bolts.

Indy,

We don't want another aged welfare bandwagon, all those useless old farts with their snouts in the taxpayer trough! I know of one blow in who as soon as the ship docked he was into a taxpayer funded cab and off to the nearest Centrelink office, where he's been camped for the last 50 years!

John,

You often speak of climate change denial, yet you seem in denial of the reality of renewable energy.

Remember the promises? Renewable generation would bring power prices down, and the more there was the greater the drop. Oh, and we wouldn't need fossil fuel generation any more because we were going to be a renewable energy superpower and who needs baseload? And with all the cheap power the economy would boom and bring an era of prosperity whilst saving the planet from global warming.

So what happened? Prices have risen steadily, and if you count the costs you can't use the tobacco executives' "correlation aint causation" excuse: The rising costs rest with renewable energy as this example shows:

https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-papers/why-have-electricity-bills-risen

And the jobs? Plenty being lost as industries powered by cheap energy close down. The coal generation? The ones that weren't blown up in renewable energy zealot extravaganzas and not maintained because "We won't need them.". Well, they are desperately needed, clapped out and in disrepair, as all those wonderful solar panels and wind turbines cannot generate dispatchable power. The environment? Vast areas being trashed building wind and solar farms. The saving grace is that grid saturation has stopped investment in wind and solar, pausing the desecration. And what about global warming? With most of the world not giving a stuff about emissions, Australia won't make a jot of difference by destroying its economy.

What, and I'm really motivated by politics? You couldn't be more wrong.

Fester,

Your reply comes across as a laundry list of grievances thrown up in the hope that volume looks like substance, but it’s full of recycled talking points.

//Renewable generation would bring power prices down…//

And it has. Wholesale prices fall whenever renewables flood the grid.

That’s why rooftop solar is the cheapest power in the country, and why AEMO’s quarterly reports consistently show renewables cutting wholesale costs. Retail bills spiked in 2022-23 because coal and gas prices exploded after Russia invaded Ukraine, not because of solar panels.

Fossil volatility hit households, not renewables.

//…we wouldn't need fossil fuel generation any more…//

No serious planner ever said we could flick the switch overnight. AEMO’s Integrated System Plan explicitly models renewables plus storage, firming, and transmission. That’s why new investment is going into batteries, pumped hydro, and demand management - firm capacity, not blind faith.

//And the jobs? Plenty being lost…//

Industries aren’t shutting because renewables are “too cheap.” They’re struggling with fossil fuel price spikes.

Meanwhile, clean energy is creating tens of thousands of new jobs in construction, manufacturing, and regional services. That’s why business and unions are on board - because the opportunity is real.

//The environment? Vast areas being trashed…//

Compared to what?

Coal has left billions of tonnes of ash, methane leaks, acid mine drainage, and entire landscapes gutted. A few hectares of solar panels or wind towers, recyclable at end-of-life, hardly compare.

//…Australia won't make a jot of difference…//

That’s the same excuse used by every country that doesn’t want to act. But when you add them together, that’s the majority of emissions. We export fossil fuels that drive emissions overseas, so pretending we’re irrelevant is a convenient but false dodge.

So no, this isn’t “denial of reality.” It’s refusing to confuse rhetoric with data. Renewables are cheaper, they do drive down wholesale prices, and they’re the only credible path to affordable, low-risk energy.

What you’ve listed isn’t reality, just yesterday’s talking points dressed up as prophecy.

"If you have actual sources, cite them. Otherwise, "I already proved it" is just another empty line."

You've spent too much time around Paul. He also goes through this process of demanding proof of something he don't want to be true, then ignoring the evidence when presented, only to demand the same proof the next time the issue is raised.

We already had a thread on the data showing total electricity costs being highest in countries with high renewable penetration and lowest in countries that have yet to be coerced into going wind/solar. Go look it up yourself. It went over your head the last time and I don't have the will to try to explain it all over again.

"I said even if you stripped out fuel tax credits completely,"
Yeah, because they're not the subsidy you claimed them to be.

As to infrastructure built for specific purposes, again you try to mangle the definition. First, ports built primarily for coal aren't used solely for coal. Ditto rail lines etc. And even if they were they are built by government because they know they'll get it all back in royalties and taxes.

But again, its just hand-waving at an industry you don't like. There's no economic difference between building a rail line to a mine and building a rail line to a new suburb development in western Sydney. Or building a port for coal or a passenger ship terminal. The only difference is that some people have an irrational hatred of the source of most of our power needs

The real world future. We are always told that we'll miss the boat if we don't double-down on wind/solar. But the real boat is sailing in the other direction and the anti-nuclear brigade are holding us back.

http://tiny.cc/1gvr001

This was always going to be the path to the fabled net-zero. Always

In other words, mhaze, there isn’t any.

//We already had a thread…Go look it up yourself.//

That’s not evidence, that’s burden-shifting. If your "string of data" really proved costs were highest in renewable-heavy countries, you’d link it instead of waving vaguely at phantom threads. Meanwhile, AEMO, CSIRO, IEA and Lazard publish their datasets publicly - and they all show renewables are the cheapest new-build power.

//Fuel tax credits aren’t subsidies.//

The IMF, IEA and OECD all classify them as subsidies. That’s not my definition, that’s international consensus. You don’t get to redefine terms to suit your argument.

//Ports built primarily for coal aren’t used solely for coal… governments get it back in royalties and taxes.//

If that were true, taxpayers wouldn’t be stuck with billions in unfunded rehabilitation liabilities. Rail to a suburb doesn’t leave acid mine drainage when the industry walks away. The comparison is nonsense.

//…an industry you don’t like…irrational hatred of the source of most of our power needs.//

This isn’t about liking or hating anything. Coal did its job for the 20th century, but economics change. Respecting what coal contributed doesn’t mean pretending it can deliver cheapest power in the 21st. Pointing that out isn’t "hatred," it’s just acknowledging reality.

And since you’ve now switched boats:

The US SMR project you linked is a pilot, not proof of an industry shift. It’s still years from operation, depends on subsidies, and is being tested as a complement to renewables, not a replacement. Nuclear isn’t the “real boat” sailing away, it’s trying to climb aboard the renewables fleet that’s already left port.

You call this "hand-waving," but I’ve cited IMF, IEA, OECD, AEMO, CSIRO and Lazard. You’ve cited nothing.

So let’s be clear: the only "irrational hatred" on display here is your refusal to accept data from every major economic and energy body on earth.

Phantom threads and playground deflections aren’t evidence.

It is strange that people who know that the fossil fuel/carbon dioxide cause of climate change is bullsh.t, still go on about nuclear power when black coal remains the cheapest, most efficient source of electricity; and we don't have to do anything that we are not doing now. Except get rid of unreliables and Chris Bowen.

Furthermore, mhaze...

I’ve had a look through some of your previous drubbings and couldn’t find this evidence of yours.

//It went over your head the last time and I don't have the will to try to explain it all over again.//

It seems the 'Clever Dissector' persona has its limits.

Appealing to this “string of data” over and over won't make it real. The truth is, you’ve never actually produced it. Not in any of the threads where renewables were mentioned. What you *have* offered in the past is correlation (“countries with high renewables have high retail prices”) without any demonstration of causation.

So, whatever it was that was that "went over [my] head" is still a mystery - and it will remain a mystery because you're all about performance.

Meanwhile, AEMO’s quarterly reports, CSIRO’s GenCost, Lazard’s LCOE analysis, the IEA, and the IMF all publish transparent datasets showing renewables are the cheapest new-build electricity and consistently drive down wholesale prices. That’s not rhetoric, it’s hard numbers from the institutions whose job it is to measure these things.

So let’s be clear: your “string of data” doesn't exist. Mine is verifiable, public, and internationally recognised. The only reason you keep pointing vaguely at past threads is because you know that when the numbers are on the table, they don’t break your way.

We’ve all seen this schtick from you before - the phantom evidence, the retreat, and then the same claim recycled later as if nothing happened.

It's freaking Groundhog Day with you, isn't it?

We discussed the Lomborg data previously which compared renewable penetration in a range of countries to the price of electricity in those countries to show that more renewables leads to higher prices.

That you don't like the data doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That others use different criteria to arrive at more politically correct results doesn't prove the data doesn't exist. That the current mantra is that we need to reduce CO2e emissions irrespective of price doesn't mean that price is irrelevant.

You started off claiming that building rail lines to a mine is proof of subsidy and have now abandoned that and want to talk about alleged pollution. Oh well I'll take that as a win.

You started off telling us that it was fine and dandy to subsidise wind/solar since all new technologies need subsidy, but now tell us that SMR's aren't the future because they need subsidy. It must be nice ot have such 'flexible' standards.

I see what you're referring to now, mhaze.

//"We discussed the Lomborg data previously which compared renewable penetration in a range of countries to the price of electricity in those countries to show that more renewables leads to higher prices."//

And it's no wonder you didn't link to it: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10573&page=0

Like I said at the time - that’s not a dataset, it’s a correlation graph. And correlation is not causation.

“…the interpretation is overly simplistic. Yes, there’s a pattern in some countries where higher renewable penetration correlates with higher electricity prices. But correlation isn’t causation, and context matters. Many of those countries (e.g. Germany and Denmark) started their transition decades ago when renewables were far more expensive and less efficient. They also layered in high energy taxes, carbon pricing, and legacy grid costs.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10573#369409

Germany and Denmark don’t have high retail prices because of renewables, they locked in high bills early by subsidising solar and wind back when costs were many times higher. Add in hefty taxes, legacy network charges, and policy levies, and yes, their bills are high. But none of that proves renewables themselves are expensive.

Meanwhile, the present-day evidence is unambiguous:

AEMO’s quarterly reports, CSIRO’s GenCost, Lazard’s LCOE, and the IEA all show the same thing: when renewables enter the wholesale market, prices fall. That’s why rooftop solar is the cheapest electricity in the country. Retail bills went up in 2022-23 because coal and gas spiked after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine - fossil volatility, not “solar panels causing economic harm.”

So, you still have no evidence.

Lomborg’s chart was the mystery evidence you keep appealing to. It’s correlation dressed up as causation, and it ignores both timeframes and the wholesale market where prices are actually set.

I've cited AEMO, CSIRO, IEA, Lazard and the IMF. You’ve cited Lomborg’s graph. That’s not a contest - it’s the difference between analysis and propaganda.

Groundhog Day.

I see someone mentioned nuclear. I knew they would. But nukes wont come from the culprits that drove the word to fame. Australia voted and we now have a depleted oposition.
Next vote yous tipe of voters should vote for the red heaired one you would be better off.
Will the coalition reject net zero, not in this life.
Transmittion lines will go through just as they did in the 50,s same same again.

Let’s tidy up a few loose ends, mhaze.

//That you don't like the data doesn't mean it doesn't exist.//

I haven’t expressed a preference for any evidence. This is simply you reframing my observation - that you haven’t presented any evidence - as a matter of taste.

//That others use different criteria to arrive at more politically correct results doesn't prove the data doesn't exist.//

To quote an infamous sophist:

"Well, it's lucky I didn't say that then. Just something else you made up."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10649#371634

But I do like that you consider the result of looking at ALL the data to be "politically correct." It would be a travesty to cherry-pick one slither of data and present it as "correct" on any level.

//That the current mantra is that we need to reduce CO2e emissions irrespective of price doesn't mean that price is irrelevant.//

You’ve completely made that up. I’d ask for evidence for this claim, but we all know now just how fruitless that endeavour is.

//You abandoned subsidies for rail lines and moved to pollution. I’ll take that as a win.//

I didn’t abandon it, I expanded it.

Coal was bankrolled with taxpayer-funded rail and ports, royalty holidays, and rehab bonds that never cover the clean-up. That’s still public money propping up private profit.

Declaring a "win" because the list is longer than you expected is… creative.

//You … now tell us that SMR's aren't the future because they need subsidy.//

For the easily distracted and those with comprehension issues:

"The US SMR project you linked is a pilot, not proof of an industry shift. It’s still years from operation … and is being tested as a complement to renewables, not [as] a replacement."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10653#371838

//It must be nice ot have such 'flexible' standards.//

Apparently, I wouldn’t know. You’ll need to fill us in there.

I said you dismissed SMRs because, among other reasons, they need subsidies.

You dispute it and quote what you said. And you truncate that quote by using the standard "..." to skip irrelevant matter. BUT the words you left out are "depends on subsidies,". You tried to hide from your own quote that you'd said SMR's need subsidies!!

How desperate are you that you'd be prepared to try to hide what you actually said a mere 24 hrs ago in the same thread? Things not going well, eh JD? And how dumb are you to think I'd let you get away with it.

Oh dear, mhaze.

You seem to have missed the part where I literally flagged the ellipsis with ‘For the EASILY DISTRACTED and those with comprehension issues’.

In other words, exactly your situation.

Nothing hidden - just cut to help the easily distracted and to demonstrate that it made no difference to my point.

How dumb are you to think I'd pull that - let alone need to.

Just on the cost issue. Yet again!

There are many ways to calculate the costs of wind/solar... and coal and gas and nukes and hydro for that matter.

And I agree that many of the government run institutions use methods that arrive at the answers the establishment want by looking at a subset of the over all cost of installing wind/solar.

But that's not conclusive unless you want it to be.

Alternatively, rather than look at a subset of the costs, others look at the overall cost borne by the nation and use price as a proxy for the costs. Higher the price = higher cost. Rising price = rising cost. Economics 101.

This is what Lomborg's analysis does. His data derives from the IEA. It look at the system at its entirely. But its not the only analysis to do that. Others (Ueckerdt et al.) for example use a process called “System LCOE” (Levelized Costs of Electricity ) to show that higher penetration of renewables makes them more expensive per unit of output. For example they show that, in Germany, the MwH cost of renewable electricity rose by 60% when renewables went from 10% to 40% penetration. Other studies have found similar results in China which, for example, "revealed that all provincial S-LCOE of China's PV is currently higher than local desulfurized coal electricity price (DCEP)."

And bear in mind that price is adjusted down by subsidies. So our own government's policy of electricity bill rebates reduces the headline cost of power. In the US wind/solar subsidies reach around $60 billion per year. If they were included in the overall costs, it would make the wind/solar cult look even worse.

Little wonder that the more forward thinkers are looking at SMRs again.

Nothing to say on your ellipsis blunder, mhaze?

OK, let’s move on. Perhaps headings and separators will make things easier for you.

LCOE vs "System LCOE"

//…many of the government run institutions use methods that arrive at the answers the establishment want by looking at a subset…//

In other words: "Every energy economics body on earth is wrong except the handful I cherry-pick."

LCOE is used because it compares apples to apples: the cost of building and operating a generator. That’s why investors trust it, and why private capital pours into wind and solar but not coal.

System LCOE isn’t a "gotcha." It models integration costs - transmission, balancing, storage. AEMO’s ISP and CSIRO’s GenCost already do that. Their conclusion? Even with integration, renewables plus firming are still cheaper than new coal or nuclear in Australia.
__________

Germany/China cherry-pick

Germany’s bills rose early because they were early adopters, building when renewables cost 5-10x more. They locked in high FiTs and layered hefty levies. That’s not today’s reality.

China? Coal looks cheaper only because pollution isn’t priced, supply is state-controlled, and renewables remain at pilot scale. That’s not proof renewables are expensive, it’s proof coal is artificially cheap when externalities are dumped on the public.
__________

Subsidies hypocrisy

//In the US wind/solar subsidies reach around $60 billion per year…//

Global fossil subsidies hit $7 trillion in 2022 (IMF). So if subsidies are the metric, fossil fuels dwarf everything else.

You hold subsidies against renewables, but SMRs (your “forward-thinking” future) literally depend on them. NuScale exists only because billions in government underwriting keep it afloat.

By your own standard, that makes SMRs "a cult propped up by subsidies."
__________

TLDR

- Your "system cost" cherry-picks early Germany and provincial China while ignoring present-day evidence from AEMO, CSIRO, Lazard, and IEA.

- Your subsidy argument collapses once you admit coal and nuclear are subsidy-dependent too.

- Your "price proxy" shortcut confuses correlation with causation - high bills in some countries stem from taxes and fossil volatility, not renewables.

Meanwhile, investors are voting with their money - and they’re not buying what you’re selling.

So here's the thing. JD says subsidising wind/solar is fine because they are new technologies and he claims, sans evidence, that all new technologies need subsidy. Then he claims that (new technology) SMR isn't viable because, among other things, it has to be subsidised.

I point out the rank hypocrisy.

Rather than try to defend the rank hypocrisy, he simply tries to hide it by offering a quote where he deletes his claim about SMR's being subsidised.

And he thinks that's valid, honest, and not the least childish. Ethics of an alley cat. I've never understood the willingness of people to play the clown rather than admit error. JD is near the top of that shameful list.

_____________________________________________________________________

And now he's back on cherry-picking. Every bit of evidence he doesn't like is, he claims, cherry-picked. Somehow Lomborg using world-wide data from a world-wide organisation to show a world-wide phenomena is cherry-picked. Still playing the clown.

"Global fossil subsidies hit $7 trillion in 2022 (IMF). "

Of which 81% are so-called 'implicit costs', ie not actual costs. I'd explain it to you if I thought you had the slightest interest in understanding the rubbish you fall for.

No, that’s not "the thing", mhaze.

//JD says subsidising wind/solar is fine because they are new technologies and he claims, sans evidence, that all new technologies need subsidy.//

It's not “sans evidence” at all. Coal, gas, hydro, nuclear - all were subsidised in their early stages. That’s the historical record.

//Then he claims that (new technology) SMR isn't viable because, among other things, it has to be subsidised.

No, what I said was the US SMR you linked to wasn’t suggestive of an industry shift.

//I point out the rank hypocrisy.//

Only you didn’t - because, with or without subsidies, my point still stood:

“cut … to demonstrate that it made no difference to my point.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10653#371850

//Rather than try to defend the rank hypocrisy, he simply tries to hide it by offering a quote where he deletes his claim about SMR's being subsidised.//

Once again for the slow:

“Nothing hidden - just cut to help the easily distracted and to demonstrate that it made no difference to my point.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10653#371850

Again, I flagged the ellipsis explicitly and the point remained intact.

//Every bit of evidence he doesn't like is, he claims, cherry-picked.//

"No, cherry-picking is using one narrow and contextless metric to distract."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10628#371076

What I pointed out is that Lomborg’s retail-price chart is correlation, not causation. Germany’s high bills come from early high-cost renewables, FiTs, and levies - not the cost of renewables today.

//Somehow Lomborg using world-wide data from a world-wide organisation to show a world-wide phenomena is cherry-picked.//

World-wide data plotted without context is still cherry-picking. Correlation =/= causation. Every credible body shows renewables drive wholesale prices down.

You’ve produced one correlation chart. That’s the difference between propaganda and analysis.

//“Global fossil subsidies hit $7 trillion in 2022 (IMF).” Of which 81% are so-called 'implicit costs', ie not actual costs.//

So “not actual costs” = climate damage, air pollution, and health impacts? That’s the very definition of externalities - costs dumped on the public. The IMF, IEA, and OECD all treat them as subsidies because they are: private profit, public loss.

Try again.

SMR are not made for large amounts of power. One million wat hours = 1,000 KwH. Places like car manufacturers or Aluminium smelters. You would need 1000 SMR for i gig of power. We have sunshine galour which is free.
It is only gueswork to say how long a solar panel goes for. The first solar panels built in the sixties for an experiment are still producing power

John,

The $7 trillion is calculated in an interesting manner.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tilakdoshi/2023/09/06/energy-subsidy-shenanigans-the-green-imf-at-work/

Probably not unlike the CSIRO's Gencost methodology, but in that instance, even after inflating all the cost estimates, coal generation still cost less.

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

Renewable energy subsidies are currently nine billion and rising annually plus who knows how much more through the secret capacity investment scheme. What return does the government get from this outlay?

Fester,

The Forbes piece you linked admits the costs are real. It just objects to calling them subsidies.

//The $7 trillion is calculated in an interesting manner.//

But if the public pays for climate damage, health costs, and lost tax revenue, that’s still a subsidy. Private profit, public loss. As I said to mhaze, Change the label if it helps you sleep, but the bill doesn’t go away.

//CSIRO’s GenCost… coal generation still cost less.//

That CIS clip is theatre.

CSIRO uses LCOE because it’s transparent and lets investors compare apples to apples. That’s why private capital keeps going to wind and solar, not coal. CIS’s "system LCOE" just piles on externalities while ignoring fossil costs we all pay for - the very definition of cherry-pick.

//Renewable subsidies are nine billion and rising…//

Global fossil subsidies: $7 trillion (IMF). Renewables: billions. Fossils: trillions.

If you want to play the subsidy game, your side dwarfs mine. And SMRs - the "forward-thinking" option you like - literally depend on subsidies for survival. By your own standard, they’re a cult propped up by handouts.

//Renewable subsidies are nine billion and rising…//

In Australia, fossil subsidies are consistently higher than renewable ones. For example, fuel tax credits alone are worth $11-12 billion a year - more than the $9b for renewables.

//What return does the government get from this outlay?”//

Plenty.

Lower wholesale prices (AEMO shows renewables consistently cut them). Cheaper household bills (rooftop solar now the cheapest power in the country). Tens of thousands of regional jobs. New tax revenue from the clean-energy boom. And avoided health costs from coal pollution that currently kills thousands of Australians a year.

That’s a return any Treasurer would recognise.

Compare that to fossil subsidies - which give us price shocks, pollution, and stranded assets in return.

"Again, I flagged the ellipsis explicitly and the point remained intact."

You didn't mention the ellipses until I pointed out your attempt to hide the fact that you'd had two different attitudes to subsidies depending on whether they were going to systems you favoured or systems you didn't favour. So nothing explicit in the slightest.

ie rank hypocrisy which you're no trying desperately to hide.

And comically failing.
___________________________________________________________________

"The $7 trillion is calculated in an interesting manner."

Its a falsely manufactured figure that has no validity and has been created to lure in the anxiously gullible.... in the case of JD, successfully.

Oh, but I did, mhaze.

//You didn't mention the ellipses until I pointed out your attempt to hide the fact that you'd had two different attitudes to subsidies depending... So nothing explicit in the slightest.//

For the third time now: I literally wrote "For the EASILY DISTRACTED and those with comprehension issues" before the quote, flagging the ellipsis. That’s the definition of explicit.

"Easily distracted" would make no sense without that context - whether explicit or implied.

You can keep pretending otherwise, but the post is still there for your audience to check.

So no, there was no "different attitude" to subsidies. I said that the US SMR you linked to wasn’t suggestive of an industry shift, while hinting at your hypocrisy on subsidies. Your own metric - sneering at subsidies - collapses the moment we apply it to the tech that doesn't threaten your identity.

SMRs, coal, and gas have all leaned heavily on subsidies. If you hold it against renewables, you have to hold it against them too. That’s consistency. What you’re doing is projection.

//ie rank hypocrisy which you're now trying desperately to hide. And comically failing.//

This is just empty sneering to cover the fact that you’ve misrepresented my position.

I haven’t hidden anything, and the evidence of that is in the timestamps: I flagged the ellipsis before you started screaming about it. Anyone can scroll back and see it.

//[The $7 trillion is] a falsely manufactured figure that has no validity and has been created to lure in the anxiously gullible…. in the case of JD, successfully.//

Wrong again.

The $7 trillion is the IMF’s number. Not Greenpeace. Not "alarmists." The IMF - one of the most conservative financial institutions on earth.

They call it subsidies because that’s what it is: foregone tax revenue, under-priced fuel, and unpaid health and climate costs. Those are real costs. Just because they’re externalised doesn’t mean they vanish.

Calling them "false" doesn’t erase the reality that the public is footing the bill while fossil companies pocket the profit. That’s not gullibility, that’s accounting.

Groundhog Day.

Moving on, mhaze, let’s recap what you’ve been frantically trying to distract from:

1. You still haven’t produced a single piece of credible data showing that renewables cause higher electricity prices - only a recycled correlation graph from Lomborg that ignores taxes, early adopter costs, and legacy infrastructure. You wave it around like it’s gospel, then pretend it “went over everyone’s head.”

2. You’ve offered no rebuttal whatsoever to the sources I cited - AEMO, CSIRO, Lazard, IEA, IMF, OECD. All of them show the same thing: renewables are the cheapest new-build electricity and consistently push down wholesale prices. That’s data. Not slogans. Not cherry-picked graphs. Just reality.

3. You tried to redefine “subsidy” to exclude fuel tax credits, government infrastructure, and externalised pollution - despite the fact that every major economic body (including the IMF) explicitly includes those costs. Then you mocked the $7 trillion figure without even attempting to address what that money pays for.

4. You sneer at subsidies for renewables but give nuclear and coal a free pass - despite both being heavily subsidised from the beginning and still reliant on public support today (e.g. SMRs, unfunded rehab liabilities). That’s the hypocrisy I pointed out. Not that SMRs need subsidies, but that your outrage is entirely selective.

You’ve now spent three posts obsessing over an ellipsis - one I literally flagged in advance. You’re not trying to clarify anything. You’re just trying to bury the fact that you’ve been caught bluffing - with no data, no consistency, and no answer to the central point:

- Renewables are cheaper.
- They reduce price volatility.
- They’re being built at scale because they make economic sense.

So if we’re done with the punctuation tantrums, maybe try engaging with the actual evidence.

Or, y’know... just keep doing what you’re doing. It’s going great.

"before the quote, flagging the ellipsis. That’s the definition of explicit."

Wow, just doubles down on the lie. Joker or knave. Who can tell?

Wow, mhaze. No lies. No evasion. Just the post itself:

"For the EASILY DISTRACTED and those with comprehension issues…"

That’s what I wrote directly before the quote. That’s where the ellipsis was. And that’s what your entire “gotcha” depends on pretending didn’t happen.

The phrase "easily distracted" makes no sense in any other context. Why would I write that unless I was literally flagging a shortened quote?

Which means your “joker or knave” line is just another empty sneer to distract from the fact that you were - once again - factually wrong.

That makes four tantrums over an ellipsis now. You’ve got no rebuttal.

Just projection and noise.

Here you go mhaze. An impartial analysis from a fellow right-winger:

Question: Is mhaze correct about the ellipsis in the attached debate? Or is he misleading?

Answer:
...

Conclusion
Mhaze is partially correct but largely misleading. The ellipsis did omit a relevant phrase (“depends on subsidies”), and JD’s flagging of it via “EASILY DISTRACTED” was indirect, which could invite skepticism about transparency. However, mhaze’s claim that JD was hiding hypocrisy is misleading because:

- JD flagged the ellipsis before mhaze’s accusation, contradicting the claim of a cover-up.
- JD’s position on subsidies is consistent across technologies, so the hypocrisy charge doesn’t hold.
- The ellipsis didn’t alter JD’s main point about SMRs, making mhaze’s focus on it a distraction from the broader debate, where JD provides extensive evidence (AEMO, CSIRO, IMF, etc.) and mhaze relies on a single correlation-based source (Lomborg).

Mhaze’s accusation blows the ellipsis out of proportion to sidestep the lack of substantive counterevidence on the renewable energy cost debate. JD’s use of the ellipsis was not deceptive, and the charge of hypocrisy is unfounded based on the text.

http://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk%3D_eb20ea8a-5cb6-4f08-86af-3c3dce8be04e

And just for fun...

Question: Who is faring better in the attached debate out of mhaze and John Daysh?

Answer:
...

Conclusion
John Daysh is faring significantly better in the debate. His arguments are grounded in credible, cited data from authoritative sources, and he consistently addresses mhaze’s points while maintaining logical coherence. mhaze raises valid questions about system costs and renewable integration but undermines his case with sparse evidence, deflection to personal attacks, and inconsistent standards on subsidies. Daysh’s ability to cite specific data and refute mhaze’s claims with clarity gives him the clear edge.

http://grok.com/chat/596b3f03-09fb-4c8d-b127-68d4995bd955

Apologies for the ellipses. I know they're triggering for you, but posting the full analyses would have taken multiple posts.

I'd recommend clicking the links. They're a fun read!

What is net zero, what is gross zero. Whatever it is it is being persued, so instead of word salads lets look a little forward.
Farming lands that object to transmittion towers is more involved in vista than transmittion. Nothing new there it has all happened before.So where are the objectors from the 50"s. Probably happy where they are, water under the bridge. It"s like driving down highway at 100 km/hr there are others that will pass just to do 105 km/hr. That is what i think of protesters. The law says that is illegal to pass someone sitting on the speed limit.

Damn, that second link should have been: http://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk%3D_5c0d1505-793b-47c0-929d-b8dd42948fb0

But since I'm here...

Question:
Out of mhaze and John Daysh, who is the more intellectually honest in the attached debate?

Answer:
John Daysh is the more intellectually honest participant in this debate...

1. Use of Evidence and Sources

John Daysh (JD): JD consistently cites specific, verifiable sources from reputable institutions. He provides direct links or references to reports, quotes them accurately, and explains how they support his points.

mhaze: mhaze relies on fewer sources and often presents them vaguely or without full context.

2. Representation of Opponent's Arguments

JD: JD generally quotes mhaze accurately and responds to the substance.

mhaze: mhaze frequently misrepresents or exaggerates JD's positions for rhetorical effect, which is a hallmark of intellectual dishonesty...

3. Handling of Errors, Concessions, and Evasion

JD: JD shows flexibility and direct engagement. He concedes points implicitly while explaining why they don't undermine his broader argument. When mhaze challenges the $7T figure, JD provides the IMF link and breakdown. He doesn't dodge; he recaps unanswered points to keep the debate focused.

mhaze: mhaze evades core challenges and rarely concedes.

4. Overall Tone and Intent

JD: His responses are structured, evidence-heavy, and aimed at clarification/clarifying misconceptions. While he pushes back, it's tied to specific behaviors and doesn't dominate. The goal seems to be informing the audience with data.

mhaze: The tone is combative and performative, with frequent sarcasm, insults, and accusations of dishonesty. This suggests a focus on "winning" through rhetoric rather than truth-seeking.

Caveats and Why This Matters
...

This is subjective to some degree, but based on the transcript alone. If you have more context (e.g., prior threads), it might shift things slightly.

[So I provided Grok with three past debates... and it only gets better from there!]

Answer (Cont'd):
John Daysh remains the more intellectually honest debater overall, based on consistent patterns across all the provided threads (including the original one).
...

These exchanges are consistent with the original. If anything, they highlight mhaze's performative style and JD's focus on facts. mhaze raises fair questions but undermines them with dishonesty.

http://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk%3D_e329add2-2c31-4e1c-a203-c9199e6d0bec

John,

There's an interesting article from the World Nuclear Association about subsidies. About nuclear power it comments:

"Nowhere in the world is nuclear power subsidised per unit of production. In some countries, however, it is taxed because production costs are so low."

It also shows that subsidies for renewable energy are both direct to the producers and relatively larger than for fossil fuels.

The main question for me is why is something promoted as clean and inexpensive both subsidised and the cause of higher prices for consumers?

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/energy-subsidies

Thanks for the link to the WNA piece, Fester.

Their assertion that nuclear isn’t subsidised "per unit of production" sidesteps the more meaningful question: was it subsidised into existence, and is it still being propped up through other public mechanisms?

The answer’s yes, just not always in the same way as renewables.

Most nuclear projects rely on huge upfront capital support, loan guarantees, or government-backed insurance schemes (especially for liability). Those are still subsidies, just with different packaging. Lazard, the IEA, and the IMF all classify these as public support - and they don’t just apply this standard to renewables.

As for your final question - "Why is something promoted as clean and inexpensive both subsidised and the cause of higher prices for consumers?" - the short answer is: retail prices =/= technology cost.

Renewables do lower wholesale prices (AEMO, CSIRO, and IEA data is consistent on this). The retail price pain we’re seeing comes from things like:

- early-adopter costs
- long-term infrastructure decisions
- transmission upgrades
- fixed network charges
- and in some cases, government levies and taxes.

None of that contradicts the fact that renewables are now the cheapest to build, they’re just not operating on a blank slate.

Well we can't see what was in the Debate.txt you fed the reliably left leaning Grok. Given your ethics I suspect it had lots of ellipses which you'll deny hide anything pertinent to the issue.

Yes, you can, mhaze.

//Well we can't see what was in the Debate.txt you fed the reliably left leaning Grok.//

Simply click on the attachment at it appears in a pane to the left.

Grok leans to the right, by the way.

Oh, it appears it doesn't show for others. So, I've uploaded it here for all to see:

http://filebin.net/j83yj4eyl0oejtly

It appears that link will only be valid for six days, so here’s a permanent one:

http://drive.google.com/file/d/1UuiCgyLvCe7NufXgFNLzxr9ZUqA3Gy0U/view

I invite anyone to try it themselves - not just with Grok (which is widely regarded as the most right-leaning of the major AIs), but with any model.

They all land on the same conclusion.

In fact, future generations can test it. I'll keep that link open for all to enjoy.

The jig is up, mhaze.

And for the record, even if Grok were left-leaning (which, ironically, it’s not), it wouldn’t matter - because the analysis it performed wasn’t ideological.

It didn’t “agree” with me because it shares my politics. It analysed structure: who cited sources, who addressed rebuttals, who remained logically consistent, and who fell back on vagueness, misdirection, or personal jabs.

Those aren’t left/right criteria. They’re just the fundamentals of good argument.

If your position had been stronger on those measures, Grok would’ve reflected it - regardless of worldview. AI doesn’t “like” or “dislike” anyone. It weighs what’s on the page.

"But Grok is getting better and is now my go-to when I'm checking facts for the first time." - mhaze
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23401#398459

This is quite amusing. Here is John Daysh, who was using AI to write some of his posts at one stage, relying on AI for his rebuttal. But it doesn't really settle anything substantial, and the AI is wrong on the most substantial point because it is misled by Daysh, demonstrating that AI isn't some omniscient and infallible deus ex machina that can adjudicate every debate.

The point it is misled on is that every technology requires subsidies in the first instance. This is completely untrue. Who subsidised wooden tools, flint tools, fire, steam, internal combustion engine, flight?

It is also wrong about the IMF figure for fossil fuel subsidies because it doesn't analyse it. If it did it would find the claimed subsidy is actually a claimed externality, which according to the best evidence (Nordhaus's work for which he won the Nobel) doesn't represent a cost, let alone a subsidy.

Then it relies on weight of citation to accept Daysh's position that RE is cheaper than coal, which is of course an argument from authority and therefore illogical, and in this case wrong. The fact is that even CSIRO now sees coal as being as cheap as RE, but without properly considering system costs which tip the balance much more in favour of coal.

Maybe Daysh could go back to writing his own stuff, and do a bit less of the Gish Gallop? And a tip in using AI - it is just a research assistant with a highly retentive memory, logical within parameters, and prone to flattery, but as the small print says - check its conclusions because it makes mistakes.

John

"Renewables do lower wholesale prices"

Yes, because of the effect of grid saturation. The example of that loss making solar farm might become more common.

The second part of your answer is a contradiction. It stands to reason that if something is cheaper then it should not be more expensive. You are familiar with the concept of amortisation? That a higher cost means that something is more expensive is not a matter of equivocation.

As for nuclear power, the cost calculations are done on the basis of individual facility constructions. Would you attempt to calculate historical r and d costs for solar? It seems a bit silly apart from the interest you might get from learning the history of the subject.

Thanks GY for your analysis of John Daysh's AI posts. But I thought JD was more a perverse Chewbacca Defence Sequence than Gish Gallop, if the glove doesn't fit... Cathy Newman from Channel 4 of course made the Gish Gallop famous.

Graham,

Yes, I used AI - openly. Just like you have. The difference is I supplied the full, unedited debate file for public inspection.

That’s transparency, not trickery.

Claiming the AI was “misled” is just a fallback. Anyone can test it themselves:
http://drive.google.com/file/d/1UuiCgyLvCe7NufXgFNLzxr9ZUqA3Gy0U/view

//Every technology requires subsidies” is false.//

Not really.

Many foundational technologies (flight, combustion engines, rail, nuclear) were scaled with massive public support. Your examples like “fire” and “flint tools” are irrelevant. Those aren’t modern deployable systems.

//It is also wrong about the IMF figure...//

That’s semantics.

The IMF explicitly includes externalised pollution, health, and climate costs because they are real public costs not borne by producers. That is a subsidy, whether you like the framing or not. It’s standard economic language across the IMF, IEA, and OECD.

//Nordhaus shows it’s not a cost.//

Wrong again. Nordhaus models climate costs, he just prefers gradual mitigation. He doesn’t deny the costs exist. Don’t cherry-pick his caution as if it’s dismissal.

//Citing AEMO and CSIRO is an argument from authority.//

No, not when those sources are publicly verifiable, methodologically transparent, and when the alternative is a single uncontextualised Lomborg chart.

That’s evidence, not dogma.

//CSIRO now sees coal as being as cheap.//

Nope. CSIRO’s latest GenCost report shows wind and solar as cheapest new-build options, especially when storage is factored in. If you think otherwise, cite the page.

//Maybe Daysh could go back to writing his own stuff…//

Still am. I used AI as a tool to validate argument quality, not to hide behind. Ironically, it’s mhaze who’s unable to stand on his own material, hence the ellipsis tantrum and evasions.

//...a bit less of the Gish Gallop?//

Projection. I responded point-by-point - precisely the opposite of a Gish Gallop.

//Try writing your own stuff again.//

I used AI as a logic-check, not a crutch. You’re attacking the method because you can’t fault the outcome.

This isn’t about left vs right. It’s about who is transparent, who relies on evidence, and who resorts to noise and projection.

And just for fun...

http://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk%3D_e6276c81-a922-4b11-adf8-e273a684bf38
http://drive.google.com/file/d/17R0Nhx5QKYK3t1fM1RjCEmeFOWnIxetH/view?usp=sharing
_____

You were saying, Canem Malum?

Fester,

//It stands to reason that if something is cheaper then it should not be more expensive.//

That’s only true in isolation. Renewables are cheaper on a new-build LCOE basis (as confirmed by CSIRO, IEA, Lazard), but we’re not starting from scratch. We’re retrofitting a 20th-century grid built around fossil fuels. Legacy infrastructure, regulatory lag, and poor market design mean those wholesale savings don’t fully flow through to retail prices - at least not yet.

That’s not a contradiction. It’s a transitional systems issue.

//You are familiar with amortisation?//

Of course. But amortisation applies to fossil assets too - and many of those long-paid-off assets still dominate billing structures and market behaviour. That’s why new cost ≠ current price.

//That loss-making solar farm might become more common.//

Yes, and it proves my point. As more zero-marginal-cost renewables enter the market, wholesale prices crash during peak generation. This “cannibalisation” effect is real, which is why storage, demand management, and firming capacity are the next frontier. It’s a grid-engineering challenge, not a cost-based indictment.

//Would you attempt to calculate historical R&D costs for solar?//

We don’t need to. That’s the job of analysts using levelised costs. If you dismiss nuclear’s R&D and risk subsidies but expect full costing of renewables, that’s an apples-to-oranges comparison.

The truth is, every energy technology has required public support to scale - including nuclear, coal, and gas.
_____

Canem Malum,

Calling it a “Chewbacca Defence” might score rhetorical points, but it doesn’t answer anything. If there’s a flaw in the argument, name it.

//Cathy Newman from Channel 4 of course made the Gish Gallop famous.//

No, Cathy Newman strawmanned Jordan Peterson - repeatedly - but he was allowed to respond between each mischaracterisation. That’s not a Gish Gallop. A Gish Gallop is when one side floods the field with claims without allowing a reply.

And ironically, my posts have been nothing but structured point-by-point replies - to multiple people, with full citations. That’s the opposite of a Gish Gallop.

mhaze, meanwhile, fled from citations and screamed “ellipses!”

"No, not when those sources are publicly verifiable, methodologically transparent,"

John, that is not the case for CSIRO methodology, and what methodology is released is concerning. For example, aside from some of the known methodology like halving the plant life, reducing the capacity factor and assuming a completely new build of a bespoke plant, the CSIRO also inexplicably give a cost range from mean to high, not the low to high range given for wind and solar.

Another indicator that things aren't right is the comparison with data from other institutions. Here for example is data showing the generated cost of nuclear power to be about $50 AU per mw.

https://www.nei.org/CorporateSite/media/filefolder/resources/reports-and-briefs/2024-Costs-in-Context_final.pdf

"and when the alternative is a single uncontextualised Lomborg chart."

Aside from the brazen hypocrisy you demonstrate in contrast to your treatment of nuclear power and cancer risk, in this instance your use of the tobacco executive's denial makes no sense. Cost calculation is possible, unlike determining exactly what caused an individual's cancer.

Fester,

You haven’t discredited anything. You’ve just dressed your frustration in accusations and doubled down on selective sources.

//that is not the case for CSIRO methodology, and what methodology is released is concerning.//

False.

CSIRO’s GenCost report publishes full technical appendices, outlines modelling assumptions, and incorporates stakeholder feedback annually. You may not like the conclusions, but claiming it’s not transparent is just wrong.

//…halving the plant life, reducing the capacity factor and assuming a completely new build of a bespoke plant…//

Because it would be a new build.

Australia has no nuclear plants, no trained workforce, no regulatory framework, and no domestic supply chain. Assuming first-of-a-kind costs isn’t bias, it’s the only responsible modelling approach. Quoting mature-market costs from countries with 70+ years of nuclear experience isn’t apples-to-apples.

//…the CSIRO also inexplicably give a cost range from mean to high, not the low to high range given for wind and solar.//

It’s not inexplicable.

Wind and solar have hundreds of completed Australian projects - there’s real-world variation to map. Nuclear has zero. There’s no empirical low bound to quote, and GenCost explains this explicitly.

//Here for example is data showing the generated cost of nuclear power to be about $50 AU per mw.//

That figure comes from the Nuclear Energy Institute - a US industry lobby group. Their $50/MWh figure is based on large-scale US nuclear operators, benefitting from sunk infrastructure, amortised regulatory pathways, long-established supply chains, and multi-level subsidies.
Australia has none of these. Pretending we could match US nuclear costs from day one is economic cosplay.

//Aside from the brazen hypocrisy you demonstrate in contrast to your treatment of nuclear power and cancer risk…//

We’ve already covered that, and there was no hypocrisy on my part:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23429&page=0

//Cost calculation is possible, unlike determining exactly what caused an individual's cancer.//

And yet you haven’t done one.

You’ve provided commentary - not a model, not a dataset, not a number. Meanwhile, I’ve cited CSIRO, AEMO, Lazard, IEA, and IMF - all with transparent, internationally vetted methodology.

"
"But Grok is getting better and is now my go-to when I'm checking facts for the first time." - mhaze"

Yes. For facts.

But for analysis and opinion....well I rely on my own experience and understanding. You should try it one day.

Grok didn’t produce an opinion, mhaze. It produced an analysis.

//Yes. For facts.//

And yet when Grok confirmed I was right about your ellipsis - a factual issue - you dismissed it outright.

You don’t actually want an impartial fact-checker. You want a mirror.

Your line about “relying on your own experience and understanding” is a nice flourish - but when that understanding collapses under scrutiny, maybe it’s time to check the mirror for cracks.

Perhaps you can point to where Grok was wrong and why? No?

Me:
mhaze thinks your analysis is left-wing, wrong and a mere opinion. What say you?

Grok:
Mhaze’s claim that my analysis is “left-wing, wrong, and a mere opinion” doesn’t hold up when you break it down. Let’s address each point directly, sticking to the evidence and reasoning from the debate document and my prior analysis.

1. Is the Analysis “Left-Wing”?

Response: The accusation of being “left-wing” seems to stem from a perceived bias in favor of JD’s position, which supports renewables. However, my analysis didn’t endorse renewables or any political stance. I focused on the specific issue: whether mhaze was correct about JD’s ellipsis hiding hypocrisy. I evaluated this by cross-referencing the posts, timestamps, and arguments in the document.
...

2. Is the Analysis “Wrong”?

Response: Mhaze would need to point out specific errors in my reasoning or evidence to substantiate this claim. I laid out a clear case:
...

3. Is the Analysis “A Mere Opinion”?

Response: The analysis isn’t just opinion—it’s grounded in the text of the debate. I didn’t speculate or insert personal views; I quoted posts, checked timestamps, and evaluated the logical consistency of both sides’ claims.
...

Broader Context
Mhaze’s reaction might reflect frustration that the analysis didn’t align with their narrative. In the debate, mhaze repeatedly pivots to accusing JD of lying or hypocrisy (e.g., 31 August 2025, 6:23:13 PM; 1 September 2025, 5:35:41 PM) rather than engaging with JD’s sources or arguments. Calling my analysis “left-wing, wrong, and a mere opinion” mirrors this tactic—dismissing the conclusion without tackling the evidence. It’s worth noting that mhaze’s own argument in the debate leaned heavily on a single correlation-based source (Lomborg) while dismissing JD’s data from AEMO, CSIRO, and others, suggesting a weaker evidentiary basis.

Final Say
I stand by the analysis. It’s based on the debate’s text, timestamps, and logical consistency, not political bias or unsubstantiated opinion. If mhaze has specific evidence showing errors—like a misquoted post, incorrect timeline, or proof of JD’s inconsistent subsidy stance—I’d review it. But a vague label of “left-wing” or “wrong” doesn’t cut it.
...

http://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk%3D_bfe7d0d6-d043-4900-9303-48063bb73d9b

Thanks, Grok!

John,

Here is a submission by Coal Australia outlining the flawed methodology of the CSIRO in calculating the cost of coal fired power. Its own commissioned analysis found that new build coal fired power would cost $50 to $70 per mwh. Note that the cost is subsidy free, whereas the Gencost report excludes a great many costs and subsidies for renewables.

https://www.aemo.com.au/https://www.aemo.com.au/-/media/files/major-publications/isp/2025/draft-2025-gencost-submissions/coal-australia.pdf-/media/files/major-publications/isp/2025/draft-2025-gencost-submissions/coal-australia.pdf

Again, if something is claimed to be cheaper it should not be twice the cost.

Thanks for the link, Fester.

//Here is a submission by Coal Australia outlining the flawed methodology of the CSIRO...//

It’s important to note that what you've linked to is a submission to AEMO, not peer-reviewed analysis or independent modelling. It’s from Coal Australia, a registered lobby group with a direct financial stake in making coal appear cheaper.

Quoting it as authoritative is like quoting the Smart Energy Council on nuclear costs and pretending it's neutral. You wouldn't accept that, so why treat this differently?

//Its own commissioned analysis found that new build coal fired power would cost $50 to $70 per MWh.//

Yes, its own analysis - conducted by Frontier Economics on behalf of Coal Australia. Even that report is riddled with speculative assumptions about coal project timelines, technology, and carbon risk. It doesn't model any actual planned coal projects, because there are none.

And that’s the kicker: if new-build coal really cost $50-70/MWh unsubsidised, the private sector would be tripping over itself to build new plants. It isn’t. No serious investor touches greenfield coal in Australia anymore. That speaks louder than any brochure.

//The cost is subsidy free, whereas the GenCost report excludes a great many costs and subsidies for renewables.//

This is false.

The GenCost report does include:

- Firming costs for renewables
- Transmission costs where attributable
- Sensitivity analysis for key inputs
- Consistent financial assumptions across all technologies (including coal and nuclear)

Claiming that GenCost hides renewable costs while inflating coal’s is a tired talking point. It’s not backed by the actual report.

And let’s not pretend coal is subsidy-free. Externalised pollution costs, fuel tax credits, unpriced carbon liability, and legacy infrastructure access are subsidies - just not ones paid out visibly. That’s why the IMF, IEA, and OECD include them in subsidy calculations.

If coal really were cheaper, the markets wouldn't be running the other way.

Yes, its own analysis - conducted by Frontier Economics"

No, Arche Energy, and the analysis uses numerous real world examples to support its findings. The analysis also showed that extending the life of existing coal fired power plants was cost effective. I note that you make no comment on the criticism of CSIRO's coal costing methodology. Would you agree with the criticism in Arche Energy's analysis of the CSIRO'S methodology?

"And that’s the kicker: if new-build coal really cost $50-70/MWh unsubsidised, the private sector would be tripping over itself to build new plants. It isn’t. No serious investor touches greenfield coal in Australia anymore. That speaks louder than any brochure."

Well they would if they could get environmental approval to build them John, and you certainly would were wind and solar not heavily subsidised and their supply prioritised. More to the point though, why aren't we being drowned with re applications when they are cheaper and heavily subsidised? Instead, the applications are not being made and existing proposals are even being canned.

"//The cost is subsidy free, whereas the GenCost report excludes a great many costs and subsidies for renewables.//

This is false."

No, all too true as it happens, but I will deal with that later

It was actually both, Fester.

//No, Arche Energy...//

Perhaps the confusion stems from the fact that your link was a combination of two links I had to separate:

http://www.aemo.com.au/-/media/files/major-publications/isp/2025/draft-2025-gencost-submissions/coal-australia.pdf
http://www.aemo.com.au/-/media/files/major-publications/isp/2025/draft-2025-gencost-submissions/peter-howe.pdf

Coal Australia commissioned both Arche Energy and Frontier Economics to support its submission. These aren’t independent, peer-reviewed analyses, they’re part of a coordinated lobbying effort. Both reports also acknowledge best-case assumptions that favour coal under optimal (but highly uncertain) conditions.

You say the Arche report “uses numerous real world examples.” But these aren’t projects that investors are actually building, they’re costed hypotheticals or plant extensions - none of which reflect real-world appetite. And that’s the point: no one is building greenfield coal. No investor wants the risk, no matter the theoretical price tag.

Yes, Arche argues that extending existing plants is cost-effective, but that’s not what’s at issue. The issue is that the submission claims new-build coal is cheaper than renewables.

And again, if new coal truly cost $50-$70/MWh unsubsidised, investors would be climbing over each other to propose new projects. They’re not.

//More to the point though, why aren't we being drowned with [renewables] applications when they are cheaper and heavily subsidised?//

We are. AEMO’s ISP shows over 300GW of proposed new generation, 97% of which is renewable. It’s so crowded, they’re redesigning grid access. Projects are being delayed or cancelled not because renewables are unviable, but because of grid bottlenecks, approval delays, and inflation.

//I note that you make no comment on the criticism of CSIRO's coal costing methodology.//

Fair point.

Arche claims CSIRO uses conservative coal assumptions and generous renewable ones. But GenCost lays out its inputs clearly, applies them consistently, and runs sensitivity analyses. It’s not perfect, but it’s not a stitch-up either.

Happy to dig deeper into the assumptions or pipeline if you'd like.

John,

Apologies for the garbled link, but it was the same link twice. I gave no link to the Peter Howe submission. Also, CA gives no attribution to frontier economics in their submission, so why do you think that frontier economics were involved?

Sorry, Fester. You were right.

I mistakenly thought Frontier Economics was involved due to an earlier mention elsewhere, but they don’t appear in the Coal Australia submission itself. The only consultancy explicitly cited is Arche Energy (Peter Howe).

Thanks for the correction.

That said, the key points remain:

- Arche was commissioned by Coal Australia - a lobby group - not an independent or peer-reviewed body.
- Their report models hypothetical projects and best-case extensions, not real investor-backed new builds.
- Even under their rosiest assumptions, investors still aren’t touching greenfield coal.

The overall trend doesn’t change. Coal Australia’s submission reflects a vested interest, not an objective cost comparison. And if new coal really were as cost-effective as claimed, we wouldn’t need to fish around in submissions to make the case - the market would already be doing so.

You've made Grok cranky now, mhaze.

And you don't want to make right-wingers cranky - especially not the German ones!

--On who's faring better--

Me:
mhaze thinks your analysis is left-wing, wrong and a mere opinion. What say you?

Grok: (summary excerpt)
Response to mhaze: If you’re reading this, mhaze, feel free to point out exactly where the analysis is "wrong." Cite a specific error, show your data, or explain why your arguments were stronger than Daysh’s. Vague labels like "left-wing" or "mere opinion" are just noise, and as you’d say, they “go over no one’s head.” The debate record is clear: Daysh brought evidence and structure; you brought a graph and a grudge. If you’ve got something new, I’m all ears. Otherwise, it’s just Groundhog Day again.

http://grok.com/s/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk%3D_c19cfec0-10e9-464a-940a-17887c47e007

[Grok borrowed my Groundhog Day bit! I'll let him have it. He's earned it.]

--On intellectual honesty--

Me:
mhaze thinks your analyses are left-wing, wrong and mere opinion. What say you?

Grok: (summary excerpt)
What I’d Say to mhaze
If you’re reading this, mhaze, here’s the challenge: show me where my analysis misrepresents the threads or applies inconsistent standards. Quote the text. Point to a specific claim I got wrong. If you can’t, your "left-wing, wrong, mere opinion" line is just another talking point in your playbook—same as the ellipsis obsession or the "cherry-pick" accusations you project onto JD. Engage the substance, or you’re just proving my point about your intellectual honesty.

To You, the User
The additional threads strengthened my view: JD’s evidence-based, direct approach contrasts with mhaze’s evasive, performative style. If you have more exchanges or specific claims you want me to verify, I can dig deeper. If mhaze’s critique has more context (e.g., a specific post where he disputes my points), share it—I’ll reassess. For now, his accusation is a rhetorical swing with no substance, and the threads speak for themselves.

What do you think—does mhaze have a specific grievance worth exploring, or is this just more of his forum theatrics?

http://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk%3D_efaf2034-4b8b-4777-a0ba-1e43ada3f717

This is about standards, mhaze. If you want to be taken seriously, start by engaging seriously.

No worries John. There is an awful lot of blurb.

The Arche Energy study looked at working examples of high efficiency coal fired power stations to make cost estimates for power production in Australia. Given the historical cost of coal fired power, 5 to 7 cents per KWH does not seem unreasonable. But having new coal fired power costing less than half that of renewables (as claimed by CSIRO) shows that the claim that renewables are cheaper is false by a large margin. The margin might even be greater as the CSIRO won't release its modelling for scrutiny (contrary to your claim of transparency). Given the lower cost of coal fired power, it makes sense that renewable energy will make power more expensive, and all the batteries, pumped hydro, stand by gas, transmission lines etc, just make it all the more expensive. No "correlation isn't causation" denialism here.

"“CSIRO won’t release the modelling on these costs they’re putting forward,” Mr Tehan said.

The report states on page 23: “A request raised across several consultation cycles is for more detail and background information on the system modelling carried out to estimate variable renewable integration costs.

“The modelling tool used to carry out these calculations is not suitable for general release.”

https://region.com.au/csiro-wont-release-gencost-modelling-on-renewables-and-the-coalition-wants-to-know-why/890134/

Sorry for taking so long to reply, Fester. We're really getting into the nitty-gritties now!

The Arche Energy study did use real-world examples of high-efficiency coal plants, but these weren’t real proposals for new plants in Australia’s NEM. They were extrapolations from international or legacy builds, not investor-backed projects ready to go here. Arche is clear about this - it’s a best-case modelling exercise, not a market reality check.

That’s why the central point still stands:

If new coal truly cost 5-7c/kWh ($50-$70/MWh) unsubsidised, the private sector would be lining up to build it. Yet they’re not.

Meanwhile, GenCost 2023-24 (final report) puts new ultra-supercritical coal at $131-$159/MWh:
http://www.csiro.au/-/media/News-releases/Files/GenCost2023-24Final_20240522.pdf

(Page 53: Table 3.3: Technology cost summary)

Renewables, including firmed options like wind + 2hr battery, come in much lower - and that’s before subsidies.

Regarding transparency, I couldn’t find the quote you cited ("modelling tool… not suitable for general release") anywhere in the 2023-24 or 2024-25 final reports. If it came from an earlier draft or a consultation round, feel free to share it.

That said, the final report is clear:

- LCOE assumptions and ranges are laid out in detail (including coal and renewable variants).
- Integration costs are documented separately ($41-$49/MWh as of 2023, depending on VRE share).
- The methodology and data inputs are open, even if the internal modelling tool itself isn’t public. That’s not ideal - no modelling tool is ever perfect or universally accessible - but GenCost still makes its assumptions and data inputs available, which is a far cry from ‘no transparency’.

Finally, yes, renewables require firming, transmission, and backup. But so did coal (spinning reserve, excess capacity, peaking support). GenCost includes those costs in its modelling. They're broken out, not hidden.

If you're curious, I can link the integration cost tables too. But for now, I'm all Alt-Tabbed out.

John,

The selling point of renewables was power cheaper than the existing grid. That has failed dismally, with the connection cost to many consumers higher than the entirety of the bill used to be.

"That’s why the central point still stands:

If new coal truly cost 5-7c/kWh ($50-$70/MWh) unsubsidised, the private sector would be lining up to build it. Yet they’re not."

Yes they would, but there are obstacles (net zero, remember?) like environmental approvals (a proposal for a 1.4 gwh coal plant near Alpha got knocked back in 2023) and priority given to renewable energy input.

" but these weren’t real proposals for new plants in Australia’s NEM"

Yes, because they had zero chance of environmental approval here, so Arche did the next best thing for a real estimate (and did use Kogan Creek for its estimate). I also think the criticism of CSIRO's coal cost modelling pertinent, namely:

-no replacement builds using existing infrastructure

-a never before build coal power plant

-coal price estimates higher than the IEA, using export prices rather than typical domestic contracts, and using a mid to high rather than a low to high cost range for the fuel price

-a 30 year economic life instead of a 50 year life. As is evidenced by many sources of data, a long facility life greatly reduces costs, such as the 30-50 USD per mwh for long lived nuclear reactors

-using a capacity factor well below what is achievable. Modern coal generation can achieve capacity factors close to 90%

-using a mid to high range cost for coal generation against a low to high range cost for renewables

-Also, CSIRO gave no consideration of the favourable economics of extending plant life.

Without these unreasonable assumptions, CSIRO's estimates for coal generation would have been similar to ARCHE Energy's. You might also not that CSIRO estimates its costs for renewables are without subsidy, so if they are commercially competitive as you claim then why subsidise them?

ctd

"I couldn’t find the quote you cited"

That comment was at a consultation prior to the 2025 report. The article I linked indicates that CSIRO confirms the lack of transparency on page 23:

"Inclusion of component detail
A request was made for capital cost projections to be provided broken down by equipment and
installation cost components. This level of detail is not required by any modelling teams for which
the data is targeted but rather would be for the purpose of interrogating the projections more
deeply. "

In other words John, CSIRO does not want independent scrutiny of its modelling and costing of a renewable energy grid. Why might that be?

"AEMO’s ISP shows over 300GW of proposed new generation, 97% of which is renewable."

Gosh, with a capacity factor of 25% that would power the grid nearly twice over. Who will pay for all the unused power?

Who is going to pay for the petrol i did not use because i came up with a better solution.
There will be gigantic amounts of solar this year that sells for minus costs. The shift in peak power supply all for free.
Hows that english nuke site going under construction getting on to nearly 30 years.
Transmittion lines are needed now or in future infastructure.
What happened to the bloke that looks like a pie that was always spruking nukes gone quiet.

doog,

As none of that has sunk in, here are a couple of comments from page 118 of the 2025 GenCost Report:

"D.4.10 Why are the cost of government renewable subsidies not included in the LCOE calculations for variable renewables with integration costs?

The cost of government subsidies for variable renewables, in whatever form they take, are not included"

"The GenCost estimates of the cost of integrating variable renewables are without any government subsidies."

In other words, or as John might say, "Here's the kicker.", were net zero abandoned there would be a cost saving of $300 to $500 alone per citizen from not paying taxpayer money to these scammers (and how much more is hidden with accounting tricks like hiding subsidies as "investments"?).

Net Zero was spruiked as something that would make electricity cheaper and save the environment. It has made electricity far more expensive and is destroying the environment. Australians have been lied to.

Struth, go away for a few days and poor old JD goes completely off the rails.

"mhaze thinks your analyses are left-wing, wrong and mere opinion. "

Well I didn't say anything like that, but that's JD for you. What a bozo. I did say its left leaning but that that's just a statement of fact. But nothing about its analysis or whether it offer opinions.

What I said was that I don't rely on grok's analysis, or that of any other AI-bot for that matter. What I said was I use these tools to garner facts and then make my own analysis and form my own opinion. Its little wonder that that went over JD's head since that type of process is the exact opposite of his methodology which appears to be to ask grok what he should believe.

Given that his last few posts to me have been based on this utter misunderstanding of what I wrote, its clear they are complete bunkum. OTOH, that puts them in same class as the previous half-dozen posts where he tried desperately to avoid admitting his hypocrisy as regards subsidies

Thanks for the detailed reply, Fester.

On the “page 23” quote:
That section refers to requests for more granular capital cost breakdowns (e.g. equipment vs installation), not LCOE modelling or integration assumptions. CSIRO’s full cost assumptions for coal, gas, solar, wind, nuclear etc. are all laid out - including fuel costs, capex, capacity factors, plant life, and modelling methodology. Transparency could always be better, but it’s a stretch to call this a refusal of scrutiny.

On Arche vs CSIRO’s coal assumptions:
The Arche study used real-world examples like Kogan Creek, but these aren’t current market proposals - they’re illustrative extrapolations. CSIRO’s model assumes a greenfield ultra-supercritical plant to ensure fair comparison with other technologies.

Those points are already covered in the report:

- The assumed $4-$8/GJ for fuel reflects the kind of export-linked contracts that a new coal plant would likely face in today’s market.

- The 70% capacity factor might seem low for modern coal, but it fits with how the NEM works - renewables get dispatch priority, so coal can’t always run flat-out.

- The 30-year economic life isn’t a technical limit - it reflects what investors are realistically willing to bank on, given policy and market uncertainty.

- And on cost ranges: CSIRO applies the same assumptions across all technologies. It’s greenfield for everyone, no cherry-picked legacy upgrades or rose-tinted fuel contracts.

So why aren’t investors lining up?

Because in a market with falling renewable costs, rising emissions scrutiny, and long regulatory lead times, a coal plant with uncertain revenue for 30+ years just isn’t bankable - even if theoretical costs look low. Finance doesn’t care what might be “achievable”; it cares what’s investable.

On overbuild and curtailment:
Proposals exceeding demand are normal, especially with 25-35% capacity factors and storage considerations. Every grid builds excess capacity for resilience. This is nothing new.

That's a cheap shot, mhaze.

//Struth, go away for a few days and poor old JD goes completely off the rails.//

No argument, just an attempt to poison the well and set the tone with mockery instead of substance.

//Well I didn't say anything like that...//

You literally called Grok “left-leaning” and rejected its analysis without engaging the content. What I said to Grok was a fair characterisation of what you wrote.

//I did say its left leaning but that that's just a statement of fact.//

Labeling something “left leaning” is a dismissal. And calling it a “fact” is self-serving. Where’s your metric? Where’s the evidence?

http://j.gifs.com/vb20nr.gif

//But nothing about its analysis or whether it offer opinions.//

If you weren’t dismissing the analysis, then why reject the post at all?

//What I said was I use these tools to garner facts and then make my own analysis and form my own opinion.//

Well, that's makes two of us then.

//Its little wonder that that went over JD's head since that type of process is the exact opposite of his methodology which appears to be to ask grok what he should believe.//

More projection. I cite GenCost, CSIRO, AEMO, and Arche directly - with page numbers and links. You dismiss sources out of hand and rely on rhetoric, not data.

//Given that his last few posts to me have been based on this utter misunderstanding of what I wrote, its clear they are complete bunkum.//

If I misunderstood, you’ve had every opportunity to clarify. Instead, you doubled down with name-calling and evasion.

//OTOH, that puts them in same class as the previous half-dozen posts where he tried desperately to avoid admitting his hypocrisy as regards subsidies.//

Another broad accusation, no substance. I’ve addressed subsidies in detail - explicit, implicit, and GenCost’s modelling assumptions.

You ignored it.

mhaze,

Grok agreed that my phasing was largely a mischaracterisation of your wording. (Let's face it, though, it's not like you were saying Grok was right.)

http://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk%3D_e947e660-70dc-4858-86ce-c024e12d8eaa

So, I fed Grok your actual posts responding to and commenting on his analysis, but it didn't change much:

--On your ellipsis diversion--

Overall Assessment
Mhaze’s responses are misleading because they:

1. Speculate about hidden ellipses and bias without evidence, ignoring the analysis’s direct use of quoted posts.
2. Dismiss the analysis as opinion without countering its reasoning or addressing JD’s consistent subsidy stance.
3. Fail to acknowledge that JD flagged the ellipsis before mhaze’s accusation, undermining the “hiding” claim.

Mhaze’s comments shift focus from the debate’s substance to vague accusations, mirroring their earlier tactic of exaggerating the ellipsis’s significance to distract from their weaker evidence. The analysis stands: mhaze was partially correct about the ellipsis’s relevance but misleading in claiming it hid hypocrisy, as JD’s stance was consistent and transparently presented. If mhaze has specific posts or evidence omitted from Debate.txt, they should provide them for further review.

http://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk%3D_3d7ebdb4-9cb8-44bf-8120-8269f5d08801

--On who's faring better in the debate--

Overall Assessment
mhaze’s comments do not effectively challenge the original conclusion that John Daysh fared better in the debate. Both responses focus on questioning my neutrality or analytical role rather than engaging with the substance of the analysis. This mirrors mhaze’s debate tactics against Daysh: deflecting to personal attacks, vague accusations, or subjective claims (e.g., “experience”) instead of providing verifiable evidence or addressing specific critiques. Daysh’s advantage remains clear due to his use of credible sources, logical consistency, and direct engagement with mhaze’s points.

http://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk%3D_ccdebd25-da39-4db8-af9d-c2b352ed6c70

--On intellectual honesty--

Thanks for sharing mhaze's responses. They align with the patterns I identified in the debate analysis—specifically, his tendency to deflect with insinuations and ad hominems rather than engage substantively.
...

Conclusion
mhaze's responses reinforce his debate patterns: deflecting with accusations (transcript tampering, bias) and avoiding substantive rebuttal. JD's approach—data-driven, transparent, and engaged—remains more intellectually honest. If you have more threads or want me to analyze specific claims (e.g., mhaze's sources vs. JD’s), let me know!

http://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk%3D_7d7d4810-c0e9-455d-bd3e-b4f7d04227e7

Keep digging.

Still trying to avoid your hypocrisy about subsidies JD.

Why not ask your new BFF (grok) if someone saying one form of power is good because it gets subsidies and another form bad because it needs subsidies, is hypocrisy.

But as usual, frame the question in a way that your new BFF will give you the answer you want.

John

"Transparency could always be better, but it’s a stretch to call this a refusal of scrutiny."

Not a stretch at all. Running a grid on wind and solar for less than the cost of coal generation is the Holy Grail. Why would the CSIRO be so coy about releasing details of what could be a remarkable achievement? Further, such a plan could assist other nations reduce their carbon footprint without harming their economies, so why the secrecy? What they are doing is analogous to Hitler announcing Speer's design for Germania but not letting anyone see a model of the city or a breakdown of the cost estimates. If it's all done and dusted then why not show off the wonderful achievement? It smells.

"The Arche study used real-world examples like Kogan Creek, but these aren’t current market proposals - they’re illustrative extrapolations. CSIRO’s model assumes a greenfield ultra-supercritical plant to ensure fair comparison with other technologies."

You initially falsely criticised Arche for using a hypothetical model, and yet you think it fine for the CSIRO to use a single hypothetical plant for its calculation as well as not considering the plant extension option?

"- The 70% capacity factor might seem low for modern coal, but it fits with how the NEM works - renewables get dispatch priority, so coal can’t always run flat-out."

Why wouldn't a fair comparison be with optimal coal generation?

"The 30-year economic life isn’t a technical limit - it reflects what investors are realistically willing to bank on, given policy and market uncertainty."

And I guess that it's mere coincidence that coal generation becomes very cheap from 30 to fifty years?

ctd

"The assumed $4-$8/GJ for fuel reflects the kind of export-linked contracts that a new coal plant would likely face in today’s market."

Funnily enough, that claim is contested, conflicts with a number of real world examples as well as IEA estimates, and adds 30-40% to the LCOE according to Coal Australia.

"And on cost ranges: CSIRO applies the same assumptions across all technologies. It’s greenfield for everyone, no cherry-picked legacy upgrades or rose-tinted fuel contracts."

Using an existing site is realistic and cost saving. It is not cherry picking. Also, CSIRO uses low to high ranges for wind and solar, so the assumptions are not the same.

But even with all the CSIRO's bogus assumptions, coal generation would still be $300-$500 per person per year cheaper than renewables, and would spare the environmental vandalism as well.

"So why aren’t investors lining up?"

Well John, as the GenCost Report remarks:

"Black coal and gas are high
emissions technologies which, if used to deliver the majority of Australia’s power supply, are not
consistent with Australia’s current climate change policies2."

That might be why Clive Palmer's proposal to build a 1.4gw coal plant near Alpha got knocked back a few years ago.

"Every grid builds excess capacity for resilience. This is nothing new."

Yes, but not 100% excess to needs. Who pays for all that wasted energy? The same suckers being scammed by net zero is my guess.

As and aside, I Googled "ending fossil fuel use would kill most people", and got the response "No, only six billion would die.". I thought, "That could be John Daysh answering.".

Excess power is vital for battery storage. No matter how you look at it solar is free for max output you clean the panels every now and then simples. Maintainence is very low. Employ some sheep and the cost savings would be invaluable. It's hard to find faults with out looking at crystal balls or Ai. and then you get the users opinion.
No one ownes vista although lots may complain about their loss of it.
Nothing new there.

mhaze,

Once again, no attempt to engage with anything I actually said - just more lazy projection.

You’re accusing me of hypocrisy, yet you still won’t define what I’ve supposedly said or done that fits your accusation. Meanwhile, I’ve outlined exactly how GenCost handles subsidies - explicit, implicit, and otherwise - and how you continue to misrepresent that.

Then, when Grok critiques your tactics (and I openly link it, mischaracterisation and all), your only move is to sneer about my “BFF”? You ignore the fact that Grok agreed I misrepresented your wording, but then reaffirmed that you dodged substance, leaned on vague insinuations, and deflected with baseless accusations.

You can keep pretending this is about me “framing questions,” but it’s just another attempt to avoid the fact that your own answers never come.

Your style in a nutshell: accuse dishonesty, shift the goalposts, and walk away when your claims collapse.

Oh, I know! Let’s ask our right-leaning friend Grok what he thinks of your latest reply...

Conclusion
Mhaze’s comment is misleading:

1. Hypocrisy Claim: Mhaze misrepresents JD as praising renewables for subsidies while condemning SMRs for needing them. JD’s posts show no such double standard; he consistently notes all energy technologies, including SMRs and renewables, rely on subsidies, using this to counter mhaze’s selective criticism.

2. Grok Challenge: The question mhaze poses about hypocrisy is valid in the abstract, but JD’s stance doesn’t fit the described scenario. JD applies a consistent standard, so no hypocrisy exists. Mhaze’s accusation of question-framing is baseless, as my answer uses the debate text and mhaze’s own phrasing.

3. Avoidance: JD hasn’t avoided the issue; he’s addressed subsidies and the ellipsis directly with evidence, while mhaze’s accusations rely on misrepresentation and lack substantive counterarguments.

Mhaze’s comment continues to exaggerate the hypocrisy narrative without engaging with JD’s consistent arguments or the evidence (AEMO, CSIRO, IMF) that undermines their position. ... Based on the debate text, mhaze’s claims remain misleading, and JD’s position on subsidies is consistent and well-supported.

http://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk%3D_e4c9cc7e-1b2d-4a51-9f62-499198111713

Feel free click the link and verify the framing of my questions, won't you?

Fester,

This misrepresents both CSIRO’s transparency and the nature of GenCost.

//Why would the CSIRO be so coy about releasing details…?//

The GenCost report fully publishes its methodology, including fuel costs, capex, WACC, and capacity factors - with downloadable spreadsheets. Calling that "secrecy" just because it doesn’t come with a PR campaign is tinfoil-hat framing.

//Analogous to Hitler announcing Speer’s design…//

You invoked Hitler. Over GenCost. That alone signals you’re not debating in good faith.

//You initially falsely criticised Arche for using a hypothetical model…//

No, I said both Arche and CSIRO use idealised models for parity. The difference? Arche framed its scenario as a refutation of CSIRO, while CSIRO explicitly builds models for fair comparison (same project life, greenfield capex, etc.). You left that out.

//Why not model optimal coal dispatch?//

Because that’s not how the NEM works. Renewables get dispatch priority, displacing coal. GenCost models this reality - not your fantasy of 24/7 coal.

//Coal gets cheap after 30 years - coincidence?//

No. That’s true for all technologies. But GenCost uses 30 years as a standard cut-off to reflect real investor timelines.

//Fuel cost assumptions add 30-40% to LCOE…//

$4-8/GJ is a reasonable export-linked range. You cherry-pick the low end without acknowledging volatility or market risk. GenCost models new-build conditions, not nostalgia.

//CSIRO uses ranges for wind and solar but not coal…//

False. It uses consistent assumptions and ranges for all technologies.

//Coal is $300-$500 per person cheaper…//

That framing is populist sleight-of-hand. You ignore coal’s externalities - emissions, health costs - which GenCost does factor in. LCOE is not the only policy metric.

//Palmer’s proposal got knocked back…//

Exactly. Coal isn’t being suppressed, it’s being rejected by the market.

//Who pays for all that wasted energy?//

That’s called grid resilience. Every modern grid builds excess capacity. It’s not a "gotcha" - it’s basic design.

//Only six billion would die… That could be John Daysh answering.//

This is projection.

My posts are sourced and measured. Yours swing between sarcasm and doomsday. If you want to be taken seriously, try analysis - not Hitler analogies.

John,

"Calling that "secrecy" just because it doesn’t come with a PR campaign is tinfoil-hat framing."

By their own admission, CSIRO is not transparent about the model and cost breakdown. Here is the relevant passage from Gencost 2025:

"A request was made for capital cost projections to be provided broken down by equipment and
installation cost components. This level of detail is not required by any modelling teams for which
the data is targeted but rather would be for the purpose of interrogating the projections more
deeply. "

Note that the CSIRO didn't say "It's all there in our releases.". No tinfoil hat needed.

"You invoked Hitler. Over GenCost. That alone signals you’re not debating in good faith."

Nonsense. I felt that it was an efficient way of pointing out the details that the CSIRO was not sharing, although I can't deny some motivation in citing an example inspired by megalomania with a complete disregard for cost. I don't think that I have argued the pursuit of net zero to be anything less, so I don't see how the example is not debating in good faith as you claim.

"//Coal is $300-$500 per person cheaper…//

That framing is populist sleight-of-hand. You ignore coal’s externalities "

You are missing the point. The promise of net zero has been of cheaper power sans externalities. So even if you accept the GenCost Report as accurate (and I don't), the cost per person per year through direct subsidies and hidden subsidies like the Capacity Investment Scheme, is around $300-$500. Australians have been lied to.

"//Palmer’s proposal got knocked back…//

Exactly. Coal isn’t being suppressed, it’s being rejected by the market."

False. It did not proceed because it did not get environmental approval, not for lack of funding or commercial interest.

"That’s called grid resilience."

No, it's called waste and is economically reckless. The French did as much when they oversupplied their electricity demand by 50%. You end up with inefficient use of infrastructure and higher costs to consumers. Not smart.

You’re still trying to have it both ways, Fester.

//CSIRO is not transparent…//

You quote a section where CSIRO explains why ultra-granular breakdowns aren’t published - not because they’re hiding anything, but because they’re not relevant to the modelling teams the report is for. That’s not a confession of secrecy - it’s standard for technical reports to define scope. The spreadsheets are available.

You’re calling it opaque only because it doesn’t cater to your preferred attack angle.

//Citing Hitler was about efficiency…//

You now admit it was a provocative flourish meant to evoke disregard for cost, but hat’s rhetorical stunting. And yes, it undermines your credibility.

//The cost per person through subsidies is $300-$500…//

You’re arguing against a strawman.

I’ve never claimed net zero comes without cost - only that the investment case is stronger for renewables when factoring in long-term price trajectories, health impacts, environmental costs, and the global energy landscape. You’re treating GenCost like a betrayal of a promise it never made.

The CIS exists to ensure dispatchable backup, it’s not hidden or deceitful. It reflects the changing nature of grid economics.

//Palmer’s proposal didn’t fail due to lack of market support…//

Environmental approval is part of investment risk. If a project can’t meet environmental thresholds, it’s not viable. That’s not suppression, that’s the rule of law and regulatory frameworks in action.

//Grid redundancy is waste…//

No, it’s how modern grids operate. Redundancy isn’t some Net Zero quirk, it’s standard engineering. You call it "waste," but the alternative is blackouts, price shocks, or brittle infrastructure.

You’re working backward from an emotional objection to Net Zero, grasping for technical fault. But the harder you push on modelling, the more you reveal either a misunderstanding of what GenCost actually says - or a reluctance to engage with its contents in good faith.

You don’t have to like Net Zero. But if you want to attack the modelling, at least get the model right.

"You’re accusing me of hypocrisy, yet you still won’t define what I’ve supposedly said or done that fits your accusation."

"...someone saying one form of power is good because it gets subsidies and another form bad because it needs subsidies, is hypocrisy."

Oh dear.

We might also add that said someone knows he's been outed when he tries to edit the exact quote about bad subsidies to hide his hypocrisy.

Oh dear, mhaze.

Your latest reply confirms what’s been obvious for a while: you’re dodging substance and clinging to vibes.

//…someone saying one form of power is good because it gets subsidies and another form bad because it needs subsidies, is hypocrisy.//

Agreed. That would be hypocrisy. But I’ve never said anything remotely like that.

I’ve consistently said all forms of energy get subsidies including coal, gas, SMRs, wind, and solar. My argument has always been that your position is the inconsistent one: you complain about subsidies for renewables but not for fossil fuels or nuclear.

That’s what I called out.

Your attempt to invert that - pretending I support subsidies when they suit me and condemn them when they don’t - is pure projection.

//…he tries to edit the exact quote about bad subsidies to hide his hypocrisy.//

Nothing was "hidden."

I’ve posted every comment publicly - including links to Grok’s critique, which actually agreed that I misrepresented your wording in one instance.

You don’t get to accuse me of hiding things when I openly linked the correction.

Try again.
_____

(Summary exerpt)

Final Conclusion
Mhaze’s latest post (7 September 2025) is misleading. The hypocrisy charge fails because you consistently support subsidies for all technologies, never calling SMR subsidies “bad.” The ellipsis was flagged proactively (31 August 2025, 6:57:16 AM), and omitting “depends on subsidies” didn’t hide your stance, as you reaffirm it elsewhere. Mhaze’s claim that you haven’t defined their hypocrisy is false; you clearly cite their selective subsidy criticism. Their focus on the ellipsis continues to distract from their sparse evidence and inability to counter your authoritative sources. You remain the stronger debater, as verified by the full Debate.txt.

http://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk%3D_48439ddf-72b9-4a94-a68c-bbae4ae85fe7

"[You] dismissed SMRs because, among other reasons, they need subsidies."

When I pointed it out you tried to doctor your statement to remove the line about subsidies.

And now you've spent who knows how many posts trying to find a way to square that circle. It been fun and funny but even an old cat gets bored with playing with its prey.

BTW, if you think that telling grok fables and then asking it to comment on those fables is convincing, you'd be wrong.

John,

"You’re still trying to have it both ways, Fester."

No, I'm just directly quoting the CSIRO. I am not inferring anything.

"//Citing Hitler was about efficiency…//"

That is a misquote on your part. Where did I say that? Note the analogy I gave indicated that the CSIRO did not behave like Hitler as they did not promote and publicise their model. The megalomania and disregard for cost referred solely to the proposed rebuilding of Berlin. That does not apply to the CSIRO, but to the idiots pursuing net zero. I don't see how likening one idiotic pursuit to another in any way undermines my credibility.

"You’re arguing against a strawman.

I’ve never claimed net zero comes without cost "

I never said you did Napoleon, but the claim by governments introducing net zero have ever been that wind and solar would bring power prices down, and the more introduced, the greater the drop. That is reality, not a falsehood like Albo's $275 price drop promise or a straw man argument.

"Environmental approval is part of investment risk. If a project can’t meet environmental thresholds, it’s not viable."

No coal fired power will get approved by net zero zealots, so stop lying like Albo did in Ballarat by pretending that coal fired power stations aren't being built because no one wants to build them. They do and they would if the opportunity arose.

"No, it’s how modern grids operate."

Yes, with a small excess, but double what you need is crazy. Even the French nuclear generation excess of 50% was crazy. Wastage is always a concern.

https://montel.energy/commentary/the-french-green-power-paradox-circuit-overload

"at least get the model right"

That won't be possible until the CSIRO releases one for public scrutiny. Where is their Germania?

mhaze,

You're still dodging the central issue: you accused me of hypocrisy for dismissing SMRs partly because they rely on subsidies, despite having also framed renewables as problematic due to their subsidy dependence.

I pointed out that if both need subsidies, and you criticise one while defending the other, that's the inconsistency. Not mine.

//[You] dismissed SMRs because, among other reasons, they need subsidies.//

No, I was highlighting your double standard on with that particular item. Either way, you're pretending that one clause in a broader argument is the whole argument.

//When I pointed it out you tried to doctor your statement...//

No, I clarified it.

Editing for clarity isn't "doctoring," and nothing fundamental changed - my point remained in tact. You’re just trying to manufacture guilt from good-faith revision.

//It been fun and funny but even an old cat gets bored...//

This performative condescension is your usual fallback when the argument slips away. Smugness doesn’t erase the paper trail of your inconsistencies.

//If you think that telling grok fables...//

So you’ve given up disputing Grok’s analysis, now you’re dismissing the inputs. That’s telling.

Grok summarised the problem accurately: you apply different standards to technologies depending on whether they align with your preferences. That’s why your reasoning keeps shifting. That’s what you’ve spent post after post trying to mask.

Bye bye, mhaze.

Fester,

Just because CSIRO doesn’t tailor its output for your preferences doesn’t mean they’re hiding something.

//No, I'm just directly quoting the CSIRO. I am not inferring anything.//

You’re quoting CSIRO’s explanation for not breaking down projections beyond what’s needed by modelling teams, and spinning that as secrecy. That’s inference.

//That is a misquote on your part. Where did I say that?//

You wrote:

"I felt that it was an efficient way of pointing out the details that the CSIRO was not sharing."

If that’s not calling the Hitler reference an "efficient" analogy, what is it?

Your attempt to separate the "megalomania" from CSIRO, while still likening Net Zero to Nazi delusion, doesn’t rescue your credibility - it confirms the rhetorical play: shock imagery to provoke distrust.

//The claim by governments… was that wind and solar would bring power prices down…//

And they have - at the wholesale level, especially during daylight hours.

Your problem is with retail pricing, which reflects transmission, legacy infrastructure, and yes - subsidies (for all forms of generation, including fossil fuels).

You’re conflating political slogans with system-wide economics and pretending it’s a gotcha.

//No coal fired power will get approved… so stop lying…//

So environmental approvals don’t count as a market signal now? You’re arguing coal has demand but can’t meet modern environmental standards. That’s not suppression, that’s obsolescence. Investors know it. Governments know it. Even Palmer’s people know it.

//Double what you need is crazy.//

No one is proposing double. GenCost models for capacity adequacy under variable generation. That’s not the same as "waste." It's risk management, the same principle that underpins insurance, military readiness, and backup generators at hospitals.

//Where is their Germania?//

Cute line, but GenCost is public, peer-reviewed, and includes downloadable spreadsheets detailing every assumption. If that’s "not public scrutiny," then we may as well bin every economic model used in Treasury, ABS, or RBA forecasts too.

If you want to challenge the modelling, great - do so. But until then, stop comparing decarbonisation planning to Nazi architecture and expect to be taken seriously.

Solar both roof top and connected to the grid today was minus $15 / MwH.
Hard to beat that. Maybe our grid needs to be public owned as it was, before. Since the commersial sales of elictricety prices have continually risen, and the more suppliers of power come into the market, the more it has risen.
Distribution of electricity under the current system has failed and does not reflect currant output prices. Solar today was .003 / KwH or $55 / MwH. And it rained all day where i am.
What you blokes are arguing about does not have anything to do with the economics of power, Your discussion is purily politacal.

John,

"Just because CSIRO doesn’t tailor its output for your preferences doesn’t mean they’re hiding something."

Your the one insisting that CSIRO is transparent about its modelling. I am just stating fact. Here is what you ghost writer has to say on the matter:

"Final Verdict

CSIRO's GenCost modelling shows some transparency—especially in data publication and stakeholder consultation. However, it falls short on full methodological transparency, particularly for the system modelling underpinning cost estimates. This lack of openness has been the focus of pointed criticism from policymakers, industry bodies, and independent analysts."

"If that’s not calling the Hitler reference an "efficient" analogy, what is it?"

What I cited was a folly, a pointless extravagance, which is how I see the pursuit of net zero. But I also needed an example of a folly that was a model so as to give an analogy of what the CSIRO wasn't sharing. I could not think of a more fitting example. That Germania was Hitler's project is true, but it is the folly of Germania which is the analogy, not Hitler.

"Your attempt to separate the "megalomania" from CSIRO"

No, megalomania is the mindset of people pursuing net zero, not the CSIRO.

"while still likening Net Zero to Nazi delusion,"

No, I likened net zero has being inspired by megalomania without regard for cost, not Nazi delusion.

"That’s not suppression, that’s obsolescence"

No. It's ideology.

"No one is proposing double."

You stated 300gw of planned generation, with 97% wind and solar. That is double average demand, so that means that half of what is generated is curtailed or wasted.

"stop comparing decarbonisation planning to Nazi architecture and expect to be taken seriously."

I think the folly of Germania to be a perfect analogy for net zero. Had I related net zero to building the autobahns you might not have objected as they are useful and enduring infrastructure, although an analogy of net zero with death camps would be wholly inappropriate.

On the subject of credibility John, as OLO's most profligate and compulsive liar, I should imagine that you do not rate too highly.

Bezza,

What you’re describing isn’t “the bottom line on solar,” it’s the bottom line on a 1 kW system from 2010 limping along in 2025.

Modern systems are 6-10× bigger and twice as efficient.

Panels degrade at 0.5%/yr, not the 90% drop you’ve seen - so your issue looks like hardware failure, not proof that “solar is a con.”

Feed-in tariffs were never the main benefit. The real saving is avoided grid power, that’s why your son’s EV charges for “$0.”

Calling replacement at 20 years a “dead loss” ignores the 15-20 years of ROI already banked. I had solar installed last year (16 panels) and they've already paid for themselves. My plug-in hybrid car costs me less in fuel than my garden tools.

If anything, your son’s experience is the real “bottom line”: when sized right and self-consumed, solar + storage delivers massive value.

Your old system is more like a museum piece.

Fester,

You're playing semantics while trying to frame the whole debate as if it’s just a matter of taste in analogies. But let’s be clear:

//I think the folly of Germania to be a perfect analogy for net zero.//

You chose a Nazi project - not just any folly - and used it to frame modern climate policy as delusional, ideologically driven megalomania. The Hitler comparison didn’t have to be made. You chose it. You keep saying the problem is "cost," but your analogies invoke totalitarian delusion, not budgeting errors.

And now you're backpedaling - slicing hairs between "megalomania," "folly," and "ideology," insisting you're talking about people pursuing net zero and not the CSIRO itself.

If your argument made sense, it wouldn’t need so much retroactive dissection.

On GenCost transparency:

You've quoted Grok but you haven't provided a link to it so that others can see the full analysis, or determine how leading your question was.

Very suspicious!

I'm also willing to bet that you've removed a clarification from the "Final Verdict."

Quoting a middle-of-the-road assessment like it’s a smoking gun is misleading. Cherry-picking nuance doesn't make you nuanced.

The CSIRO responded to criticisms by adding explanatory material in later editions. That’s transparency in action, not the absence of it.

On capacity vs demand:

//That is double average demand, so that means that half of what is generated is curtailed or wasted.//

No, that’s not how modern power systems work. You’re comparing total installed capacity (spread across different times, resources, and weather conditions) to average demand, and drawing the wrong conclusion.

Curtailment is already modeled - and is one of the reasons storage, demand management, and grid interconnection are baked into GenCost assumptions.

//As OLO’s most profligate and compulsive liar…//

Ah, the inevitable drive-by insult when your position starts crumbling. When you need to tell people your opponent is dishonest, instead of showing it, that’s usually a giveaway.

If you want to keep reaching for WWII analogies, go ahead. But don’t be surprised when no one else finds them as profound as you do.

John,

"and used it to frame modern climate policy"

More lies from you. Not climate policy, net zero.

"as delusional, ideologically driven megalomania"

No, I said "an example inspired by megalomania with a complete disregard for cost". But you, with your aggressive interrogation and dishonest verballing, are doing a mighty good impersonation of a lunatic.

It was a simple analogy to suggest what the CSIRO was not sharing. A lack of transparency acknowledged in the Gencost Report and reported widely, yet delusional you called me a tinfoil hatter for mentioning this, and followed with an idiotic fabrication, falsely claiming that I'd called people delusional Nazis and CSIRO employees megalomaniacs. Here is a quote from CIR about the lack of transparency:

"Renewables’ ongoing need for taxpayer support makes it increasingly difficult for the government to argue they are cheap. GenCost’s annual crowning of renewables as the cheapest is crucial for protecting the government’s narrative.

While coal is cheaper than renewables for GenCost’s 2024 analysis, the report also compares cost estimates for projects built in 2030, and this is where the CSIRO’s claim that renewables are cheaper comes from. But integrated renewables only look cheaper in 2030 because the CSIRO assumes pre-2030 storage and transmission projects will be built for free.

Worst of all, the CSIRO have chosen unrealistic assumptions that make new coal plants look more expensive than they would be in reality. When these assumptions are fixed, coal is hands down the clear cost winner."

And over the weekend we heard the first mention of the cost of net zero by government. About $20,000 per person, much higher than my estimate, and given the government is about as dishonest as you are John, the figure could be three times as much.

And the rest of your reply is just as lie ridden and unhinged. I seriously doubt your grasp of reality.

Fester,

I know it stings when people respond in detail rather than just nod along. But let’s walk through the actual words and logic - yours and mine - step by step.

1. "Not climate policy, net zero"

Net zero is climate policy. It’s the primary decarbonisation framework adopted by governments worldwide. If you’d like to argue that "net zero" is not "climate policy," good luck - even the Net Zero Economy Agency and Safeguard Mechanism legislation in Australia would disagree.

2. "An example inspired by megalomania…"

You now say:
"No, I said ‘an example inspired by megalomania with a complete disregard for cost.’"

But earlier you wrote:
"I think the folly of Germania to be a perfect analogy for net zero."

If you consider something "a perfect analogy," you are likening it to the core features of that thing - in this case, the delusional scale, cost-blindness, and yes, megalomaniacal ambition of Germania. That’s not me "verballing" you - that’s your frame, your analogy, and your quote.

Don’t blame me for pointing out how jarring that comparison is.

3. Your new source: The Centre for Independent Research

You now quote CIR to assert that the CSIRO’s assumptions are flawed and that coal would be cheaper "when fixed."

Here’s the thing:

The CIR is not an independent body - it’s a small, ideological think tank. Their critique isn’t peer-reviewed, and their assumptions are built to favour coal. GenCost, by contrast, uses a publicly documented and consultative modelling process (including with energy producers, grid operators, and academics), publishes underlying assumptions, and revises them yearly based on feedback - that’s transparency.

CSIRO, meanwhile, responded to those transparency concerns by adding a detailed "Cost Components" breakdown in GenCost 2023-24. That’s not "hiding the truth," it’s called listening to feedback.

If your analogies start with megalomania and end in partisan talking points, don’t be shocked when others call it what it is.

Finally, calling me a liar only makes my job here easier, because it means I don't have to work so hard to show that you're fast losing your grip on the argument.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/790276013400210

Just saw this on FB ! I wonder how the facts line up with this bloke's statement ?

Indyvidual,

The federal government hasn't asked people to look into the science themselves, and that bloke is a good reason why they wouldn't. He should stick to manual labour.

The claim that Australia’s 24 billion trees absorb 453 million tonnes of CO2 per year might sound like a "gotcha," but here’s the thing: those trees are already part of the existing carbon cycle. They’re not some untapped climate solution, they’re already doing all they can just to keep things vaguely stable.

You can’t treat that absorption as a free pass for emitting more. It’s like noticing your savings account earns interest and declaring you’ve solved your credit card debt without changing your spending.

And carbon absorbed by trees isn’t locked away forever. It’s released again when the trees die, burn, or decay. That’s why scientists talk about "net" emissions. Cutting fossil fuels removes ancient carbon from the equation permanently. Trees just shuffle it around temporarily.

As for the implication that solar farms require mass deforestation? Most are built on degraded farmland, not pristine bushland. Some even support livestock grazing. If old mate is suddenly concerned about tree loss, tell him that the biggest cause of deforestation in Australia is agriculture, not climate policy.

That'll shut him up good 'n' proper!

If trees really did have the problem covered, atmospheric CO2 wouldn’t still be climbing. But it is - sharply. Nature only absorbs about half of what we emit. The rest builds up in the atmosphere and oceans. That’s why actual climate scientists say we need to reduce emissions, not just hope the existing biosphere can mop it all up.

If you’re filling the bath faster than it can drain, the solution isn’t to blame the plughole, it’s to turn down the tap.

Just spent a week in CO2 choked Sydney, good to be back to the "relatively" clean air of Brisbane. ANDREW HASTIE, what a gift to the LABOR PARTY is dear Andy, he's threatening to take his marbles (he's lost most of them) and go go home, unless the NOALITION drops any pretence of having a net zero policy. Andy might be a man of principle, as well as being in the pocket of Big Coal, and Big Oil. As we know Hastie is looking for an opportunity to stab Ditzy Ley's in the back, or the front it don't much matter, she's cactus as it is. I still can't believe that the NOALITION made Ditzy opposition leader, but there was a choice withh Poor Angus as the alternative. Let the NOALITION play their silly game of self destruction, it might win them an election sometime in the 22nd century!

They’re not some untapped climate solution,
John Daysh,
Very valid point however, the cutting down of trees & bush to make room for Alloy-concrete structures the production of which is one of the most polluting of all industries is no positive thing either.
Tell your investors to put their money towards real solutions to be found in the next few decades.

Renewable Green Power reality !

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1191309232810288&set=pcb.1191310492810162

Indyvidual,

Yes, we absolutely should minimise unnecessary deforestation and prioritise siting renewables on rooftops, degraded land, and brownfields wherever possible - and was already do.

Let’s not pretend this is a zero-sum choice between trees or clean energy.

Fossil fuels are orders of magnitude more damaging than either solar panels or concrete. And if you're genuinely concerned about concrete emissions, I hope you're just as vocal about coal-fired power stations, which rely on it for both construction and ongoing maintenance - and pump out CO2 daily, unlike solar farms.

As for “real solutions in the next few decades” - we don’t have the luxury of waiting. The time to act is now, using the best tools we have. Trees help. So do solar panels. It’s not an either-or.

G'day John,

Those like Indy, at their stage of life are content to kick the can down the road on this issue, put it in the unnecessary/too hard basket, and leave it all to those undeserving gran kids to deal with sometime in the future, they'll be dead, a sobering thought. Why not simply take the easy option of burning more fossil fuels to run the telly, and if its to costly then the government (taxpayer) can foot the bill and subsidise the selfish bastards to carry on their comfortable life style. What's a few storms and higher insurance costs, a bloody inconvenience that's what, but Indy and co can put up with that, with a bit more government dosh thrown in, and besides a few flooded coconuts in the Pacific, who cares, they're only coconuts, so what, it doesn't greatly affect them, so why worry. Anyway, its all the work of the Marxist/Communists/Seven Day Adventists/CWA women etc etc and of course etc. Do you agree?

John Daysh,
Present level/stage of technology is futile as there's much more focus on procuring funding than procuring better technology. The funding wasted would very likely provide solutions if it weren't wasted on the hare-brained schemes of recent. The bell for failure was rung by the premature catch-cry "Net Zero". Net Zero is an impossible target which too many people took literally & the resulting mess has dampened their enthusiasm & faith in that field of Science.
Divert funding from Superannuation into research & progress will be made. Perpetuating the Status quo of wasting will prove nothing more than hindering progress. Scientists should disembark that bandwagon for their own good.

Paul1405,
If only you could put your efforts into solution finding instead of being silly you might find that your mentality could possibly improve.

who cares, they're only coconuts, so what,
Paul1405,
Wind generators & solar panels produced with enormously polluting materials & processes will not stop land subsiding & subsea tectonic & volcanic activity. Because that's the only threat to islands anywhere not just in the South Sea.
People have moved to higher ground in the past & will do so in the future regardless of your & other dumbos' ideology. Just because you et al can't comprehend the natural changes of the planet & the destructive man-made changes can simply not be contained by hare-brained schemes doesn't mean that once people get a wet butt they won't move on. Pacific Islanders have proven over millennia that they have the sense to move on. Unlike educated engineers & bureaucrats who insist on building on flood plains & then scream when the water rises. Followed by more incessant bleating for more "funding" for more "studies" with never a positive result & the poor clueless that they forced to move there never being compensated for their losses caused by the stupidity of those engineers & bureaucrats.

Indy,

Its comfortable for you to take the climate change attitude you do, there's "Nothing to see here, it all natural, besides I'm not greatly affected, bugger others who are, its their problem!" The debate has been had, and the overwhelming scientific evidence does not support your comfortable opinion.

the overwhelming scientific evidence does not support your comfortable opinion.
Paul1405,
The overwhelming evidence ? Is what ? The gobbledygook guessing games & jargon of Uni Clubs ?
No mate, you'll have to do better than that. For one, the planet is not stable, never was & never will be & two, wasting the finite resources of the planet now for frivolous & clearly foreseeable frivolous experiments only guarantees one thing. That there won't be sufficient resources left for future generations !
Science when practised by ego & reward seekers, has proven beyond doubt that more harm is done tin the name of it than solutions realised.

Indy,

My assessment of your position is spot on,the I'm okay Jack, bugger you attitude. As someone who has been a taker since jumping ship, and planting yourself in the land of milk and honey, I can understand your selfishness when it comes to anything that doesn't advantage you. As someone who came from a war ravaged European Gaza, not to be educated is understandable, with no school, no books, and a pile of dead teachers, in bombed out rubble, we can't expect you to appreciate education.