John,

You often speak of climate change denial, yet you seem in denial of the reality of renewable energy.

Remember the promises? Renewable generation would bring power prices down, and the more there was the greater the drop. Oh, and we wouldn't need fossil fuel generation any more because we were going to be a renewable energy superpower and who needs baseload? And with all the cheap power the economy would boom and bring an era of prosperity whilst saving the planet from global warming.

So what happened? Prices have risen steadily, and if you count the costs you can't use the tobacco executives' "correlation aint causation" excuse: The rising costs rest with renewable energy as this example shows:

https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-papers/why-have-electricity-bills-risen

And the jobs? Plenty being lost as industries powered by cheap energy close down. The coal generation? The ones that weren't blown up in renewable energy zealot extravaganzas and not maintained because "We won't need them.". Well, they are desperately needed, clapped out and in disrepair, as all those wonderful solar panels and wind turbines cannot generate dispatchable power. The environment? Vast areas being trashed building wind and solar farms. The saving grace is that grid saturation has stopped investment in wind and solar, pausing the desecration. And what about global warming? With most of the world not giving a stuff about emissions, Australia won't make a jot of difference by destroying its economy.

What, and I'm really motivated by politics? You couldn't be more wrong.

Fester,

Your reply comes across as a laundry list of grievances thrown up in the hope that volume looks like substance, but it’s full of recycled talking points.

//Renewable generation would bring power prices down…//

And it has. Wholesale prices fall whenever renewables flood the grid.

That’s why rooftop solar is the cheapest power in the country, and why AEMO’s quarterly reports consistently show renewables cutting wholesale costs. Retail bills spiked in 2022-23 because coal and gas prices exploded after Russia invaded Ukraine, not because of solar panels.

Fossil volatility hit households, not renewables.

//…we wouldn't need fossil fuel generation any more…//

No serious planner ever said we could flick the switch overnight. AEMO’s Integrated System Plan explicitly models renewables plus storage, firming, and transmission. That’s why new investment is going into batteries, pumped hydro, and demand management - firm capacity, not blind faith.

//And the jobs? Plenty being lost…//

Industries aren’t shutting because renewables are “too cheap.” They’re struggling with fossil fuel price spikes.

Meanwhile, clean energy is creating tens of thousands of new jobs in construction, manufacturing, and regional services. That’s why business and unions are on board - because the opportunity is real.

//The environment? Vast areas being trashed…//

Compared to what?

Coal has left billions of tonnes of ash, methane leaks, acid mine drainage, and entire landscapes gutted. A few hectares of solar panels or wind towers, recyclable at end-of-life, hardly compare.

//…Australia won't make a jot of difference…//

That’s the same excuse used by every country that doesn’t want to act. But when you add them together, that’s the majority of emissions. We export fossil fuels that drive emissions overseas, so pretending we’re irrelevant is a convenient but false dodge.

So no, this isn’t “denial of reality.” It’s refusing to confuse rhetoric with data. Renewables are cheaper, they do drive down wholesale prices, and they’re the only credible path to affordable, low-risk energy.

What you’ve listed isn’t reality, just yesterday’s talking points dressed up as prophecy.

"If you have actual sources, cite them. Otherwise, "I already proved it" is just another empty line."

You've spent too much time around Paul. He also goes through this process of demanding proof of something he don't want to be true, then ignoring the evidence when presented, only to demand the same proof the next time the issue is raised.

We already had a thread on the data showing total electricity costs being highest in countries with high renewable penetration and lowest in countries that have yet to be coerced into going wind/solar. Go look it up yourself. It went over your head the last time and I don't have the will to try to explain it all over again.

"I said even if you stripped out fuel tax credits completely,"
Yeah, because they're not the subsidy you claimed them to be.

As to infrastructure built for specific purposes, again you try to mangle the definition. First, ports built primarily for coal aren't used solely for coal. Ditto rail lines etc. And even if they were they are built by government because they know they'll get it all back in royalties and taxes.

But again, its just hand-waving at an industry you don't like. There's no economic difference between building a rail line to a mine and building a rail line to a new suburb development in western Sydney. Or building a port for coal or a passenger ship terminal. The only difference is that some people have an irrational hatred of the source of most of our power needs

The real world future. We are always told that we'll miss the boat if we don't double-down on wind/solar. But the real boat is sailing in the other direction and the anti-nuclear brigade are holding us back.

http://tiny.cc/1gvr001

This was always going to be the path to the fabled net-zero. Always

In other words, mhaze, there isn’t any.

//We already had a thread…Go look it up yourself.//

That’s not evidence, that’s burden-shifting. If your "string of data" really proved costs were highest in renewable-heavy countries, you’d link it instead of waving vaguely at phantom threads. Meanwhile, AEMO, CSIRO, IEA and Lazard publish their datasets publicly - and they all show renewables are the cheapest new-build power.

//Fuel tax credits aren’t subsidies.//

The IMF, IEA and OECD all classify them as subsidies. That’s not my definition, that’s international consensus. You don’t get to redefine terms to suit your argument.

//Ports built primarily for coal aren’t used solely for coal… governments get it back in royalties and taxes.//

If that were true, taxpayers wouldn’t be stuck with billions in unfunded rehabilitation liabilities. Rail to a suburb doesn’t leave acid mine drainage when the industry walks away. The comparison is nonsense.

//…an industry you don’t like…irrational hatred of the source of most of our power needs.//

This isn’t about liking or hating anything. Coal did its job for the 20th century, but economics change. Respecting what coal contributed doesn’t mean pretending it can deliver cheapest power in the 21st. Pointing that out isn’t "hatred," it’s just acknowledging reality.

And since you’ve now switched boats:

The US SMR project you linked is a pilot, not proof of an industry shift. It’s still years from operation, depends on subsidies, and is being tested as a complement to renewables, not a replacement. Nuclear isn’t the “real boat” sailing away, it’s trying to climb aboard the renewables fleet that’s already left port.

You call this "hand-waving," but I’ve cited IMF, IEA, OECD, AEMO, CSIRO and Lazard. You’ve cited nothing.

So let’s be clear: the only "irrational hatred" on display here is your refusal to accept data from every major economic and energy body on earth.

Phantom threads and playground deflections aren’t evidence.

It is strange that people who know that the fossil fuel/carbon dioxide cause of climate change is bullsh.t, still go on about nuclear power when black coal remains the cheapest, most efficient source of electricity; and we don't have to do anything that we are not doing now. Except get rid of unreliables and Chris Bowen.