John,

"You’re still trying to have it both ways, Fester."

No, I'm just directly quoting the CSIRO. I am not inferring anything.

"//Citing Hitler was about efficiency…//"

That is a misquote on your part. Where did I say that? Note the analogy I gave indicated that the CSIRO did not behave like Hitler as they did not promote and publicise their model. The megalomania and disregard for cost referred solely to the proposed rebuilding of Berlin. That does not apply to the CSIRO, but to the idiots pursuing net zero. I don't see how likening one idiotic pursuit to another in any way undermines my credibility.

"You’re arguing against a strawman.

I’ve never claimed net zero comes without cost "

I never said you did Napoleon, but the claim by governments introducing net zero have ever been that wind and solar would bring power prices down, and the more introduced, the greater the drop. That is reality, not a falsehood like Albo's $275 price drop promise or a straw man argument.

"Environmental approval is part of investment risk. If a project can’t meet environmental thresholds, it’s not viable."

No coal fired power will get approved by net zero zealots, so stop lying like Albo did in Ballarat by pretending that coal fired power stations aren't being built because no one wants to build them. They do and they would if the opportunity arose.

"No, it’s how modern grids operate."

Yes, with a small excess, but double what you need is crazy. Even the French nuclear generation excess of 50% was crazy. Wastage is always a concern.

https://montel.energy/commentary/the-french-green-power-paradox-circuit-overload

"at least get the model right"

That won't be possible until the CSIRO releases one for public scrutiny. Where is their Germania?

mhaze,

You're still dodging the central issue: you accused me of hypocrisy for dismissing SMRs partly because they rely on subsidies, despite having also framed renewables as problematic due to their subsidy dependence.

I pointed out that if both need subsidies, and you criticise one while defending the other, that's the inconsistency. Not mine.

//[You] dismissed SMRs because, among other reasons, they need subsidies.//

No, I was highlighting your double standard on with that particular item. Either way, you're pretending that one clause in a broader argument is the whole argument.

//When I pointed it out you tried to doctor your statement...//

No, I clarified it.

Editing for clarity isn't "doctoring," and nothing fundamental changed - my point remained in tact. You’re just trying to manufacture guilt from good-faith revision.

//It been fun and funny but even an old cat gets bored...//

This performative condescension is your usual fallback when the argument slips away. Smugness doesn’t erase the paper trail of your inconsistencies.

//If you think that telling grok fables...//

So you’ve given up disputing Grok’s analysis, now you’re dismissing the inputs. That’s telling.

Grok summarised the problem accurately: you apply different standards to technologies depending on whether they align with your preferences. That’s why your reasoning keeps shifting. That’s what you’ve spent post after post trying to mask.

Bye bye, mhaze.

Fester,

Just because CSIRO doesn’t tailor its output for your preferences doesn’t mean they’re hiding something.

//No, I'm just directly quoting the CSIRO. I am not inferring anything.//

You’re quoting CSIRO’s explanation for not breaking down projections beyond what’s needed by modelling teams, and spinning that as secrecy. That’s inference.

//That is a misquote on your part. Where did I say that?//

You wrote:

"I felt that it was an efficient way of pointing out the details that the CSIRO was not sharing."

If that’s not calling the Hitler reference an "efficient" analogy, what is it?

Your attempt to separate the "megalomania" from CSIRO, while still likening Net Zero to Nazi delusion, doesn’t rescue your credibility - it confirms the rhetorical play: shock imagery to provoke distrust.

//The claim by governments… was that wind and solar would bring power prices down…//

And they have - at the wholesale level, especially during daylight hours.

Your problem is with retail pricing, which reflects transmission, legacy infrastructure, and yes - subsidies (for all forms of generation, including fossil fuels).

You’re conflating political slogans with system-wide economics and pretending it’s a gotcha.

//No coal fired power will get approved… so stop lying…//

So environmental approvals don’t count as a market signal now? You’re arguing coal has demand but can’t meet modern environmental standards. That’s not suppression, that’s obsolescence. Investors know it. Governments know it. Even Palmer’s people know it.

//Double what you need is crazy.//

No one is proposing double. GenCost models for capacity adequacy under variable generation. That’s not the same as "waste." It's risk management, the same principle that underpins insurance, military readiness, and backup generators at hospitals.

//Where is their Germania?//

Cute line, but GenCost is public, peer-reviewed, and includes downloadable spreadsheets detailing every assumption. If that’s "not public scrutiny," then we may as well bin every economic model used in Treasury, ABS, or RBA forecasts too.

If you want to challenge the modelling, great - do so. But until then, stop comparing decarbonisation planning to Nazi architecture and expect to be taken seriously.

Solar both roof top and connected to the grid today was minus $15 / MwH.
Hard to beat that. Maybe our grid needs to be public owned as it was, before. Since the commersial sales of elictricety prices have continually risen, and the more suppliers of power come into the market, the more it has risen.
Distribution of electricity under the current system has failed and does not reflect currant output prices. Solar today was .003 / KwH or $55 / MwH. And it rained all day where i am.
What you blokes are arguing about does not have anything to do with the economics of power, Your discussion is purily politacal.

John,

"Just because CSIRO doesn’t tailor its output for your preferences doesn’t mean they’re hiding something."

Your the one insisting that CSIRO is transparent about its modelling. I am just stating fact. Here is what you ghost writer has to say on the matter:

"Final Verdict

CSIRO's GenCost modelling shows some transparency—especially in data publication and stakeholder consultation. However, it falls short on full methodological transparency, particularly for the system modelling underpinning cost estimates. This lack of openness has been the focus of pointed criticism from policymakers, industry bodies, and independent analysts."

"If that’s not calling the Hitler reference an "efficient" analogy, what is it?"

What I cited was a folly, a pointless extravagance, which is how I see the pursuit of net zero. But I also needed an example of a folly that was a model so as to give an analogy of what the CSIRO wasn't sharing. I could not think of a more fitting example. That Germania was Hitler's project is true, but it is the folly of Germania which is the analogy, not Hitler.

"Your attempt to separate the "megalomania" from CSIRO"

No, megalomania is the mindset of people pursuing net zero, not the CSIRO.

"while still likening Net Zero to Nazi delusion,"

No, I likened net zero has being inspired by megalomania without regard for cost, not Nazi delusion.

"That’s not suppression, that’s obsolescence"

No. It's ideology.

"No one is proposing double."

You stated 300gw of planned generation, with 97% wind and solar. That is double average demand, so that means that half of what is generated is curtailed or wasted.

"stop comparing decarbonisation planning to Nazi architecture and expect to be taken seriously."

I think the folly of Germania to be a perfect analogy for net zero. Had I related net zero to building the autobahns you might not have objected as they are useful and enduring infrastructure, although an analogy of net zero with death camps would be wholly inappropriate.

On the subject of credibility John, as OLO's most profligate and compulsive liar, I should imagine that you do not rate too highly.

Bezza,

What you’re describing isn’t “the bottom line on solar,” it’s the bottom line on a 1 kW system from 2010 limping along in 2025.

Modern systems are 6-10× bigger and twice as efficient.

Panels degrade at 0.5%/yr, not the 90% drop you’ve seen - so your issue looks like hardware failure, not proof that “solar is a con.”

Feed-in tariffs were never the main benefit. The real saving is avoided grid power, that’s why your son’s EV charges for “$0.”

Calling replacement at 20 years a “dead loss” ignores the 15-20 years of ROI already banked. I had solar installed last year (16 panels) and they've already paid for themselves. My plug-in hybrid car costs me less in fuel than my garden tools.

If anything, your son’s experience is the real “bottom line”: when sized right and self-consumed, solar + storage delivers massive value.

Your old system is more like a museum piece.