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.