Furthermore, mhaze...

I’ve had a look through some of your previous drubbings and couldn’t find this evidence of yours.

//It went over your head the last time and I don't have the will to try to explain it all over again.//

It seems the 'Clever Dissector' persona has its limits.

Appealing to this “string of data” over and over won't make it real. The truth is, you’ve never actually produced it. Not in any of the threads where renewables were mentioned. What you *have* offered in the past is correlation (“countries with high renewables have high retail prices”) without any demonstration of causation.

So, whatever it was that was that "went over [my] head" is still a mystery - and it will remain a mystery because you're all about performance.

Meanwhile, AEMO’s quarterly reports, CSIRO’s GenCost, Lazard’s LCOE analysis, the IEA, and the IMF all publish transparent datasets showing renewables are the cheapest new-build electricity and consistently drive down wholesale prices. That’s not rhetoric, it’s hard numbers from the institutions whose job it is to measure these things.

So let’s be clear: your “string of data” doesn't exist. Mine is verifiable, public, and internationally recognised. The only reason you keep pointing vaguely at past threads is because you know that when the numbers are on the table, they don’t break your way.

We’ve all seen this schtick from you before - the phantom evidence, the retreat, and then the same claim recycled later as if nothing happened.

It's freaking Groundhog Day with you, isn't it?

We discussed the Lomborg data previously which compared renewable penetration in a range of countries to the price of electricity in those countries to show that more renewables leads to higher prices.

That you don't like the data doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That others use different criteria to arrive at more politically correct results doesn't prove the data doesn't exist. That the current mantra is that we need to reduce CO2e emissions irrespective of price doesn't mean that price is irrelevant.

You started off claiming that building rail lines to a mine is proof of subsidy and have now abandoned that and want to talk about alleged pollution. Oh well I'll take that as a win.

You started off telling us that it was fine and dandy to subsidise wind/solar since all new technologies need subsidy, but now tell us that SMR's aren't the future because they need subsidy. It must be nice ot have such 'flexible' standards.

I see what you're referring to now, mhaze.

//"We discussed the Lomborg data previously which compared renewable penetration in a range of countries to the price of electricity in those countries to show that more renewables leads to higher prices."//

And it's no wonder you didn't link to it: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10573&page=0

Like I said at the time - that’s not a dataset, it’s a correlation graph. And correlation is not causation.

“…the interpretation is overly simplistic. Yes, there’s a pattern in some countries where higher renewable penetration correlates with higher electricity prices. But correlation isn’t causation, and context matters. Many of those countries (e.g. Germany and Denmark) started their transition decades ago when renewables were far more expensive and less efficient. They also layered in high energy taxes, carbon pricing, and legacy grid costs.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10573#369409

Germany and Denmark don’t have high retail prices because of renewables, they locked in high bills early by subsidising solar and wind back when costs were many times higher. Add in hefty taxes, legacy network charges, and policy levies, and yes, their bills are high. But none of that proves renewables themselves are expensive.

Meanwhile, the present-day evidence is unambiguous:

AEMO’s quarterly reports, CSIRO’s GenCost, Lazard’s LCOE, and the IEA all show the same thing: when renewables enter the wholesale market, prices fall. That’s why rooftop solar is the cheapest electricity in the country. Retail bills went up in 2022-23 because coal and gas spiked after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine - fossil volatility, not “solar panels causing economic harm.”

So, you still have no evidence.

Lomborg’s chart was the mystery evidence you keep appealing to. It’s correlation dressed up as causation, and it ignores both timeframes and the wholesale market where prices are actually set.

I've cited AEMO, CSIRO, IEA, Lazard and the IMF. You’ve cited Lomborg’s graph. That’s not a contest - it’s the difference between analysis and propaganda.

Groundhog Day.

I see someone mentioned nuclear. I knew they would. But nukes wont come from the culprits that drove the word to fame. Australia voted and we now have a depleted oposition.
Next vote yous tipe of voters should vote for the red heaired one you would be better off.
Will the coalition reject net zero, not in this life.
Transmittion lines will go through just as they did in the 50,s same same again.

Let’s tidy up a few loose ends, mhaze.

//That you don't like the data doesn't mean it doesn't exist.//

I haven’t expressed a preference for any evidence. This is simply you reframing my observation - that you haven’t presented any evidence - as a matter of taste.

//That others use different criteria to arrive at more politically correct results doesn't prove the data doesn't exist.//

To quote an infamous sophist:

"Well, it's lucky I didn't say that then. Just something else you made up."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10649#371634

But I do like that you consider the result of looking at ALL the data to be "politically correct." It would be a travesty to cherry-pick one slither of data and present it as "correct" on any level.

//That the current mantra is that we need to reduce CO2e emissions irrespective of price doesn't mean that price is irrelevant.//

You’ve completely made that up. I’d ask for evidence for this claim, but we all know now just how fruitless that endeavour is.

//You abandoned subsidies for rail lines and moved to pollution. I’ll take that as a win.//

I didn’t abandon it, I expanded it.

Coal was bankrolled with taxpayer-funded rail and ports, royalty holidays, and rehab bonds that never cover the clean-up. That’s still public money propping up private profit.

Declaring a "win" because the list is longer than you expected is… creative.

//You … now tell us that SMR's aren't the future because they need subsidy.//

For the easily distracted and those with comprehension issues:

"The US SMR project you linked is a pilot, not proof of an industry shift. It’s still years from operation … and is being tested as a complement to renewables, not [as] a replacement."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10653#371838

//It must be nice ot have such 'flexible' standards.//

Apparently, I wouldn’t know. You’ll need to fill us in there.

I said you dismissed SMRs because, among other reasons, they need subsidies.

You dispute it and quote what you said. And you truncate that quote by using the standard "..." to skip irrelevant matter. BUT the words you left out are "depends on subsidies,". You tried to hide from your own quote that you'd said SMR's need subsidies!!

How desperate are you that you'd be prepared to try to hide what you actually said a mere 24 hrs ago in the same thread? Things not going well, eh JD? And how dumb are you to think I'd let you get away with it.