"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.