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.