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?