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