Australia’s Energy Market Operator says the cost of generating power is falling.

Wholesale electricity prices in the national electricity market fell 27% in the September quarter, compared with the previous year, according to an Aemo report released last week.

According to Aemo, increases in wind and solar and lower volatility have contributed to the fall in wholesale prices, despite rising electricity demand.

Alison Reeve, Grattan Institute’s energy and climate director, says the falls in wholesale prices, reported by Aemo, may take time to flow through to customers because energy retailers often sign contracts for electricity years in advance.

As has been pointed out many times in the past here on OLO the rising cost of retail prices is not the result of the contribution of solar and wind electrical generation.

Despite what the Queensland state government may say Queensland recorded the lowest average wholesale price of $72 a megawatt.

Retail prices are rising. That what concerns consumers, not the BS put about by Bowen and backroom commentators too stupid to see what high retail prices are doing to business and the economy.

Even more stupid than Bowen and AEMO are the people who believe the BS or repeat the BS.

Industry in Australia is doomed without cheap, baseload RETAIL electricity. To hell with wholesale prices and who signed what and when they signed it.

Our last aluminium smelter is heading for closure within the next 3 years, and most heavy industry went overseas long ago.

China, while selling us renewable crap, has 70 aluminium smelters. Our only one has to “compete” with them, according to that idiot Matt Kean.

The idiot admits industry is more “viable” with cheaper power, but he and his fellow idiots don’t want Australia to have cheap power.

In the meantime, while Australia is dying, one of the biggest renewable investors and twats, has changed his mind. Bill Gates has called for a pivot away from “the obsession with near-term emission reduction to the cost-effective improvement of human lives”.

The cost of renewable energy is simply “not commercially viable” according to the CEO of Tomago smelter. And there is a limit on how much the Albanese can use taxpayer and consumer money to hide that fact.

Albanese’s tax grab is the highest ever, with the most economy-killing tax being Net Zero.

EnergyGWh
Contribution to demand
Av.Value$/MWh
Sources
Solar (Rooftop)
90
15.3%
$10.27
Solar (Utility)
58
9.8%
$18.45
Wind
109
18.5%
$67.23
Hydro
32
5.3%
Battery (Discharging) 72.50
0.7%
$88.25
The figures speak for themselves. Not all persons can see the reality of solar and wind.
Those that are to thick to see reality.
They says nukes are better, even though it cost the wellbeing of their political party.
Now one nation is rising as liberal is sinking very interesting.
The coalition is in shreds, I am hoping for one nation number 2 on the ballot line up.

Albo is the man at large and in a very solid position.

Great post, WTF. It really can’t be overstated: wholesale prices are falling - not rising - and renewables are central to that trend.

The fact that this is happening despite rising demand shows how critical solar and wind have become to the price equation. And we’re not talking theory - this is hard AEMO data, not a Bowen press release.

The Qld LNP government's latest moves here defy both economic sense and political necessity, which means it can only be ideological.

Let's take a look at your latest meltdown, ttbn.

//Retail prices are rising. That’s what concerns consumers…//

Sure - and those prices are based on long-term contracts, signed 1-3 years ago when wholesale prices were at record highs. That’s how the hedging system works.
Now that wholesale prices have fallen 27% year-on-year (AEMO, Sept quarter), retail prices will follow - once old contracts roll off. That’s not "BS," it’s how the market functions.

//To hell with wholesale prices and who signed what…//

That’s like saying "to hell with oil prices and when servos bought fuel" - and then wondering why petrol is expensive. You can’t complain about retail prices and ignore what drives them.

//Industry in Australia is doomed without cheap, baseload RETAIL electricity…//

Coal isn’t cheap anymore. It’s unreliable, aging, and increasingly uneconomic. The cheapest new generation is wind and solar, according to CSIRO, IEA, and Lazard.

The problem isn’t renewables - it’s a lack of storage, transmission, and proper market design. That’s what’s failing Tomago and other heavy industry, not a wind turbine in Dubbo.

//China has 70 aluminium smelters…//

China also has subsidies, looser regulations, and vastly lower labour costs. Copy-pasting their energy mix won’t bring our industry back. And funnily enough, China is now the world leader in wind and solar deployment - because it makes economic sense.

//Bill Gates has called for a pivot…//

Gates didn’t reject renewables, he said we shouldn’t only focus on near-term emission cuts. He’s still investing billions in clean tech. Misrepresenting him doesn’t help your case.

//Net Zero is the most economy-killing tax…//

Net Zero isn’t a tax. It’s a target. And if we abandon it, we’ll face carbon border tariffs from the EU and others - killing exports instead of saving them.

You want to help industry? Great. But scrapping Net Zero and ignoring price signals isn’t a plan. It’s a tantrum.

ttbn

If you thought Australians were a laughing stock for falling for this scam, consider the people of Michigan whose Governor has signed them up for net zero by 2050. Their power bills have doubled in the past three years and recent modeling has suggested that the idiocy will increase their energy costs by $2500 US per person per year over the next ten years.

https://www.mackinac.org/blog/2025/what-whitmers-net-zero-mandate-is-hiding-from-you

Wind and solar net zero is a complete scam. Environmental destruction, vital food production lost and the economy ruined, all for the sake of lining the pockets of these carpetbaggers.

The prices look as though they are down because of the subsidies.
The difference is paid by the classic "Other Peoples Money".
It does not change one damn thing.

Fester,

You've linked to the Mackinac Center - a Koch-funded, fossil-industry-aligned think tank that has spent decades opposing everything from climate policy to basic air pollution rules. That doesn't mean they're automatically wrong, but it does mean we should read their "modelling" with scrutiny.

The claim that Michigan's net zero plan will increase costs by $2,500 USD per person per year comes from a consultant the Mackinac Center hired - not an independent or peer-reviewed source. And even their consultant admits this is based on worst-case assumptions about grid buildout and energy inflation, not observed trends.

Meanwhile, actual data shows that most of the recent rise in US energy bills was driven by volatile gas prices and extreme weather events, not renewable mandates. Wholesale energy from new wind and solar is still cheaper per MWh than new gas or coal - in the US and Australia.

Australia's context is different anyway:

- We have vast solar and wind resources, which make renewables even more cost-effective here.
- Our grid-scale batteries are already saving millions by reducing reliance on expensive gas peakers.
- And most importantly: wholesale prices are falling here, because of increased wind and solar - as AEMO just reported.

You also repeat the "environmental destruction" and "lost food production" line - but wind and solar use far less land per unit of energy than fossil fuels when you account for mining, pipelines, and buffer zones. And solar panels on rooftops, car parks, degraded land, and agrivoltaics don't replace food production - they co-exist with it.

Net zero isn't a scam - but pretending that fossil fuels are cheap, clean, and risk-free is.

Bezza,

The prices don't just "look" down, they are down. AEMO reports a 27% year-on-year fall in wholesale prices, and their report explicitly attributes this to increased wind and solar generation and reduced market volatility. Not subsidies.

//The difference is paid by the classic 'Other People's Money'.//

There are subsidies across all forms of energy - always have been. Fossil fuels still receive billions globally in both direct and indirect subsidies. Yet I don't hear the same outrage when their profits come from "other people's money."

//It does not change one damn thing.//

It actually changes quite a lot:

- Wholesale prices are falling, and that will eventually lower retail prices as older contracts expire.
- Renewables are displacing expensive peaking gas, reducing price spikes.
- Our emissions intensity is declining, helping us avoid carbon border tariffs from major trading partners.
- Energy independence increases, reducing exposure to global fossil price shocks like we saw after Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

So, it changes more than "one damn thing." It just doesn't happen overnight, and it doesn't conform to sound bites.

Marxist's create scarcity and call it growth. Renewables are more complex than hydrocarbons. It will be interesting to see the profit margin and the tax funded government subsidies as contributing factors in the renewables economy. Sounds like Russia in 1988 before their economy crashed and the mafia took over. There isn't enough lithium in the world to power renewables.

Canem Malum,

I'm not sure who the Marxists are in this scenario, but I suppose such uncertainty is inevitable when "Marxist" is a catch-all for anyone you don't like.

//Marxists create scarcity and call it growth.//

Who do you mean? AEMO? CSIRO? The International Energy Agency? Because those are the bodies reporting that renewables are driving down wholesale prices, not creating scarcity. If anything, we're seeing more supply and lower volatility - particularly in solar-rich states like Queensland.

//Renewables are more complex than hydrocarbons.//

Sure, modern power systems are inherently more complex than just burning stuff. But complexity isn't failure. Would you argue the internet was a mistake because it's more complex than the postal service? A smarter grid allows for diverse inputs, storage, and resilience, which fossil systems lack.

//It will be interesting to see the profit margin and the tax funded government subsidies…//

By all means, let's compare...

Fossil fuels have received decades of subsidies, infrastructure support, tax concessions, and externalised health and environmental costs. According to the IMF, global fossil subsidies were $7 trillion in 2022, largely hidden in underpriced pollution and health impacts.

Meanwhile, wind and solar subsidies are falling as tech improves - and in many places, they're outcompeting fossil fuels unsubsidised.

//Sounds like Russia in 1988…//

That's a stretch. Russia's collapse was due to a rigid command economy, corruption, and geopolitical overreach - not grid modernisation or lithium demand.

//There isn't enough lithium in the world to power renewables.//

Good news: lithium isn't used to power renewables. It's used in some battery types (mostly EVs), but grid storage can also use pumped hydro, compressed air, flow batteries, and sodium-based chemistries. Plus, lithium is highly recyclable - unlike burned gas or coal.

In short: not Marxist, not 1988 Russia, not running out of lithium. Just modern energy economics.

"Over the past twelve months the Housing group rose 4.7%. The main contributors to the annual rise were Electricity (+23.6%) and Rents (+3.8%). "
ABS Inflation report Sept '25.

Remember when?....
"At the 2022 election, Labor promised to cut power bills for households by $275 a year by 2025 compared to before the election. " ABC

Footnote: The ABC aren't doing the Promise Tracker any more. I wonder why?

mhaze says:
"The main contributors to the annual rise were Electricity (+23.6%)." and "Labor promised to cut power bills for households by $275 a year."

I can see you are starting to get it but you need to make a few more connections for your understanding.

The whole point is there is a disconnect between the wholesale price (falling due to renewables ) and the retail price.

This is as a result of the business models of energy suppliers not political party policy.

It was announced today that there is so much electricity being produced by renewables that some Australians will be offered 3 hours of free electricity per day.

mhaze,

Yes, and if you dig into the ABS report, you'll find most of that spike is due to the expiry of temporary government rebates, especially in NSW and WA.

//"Electricity (+23.6%)" ABS Sept 2025 CPI//

In fact, the ABS explicitly notes that without the end of those rebates, electricity prices would have fallen in some areas, thanks to declining wholesale prices and new subsidies kicking in post-September.

//Labor promised to cut power bills by $275 by 2025…//

That promise was based on modelling from RepuTex in 2021, projecting reduced wholesale costs as renewables came online. And guess what? Wholesale prices have fallen - 27% year-on-year, according to AEMO’s latest report.

Retail prices haven’t dropped yet because of:

- Legacy contracts signed when prices were sky-high,
- Network and environmental costs still embedded in bills,
- And, as you helpfully pointed out, timed rebates phasing in and out.

So, while the retail relief has been delayed, the core mechanism behind the $275 promise - cheaper generation from renewables - is unfolding as expected. The delay lies in market lag and implementation, not deception.

//ABC isn’t doing the Promise Tracker anymore. I wonder why?//

They actually explained why.

It wasn’t due to some political conspiracy, they cited resourcing and methodology challenges. Let's not confuse discontinued public-service projects with media bias.

To summarise: quoting a CPI stat without its context, and ignoring structural shifts in the energy market, doesn’t disprove the energy transition - it just proves how easily complex topics can be reduced to gotchas.

Fester,

Your mention of “laughing stock” fits in with a piece I read this morning about Melburnians now laughing at their ridiculous government's machete bins and immediate bail for machete wielders and its overall ‘great success’ with law and order problems.

Net Zero, climate change that cannot be stopped, transition to wind and sun, are all the biggest jokes yet. The non-Liberal opposition members in Parliament should be laughing their heads off every time that circus clown Bowen gets to his feet, gesticulating and pulling faces. It’s pretty hard to keep bullsh.tting when you are laughed at. Bowen is a wonderful subject for online ridicule as well.

Fester,

Qantas flyers also get the joke about Net Zero, the "climate emergency”, and all the Bowen BS. Only 10% of them tick the box to pay a bit more to make their trip ‘carbon’ free when they book.

New analysis of the cost of the federal government’s latest New Zero Plan released today by the IPA has established that:

"Under the Treasury’s modelled Marginal Abatement Incentives (MAIs), a $290 billion tax burden would be required over a decade to meet a 65 per cent reduction in emissions from 2005 levels.
The annual tax haul, reaching a maximum of $29.7 billion in 2029, would be around five times greater than the largest annual amount collected under the Gillard government’s carbon tax introduced in 2012.
International literature suggests it’s unlikely governments can achieve their emission reductions targets without a carbon price significantly greater than the Treasury’s estimated marginal abatement incentives".

ttbn,

Let's unpack this IPA "analysis" for what it is: a partisan think tank spinning worst-case modelling into a headline.

The IPA has opposed every climate policy since the Howard era, even ones their own side introduced. Their numbers are based on assumptions that deliberately maximise cost and minimise innovation.

//$290 billion tax burden over a decade//

That's not a real tax. It's an estimated marginal abatement cost - i.e. the economic cost of reducing emissions under various policy levers, including private investment, not just tax-and-spend.

Even the Treasury notes that most of these costs would be borne by businesses transitioning tech and processes, not direct household taxation. And as always, the IPA leaves out the cost of inaction, which Deloitte has modelled at $3.4 trillion by 2070 for Australia if we delay the transition.

//Five times greater than Gillard's carbon tax…//

Yes, because it's 2025, not 2012.

The economy is larger, the targets are tighter, and the scope has expanded. Also, that "carbon tax" under Gillard didn't crash the economy. Power emissions fell. Compensation was provided. And after it was repealed, emissions rose and prices rebounded - so much for that disaster narrative.

//International literature suggests carbon prices must be higher…//

That same literature also says net-zero is achievable with smart policy mixes, including electrification, renewables, efficiency, and targeted incentives - not just carbon pricing. Countries like the UK and Germany are decarbonising with combinations of pricing, investment, and regulatory tools.

Cherry-picking a partisan model, quoting it as gospel, and pretending it's the only economic reality is about as information illiterate as you can get.

Stupidity is doing the same thing over and over for a bad outcome. Twenty three states of the US signed up to net zero. All have had bad outcomes, as has the UK, Germany and other EU countries pursuing this madness.

https://www.cfact.org/2025/06/20/net-zero-is-collapsing-in-u-s-states/

With annual taxpayer handouts to the carpetbaggers heading north of ten billion dollars a year, we are making no difference to world climate, destroying farmland and our natural heritage, destroying the national economy, destroying grid reliability and sending power prices into the stratosphere.

This madness has to stop.

Fester,

Net Zero Australia has opined that $6.9 trillion will have to be spent on this nonsense by 2060.

Pretty stupid when the the penny has finally dropped in the rest of the world, and they are backing away from it.

Climate change cannot be stopped.

Climate change was created by humans so humans can stop it. Any resistance to climate change is by political reasons.
Referencing Europe and other places is not AU we have the sunshine and wind to be different and both are free.
Only whingers come up with scenario's which do not relate to AU which is in Albo's favour.
The libs are deciding which way to go after supporting Labor on climate change. The wrong decision could spell the end of what's left of the libs.

Electricity prices coming down ? Is this an election year ?

Climate change was not caused by humans, and it cannot be stopped by puny humans.

Donald Trump knows this, and he has committed US $150 million to refurbish America’s coal plants. That’s on top of the $600 plus million set aside two months ago.

America will boom. Australia will go bust. It doesn’t matter that the Nationals have dropped Net Zero: they are not the government. The Liberals still believe in it, even though Morrison now says times have changed. One Nation might get 14% of the vote if there was an election now. Big deal.

We still have the Albanese government that the majority of Australians deserve, and Albanese is insane. Australia is well and truly rooted, and Australians have only themselves to blame. They will continue not giving a sh.t until the bribe money runs out.

Fester,

The CFACT article you linked isn't "new analysis" - it's a polemic from a US-based anti-climate regulation outfit funded by fossil fuel interests. Steve Goreham, the author, has made a career out of declaring climate action a hoax.

CFACT's funding sources and ideological leanings are well documented.

So when it says "Net Zero is collapsing," what it really means is:

- Trump halted offshore wind leases
- Federal subsidies are being cut by the current US administration
- AI-driven demand has exploded faster than anyone forecast
- Grid planning hasn't caught up
- Some projects have experienced battery fires or delays

These aren't "failures of Net Zero." They're failures of planning, coordination, and infrastructure lag, made worse by political reversals and rapid technological shifts - which even fossil-heavy grids would struggle with. And ironically, the article concedes that the real "winner" will be natural gas, not coal - meaning the market is still phasing out the dirtiest fuel.

As for Australia:

- We're not the US. Our grid, demand patterns, solar exposure, and policy timelines are different.
- Wholesale prices here are falling - down 27% YoY thanks to renewables, not despite them.
- Grid-scale batteries in Australia have already saved consumers millions by replacing expensive peakers.
- Farm destruction? The vast majority of solar and wind is sited on marginal or dual-use land (e.g. sheep grazing under panels).
- And let's not forget: every major Australian trading partner is pursuing Net Zero. Pulling out now doesn't protect us, it isolates us.

//This madness has to stop.//

What needs to stop is pretending think-tank blog posts are data, and that systemic change should be judged by cherry-picked anecdotes and meme-level outrage.

If you've got a better plan for energy security, price stability, emissions reduction, and trade protection - let's hear it.

//Stupidity is doing the same thing over and over for a bad outcome.//

Then why do you keep posting the same bad arguments?

ttbn,

This isn't and argument, it’s an article of faith:

//Climate change was not caused by humans, and it cannot be stopped by puny humans.//

Every national science academy on Earth - from the Australian Academy of Science to the US National Academies, Royal Society, NASA, NOAA, CSIRO, and even ExxonMobil’s own scientists - accepts that humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change.

If you’re going to reject the entire scientific method, fine, but don’t expect policymaking to follow you off that cliff.

//Trump has committed $150M to refurbish coal plants…//

That doesn’t prove coal is economically viable - it proves it isn’t. Coal plants don’t need government refurbishing when they’re profitable. The US coal fleet is dying because it's too expensive, too inflexible, and outcompeted by gas and renewables.

Trump’s spending isn’t a "boom," it’s CPR on a corpse.

Meanwhile, most of America’s new power capacity continues to come from solar, wind, and storage, because the market chooses them - not because Joe Biden is whispering into investors’ ears.

//Australia is well and truly rooted…//

Australia’s wholesale prices are falling. Renewables are expanding. Exporters are aligning with global Net Zero trade expectations. And while you’re cheering for coal and chaos, business, science, and even conservative governments worldwide are planning for decarbonisation.

If you think Australia should be betting against the global direction of trade, technology, and finance - then what’s the plan? Burn coal, isolate ourselves diplomatically, ignore science, and hope the next US president gives us a high-five?

That’s not a strategy. That’s just sulking.

Coal power plants are suffering from lower levels of maintenance.
Why is that ? Because the solar systems ate their lunch by solar
having priority on sunny days and lost loads = lost money every day.
The rotating machines will go for a hundred years with proper maintenance.
So lass of income no incentive to keep up the maintenance.
Step outside tonight and see how dark it is and how there is almost
no wind. In fact most nights there is no wind.
5pm is peak load time, so just watch all the yachts coming back to
their moorings on engines on summer evenings.
All the statistics try to belie those personal observations.

Bezza,

You've inadvertently made the case for the energy transition, not against it.

//Coal power plants are suffering from lower maintenance… because solar ate their lunch on sunny days.//

Correct.

Solar is cheaper and increasingly dominant during the day, which pushes coal down the merit order. That's how markets are supposed to work. The solution to uneconomic coal isn't propping it up, it's planning for firming capacity and flexible backup.

And yes, coal generators were originally built to run at high, steady loads - not ramp up and down. That's a design issue, not a moral failing of solar panels. You don't keep driving a 1970s V8 every day just because it grumbles in traffic.

//The rotating machines will go for a hundred years with proper maintenance.//

That's true of lots of industrial kit - but it only matters if the thing is still economic. Plenty of steam trains still run too - but you don't run freight on them anymore.

//Step outside tonight… almost no wind.//

This is where we part ways.

Personal observation is not a substitute for system-wide data. You don't gauge national rainfall by checking your backyard.
There are calm nights - but the grid doesn't rely on any one technology at any one moment. That's the whole point of diversification and storage.

//All the statistics try to belie those personal observations.//

No, the statistics capture millions of data points across the NEM, 24/7. They don't "belie" personal anecdotes, they just offer a broader and more accurate picture.

You wouldn't diagnose heart disease based on how someone "feels." You'd look at the ECG.

Energy is the same. Planning should be guided by data, not deckchair musings about yachts and breeze.

Typical of the delirious Woke to want to mine the Planet now & have nothing left for future generations.
Stop the misuse & criminal waste of resources & there'll be enough for all for a long time yet.

John,

"Then why do you keep posting the same bad arguments?"

For a start, they are sound and compelling arguments, and I also feel compelled to respond to your compulsive lying in support of the disastrous wind and solar con. But there is a far greater issue that your commentary ignores, an elephant in the room if you like.

How much will world energy demand grow over the coming century? When you consider this question, it becomes apparent that the problem faced is not the replacement of fossil fuels, but in generating the vast amount of energy that the world will require. Like the windmills and water wheels of centuries past, intermittent energy sources will neither be capable nor economically competitive with dispatchable generation in meeting those demands. It is good to see Trump getting the ball rolling by getting rid of LNT pseudoscientific nuclear regulation and setting the stage for a massive increase in nuclear generating technology to meet that need.

In the meantime you might consider the challenge of powering an aluminium smelter with a nuclear reactor vs solar and batteries. I believe that the solar and 24 hour battery storage for 1 GW of dispatchable power would cost the equivalent of sixteen 1GW solar farms (six 1GW solar farms for generation, with the battery costing the equivalent of ten 1GW solar farms). The battery would last about fifteen years and the solar panels about twenty-five years (unless there was a hail storm). 1.5 GW of nuclear would cost much less, be far more reliable, provide 500 MW of dispatchable for the spot market over 90% of the time, could last a century, and think of all the food you might have grown on that land covered in solar panels.

Chris Kenny is well aware of the consequences of the wind and solar scam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuBgTbz4OCY

Fester,

You're shifting the argument. Previously you claimed renewables are a con and collapsing, now you're saying they just can't meet future demand.

That's a very different claim.

Yes, global energy demand will grow. But that's not a reason to abandon solar, wind, and batteries. It's a reason to scale all viable technologies, reform markets, and invest in grid resilience - not throw stones at the only clean sources that are rapidly deployable, cost-competitive, and reducing our reliance on fossil imports.

//Trump… getting rid of LNT pseudoscientific nuclear regulation.//

If nuclear only becomes viable when safety standards are loosened, that's not innovation - that's deregulation dressed as progress.

//The solar and 24 hour battery storage for 1 GW of dispatchable power would cost the equivalent of sixteen 1GW solar farms…//

That's your estimate - not a sourced cost model - and it assumes a worst-case setup. Meanwhile, real-world projects are pairing solar, storage, and flexible loads at a fraction of the price of new nuclear. And those solar farms? Built in months, not decades.

//Unless there was a hail storm.//

That's a risk, but it's no different than coal plants failing during heatwaves, which we've seen multiple times. And solar panel hail resistance has already improved, as has insurance.

//1.5 GW of nuclear would cost much less…//

That's not what actual builds show. Hinkley Point C is more than £20 billion and over a decade behind schedule. SMRs still aren't commercially viable anywhere on Earth. Meanwhile, solar + storage is scaling now.

Yes, we'll need dispatchable capacity. But pretending the future is nuclear-only - while storage, transmission, demand flexibility, and hydrogen ramp up - is just selective optimism.

If you've got data showing your "sixteen solar farms" model outperforms real-world hybrid systems on price, scalability, and build time - let's see it.

Otherwise, this isn't a plan. It's a narrative.

Fester,

If Chris Kenny is your "expert witness," that says it all. His Sky News rant was 90% political theatre, 10% energy policy - and 0% data.

Let's review what Kenny actually argues:

- That net zero is insanity because it involves spending money.

- That South Australia's 75% renewable share has led to the most expensive power - without acknowledging that SA also has among the lowest wholesale prices now, and those blackouts he mentioned happened years ago, before battery storage scaled.

- That COP 31 will cost a billion dollars and be full of "climate rent seekers" - while calling for the same funds to be spent on gas plants, apparently blind to their higher emissions, fuel price volatility, and increasing economic obsolescence.

He also mocks Pacific Island nations - nations whose leaders, scientists, and engineers are raising urgent and evidence-backed concerns about sea-level rise, saltwater intrusion, and loss of habitable land. But sure, let's take energy advice from someone who thinks citing "existential threats" is just "alarmism."

//All these costs for no discernible gain.//

The International Energy Agency, CSIRO, BloombergNEF, and Lazard all report that wind and solar are now the cheapest sources of new electricity in most of the world. Australia is not collapsing - it's investing in the future.

If you want to talk about real energy system planning, fine. But linking to Chris Kenny yelling about "hot air," COP hypocrisy, and hoping Adelaide gets a heatwave during the summit? That's not evidence - it's political performance art.

Let's stick to facts, not Sky News monologues written for outrage clicks. Especially from know-nothings like Kenny.

John,

"You're shifting the argument."

Not at all. That wind and solar are not only incapable powering the existing grid with cheap or reliable energy (perhaps not even that), let alone meeting growing energy demand, is yet more reason to think it a con and abandon the idea.

"that's deregulation dressed as progress."

Those "safety standards" were responsible for about 2000 deaths following Fukushima and possibly 200,000 abortions in Europe following Chernobyl. Nuclear generation has prevented millions of deaths by displacing coal generation, releasing greater radiation than nuclear yet attracts no regulation. The creation of free radicals by radiation free physiology is several orders of magnitude higher than that suggested harmful by LNT.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzdLdNRaPKc

So how much land is needed for the wind and solar con? You probably lied some time ago when you suggested less than the area of Tasmania, but like all your lies and obfuscations, that only leads to what is relevant. The area is a bit over two Tasmanias, but that is only for current electricity demand. Total energy demand, which is what net zero is all about, would demand over six Tasmanias in area. But again, that only considers current energy demand. Relying on wind and solar means doubling the area every thirty years, a truly idiotic and infeasible idea.

"Meanwhile, real-world projects are pairing solar, storage, and flexible loads at a fraction of the price of new nuclear."

That is untrue when system costs are accounted for, which is why every instance of wind and solar being adopted has resulted in higher energy costs.

"That's your estimate - not a sourced cost model - and it assumes a worst-case setup."

Not at all, but what is your suggested model, or is that a secret like the CSIRO's modeling?

Further, you follow up with a cherry-picked nuclear reactor build, ignoring successes elsewhere, and as always, what France did half a century ago.

Why do you think all those tech companies want nuclear power for data centres if wind and solar are cheaper and faster?

Small scale nukes are only imaginary, small scale means small output if they ever exist for power production.
Nukes killed the party that used to exist, and now another resignation today.
The original design for small nukes was for places like auto builders or smelters where they would be beneficial for power costs. not large scale power production. 4 or 5 hundred megawatts we need gross amounts of GhH.
Solar is going along fine, a major solar farm was completed 2 days ago. solar and battery will eventually push peak power times out the door for good.
All times will be off peak power supply. The more solar we get online the lower wholesale prices are becoming.
Coal burners will not have to be told to shut down they will become unviable.
Solar does not have thousands of workers they are largely not manned or manned by sheep only. This is a win win solution. Albo is a champion of practicality.

Fester,

You say you're not shifting the argument, yet you're now claiming that solar and wind can't meet existing demand, future demand, are a scam, cost more, and take up too much land. That's a different claim every paragraph.

//Those 'safety standards' were responsible for about 2000 deaths following Fukushima…//

No, they weren't.

According to the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, there were zero radiation-related deaths among the public from Fukushima. The vast majority of deaths were from the evacuation process, not radiation exposure - and certainly not because safety standards were too strict. The 200,000 abortions claim? Debunked conspiracy nonsense - not accepted by any credible epidemiological body.

//So how much land is needed…?//

Your claim that it would take "over six Tasmanias" to replace total energy demand is false. We've been through this one many times.

A 2021 report by the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) projected approximately 33,000 sq km for a fully renewable grid - less than half the size of Tasmania, and mostly on marginal or dual-use land. And that's for electricity. Electrification of everything (transport, industry, heat) increases that, but not sixfold - and certainly not "doubling every 30 years." That's made-up.

//That is untrue when system costs are accounted for…//

Then cite a credible source. AEMO's Integrated System Plan, CSIRO's GenCost, and international reports by IEA and Lazard all show solar + wind + storage as the cheapest new generation. Nuclear only looks competitive when you ignore build time, financing, insurance, and risk.

//Why do you think all those tech companies want nuclear?//

Because gas is volatile, coal is dying, and nuclear - while still too slow and costly - offers 24/7 power in theory. But most tech firms are actually buying solar, wind, and batteries - right now.

Nuclear remains aspirational. Renewables are real.

If you do not maintain anything it becomes unreliable.
In previous years the power station reliability never needed to be
discussed, why was that I wonder ?
With a coal fired station there are three vital major components.
Coal handling plant; Boilers; and steam turbines.
As I understand it the boilers are the most expensive and they need
more maintenance.
The rotating electrical part is the most reliable.
I am aware of one DC rotation machine that was a 100 yrs old when shut
down because DC was no longer needed.
So with reasonable maintenance and boiler rebuild program, one boiler
at a time we could keep the power on forever without our crazy
government policy of blowing up power stations before the replacements are installed.

Bezza,

You're right that neglected machines become unreliable. But the deeper point is: why has maintenance been scaled back?

//With reasonable maintenance and boiler rebuild program… we could keep the power on forever.//

In theory, maybe. But in reality, we don't maintain coal plants like we used to because they're no longer economically viable. They can't compete with low-marginal-cost renewables during the day, so their revenue collapses - making large-scale reinvestment in boilers and long-term maintenance financially irrational.

That's not ideology, it's just the market.

//In previous years the power station reliability never needed to be discussed…//

That's not true. Coal plant reliability has been a concern for over a decade in Australia. AEMO reports regularly document unexpected outages due to age, heat stress, and coal delivery problems - particularly in summer. In fact, fossil fleet unreliability was a major factor in the 2017 South Australia blackout, not just wind generation.

//Rotating machines can last 100 years…//

Sure - but so can steam trains, if you maintain them. That doesn't mean they're still the best solution in 2025.

The problem isn't just technical. It's economic and systemic:

- New renewables are cheaper to build than maintaining ageing thermal generators.
- Coal is inflexible, which is a liability in a grid that needs to respond quickly to changing demand and distributed generation.
- And yes, policy certainty matters, but so does reality. Private operators aren't reinvesting in coal, because they see the writing on the wall.

If the choice is between propping up uneconomic assets or investing in a more flexible, modern, lower-emission grid, the answer is obvious - even if nostalgia makes it harder to swallow.

Its pretty funny that the renewable fetishists want to talk about wholesale prices when its the retail price that the consumer, big and small, see, pay and react to. What's happening upstream of the final consumer is not really the point..

We all know why they insist on talking about wholesale. Its because it tells the story they want to hear. Whereas retail, you know the price we actually pay, is telling a very different and unwanted story and therefore must be banished. It wasn't all that long ago that the renewable fetishists were swooning when the then incoming Labor government was promising to reduce retail costs. But now that they realise it can't be done with the current settings they suddenly decide that it was always about wholesale.

And why is wholesale supposedly falling why retail is indisputably rising? Because of all the infrastructure required to get renewable electricity from where its made to where its needed. Unlike coal (and nukes for that matter) which can be plonked right next to urban centres which needs the power, wind/solar go where the wind blows (sometimes) and the sun shines (half the time) and then demand that someone else pay the cost of getting it to the consumer. And ultimately the person paying that cost is the consumer.

That's why national comparisons always show that the more renewables a nation has, the higher the retail costs of its electricity.

Meanwhile yet another major manufacturer is on the skids (Tasmanian Bell Bay Aluminium) due to power costs. The government will for the moment throw some money at the problem to kick it down the road. But that can't go on forever although many on the left don't realise that ...."sooner or later you run out of other people's money".

A long way from the heady days when prices were going to fall by $275. Now the people would be thrilled if they only rose by $275.

WTF?

mhaze: I know that of late that you have made strides in your comprehension of discussions on OLO.

For you, just because you are making an effort, I'll point out that the first post in this thread mentions both wholesale and retail prices.

Many others have discussed both wholesale and retail prices in this thread.

You state: "We all know why they insist on talking about wholesale. Its because it tells the story they want to hear. Whereas retail, you know the price we actually pay, is telling a very different and unwanted story and therefore must be banished".

Quite a bizarre comment given this thread as a whole.

WTF, I don't know why, given that you created the thread, but its about wholesale prices. Its in the title.

And the word 'wholesale' is used much more often than 'retail'.

And when I pointed out that retail prices were rising, you and others raced to tell me that the real story was wholesale prices.

Somehow all that went over your head yet you still act smug. Go figure!

No, it's not "funny," mhaze. You're just not very good at this stuff.

And if you're going to call people "fetishists," then at least provide data that shows at SOME level of disproportionality on your opponents' part. It's been... how many years now?

Let’s clear a few things up, and number each point for the cognitively impaired

1. Wholesale prices matter

Consumers pay retail, yes, but wholesale prices are a major component of retail. The only reason to "banish" them from discussion is because they show how cheap renewables have become. Retail includes network, environmental, and retailing costs - all of which are changing for reasons outside the cost of generation. Blaming renewables for the total ignores this.

2. Transmission was always part of the plan

Coal isn’t magically "plonked" next to cities. Most of it is shipped from mines to plants hundreds of kilometres away. Renewables need transmission, so did coal. The difference is a future grid is being built, and these are once-off investments. Nuclear would require just as much, if not more, given safety buffer zones, water access, and centralised design.

3. Your country comparisons are dumb

Germany? Look again. Their high retail prices are due to legacy policy decisions, taxes, and levies. Not just renewables.

Denmark? Same story. Meanwhile, countries like Portugal, Sweden, and Spain - with high renewables shares - have seen falling or stable prices.

4. Bell Bay Aluminium was subsidised under coal too

The aluminium industry has always relied on heavily discounted electricity, and often paid for by the taxpayer. This isn’t new. It’s not a wind/solar issue. And companies want nuclear? Sure, in theory. But in practice? They want cheap, fast, low-risk power, and modern renewables with firming are delivering faster than nuclear anywhere outside France or China.

5. Your $275 talking point

You can’t keep quoting it without noting: the bulk of retail hikes were driven by coal and gas price spikes, supply disruptions, and ageing assets. It’s not renewables driving those costs - it’s the legacy system trying to hang on.

Try again, mhaze - but this time, bring data.

I like how you framed this, mhaze:

//...when I pointed out that retail prices were rising, you and others raced to tell me that the real story was wholesale prices.//

Yeah, "raced" - as though the words of myself and others suggested a sense of urgency; presumably to cut off at the knees a line of discussion we quietly knew would see the unravelling of our narrative!

mhaze - OLO's "clever contrarian" calmly outsmarting the "wOkE" with inconvenient "fAcTs"!

In reality, however, the wording and tone of myself was far from the mad scramble you portray. Mad scrambles tend to be evasive, not explanatory. Yet, here I had:

- led with retail prices in my first comment, quoting the ABS CPI line,
- discussed why retail prices had spiked,
- explained the retail/wholesale relationship,
- and listed specific retail-level factors contributing to the overall cost.

That’s the exact opposite of "banishing" retail data. It’s integrating both.

//And the word 'wholesale' is used much more often than 'retail'.//

That's because it's the starting point for comparing the cost of the various sources of power generation.

You'd prefer to focus on retail prices because it muddies the waters, and because you think (or are hoping) that the mud contains costs showing renewables to be more expensive in reality.

Better luck next time.

Shutting down an old dc generator because we have no need for dc anymore.
Power from Victoria goes to Tas as DC power that is the most reliable way of sending power long distances. solar will be sent un converted to Singapore then converted to ac.
How much has it cost England so far for nukes that are a decade late and growing.
Grumble guts needs to get himself some education and stop talking shite

"Consumers pay retail, yes, but ...."

Not "yes, but." Instead "yes....the end".

The retail cost is all that matters. When a business closes because the price of electricity has priced them out of the market, its no comfort that the wholesale price fell. When the average consumer suffers power poverty, they don't care what the wholesale price is doing. But people like you want to talk about the wholesale price because it excludes all the ancillary costs of going renewable. But someone still has to pay those ancillary costs and that's why retail prices are and will continue to rise and why nations with higher renewable penetration have higher retail prices.

"Germany? Look again. Their high retail prices are due to legacy policy decisions, taxes, and levies. "

There's always a special case reason you come up with as to why nations with higher renewables have higher prices. Dozens of countries with dozens of reasons all the while ignoring the overriding reason

/cont

/cont

"Meanwhile, countries like Portugal, Sweden, and Spain - with high renewables shares - have seen falling or stable prices. "

I'm never sure whether you just make these things up in the hope no one will check or if your sources are just horrendous. eg Spain's retail (oh no that word again!!) costs rose 13% this year compared to 2024.

"And companies want nuclear? "

do they? Funnily I never said that. But your special talent is making up my views for me.

"Your $275 talking point"

This is the point. There are always promises about what renewables WILL do in the future. Oh and its just so wonderful. Your posts are full of these flights of fantasy. So when the ALP promised that cuts would come from their policies, I don't recall any of the renewable fetishists demurring. But when the promises fail to materialise there's always an excuse that wasn't mentioned before followed by the promise that things will change around any time now. Followed by the next set of excuses as to why prices refuse to fall as the fetishists promised. Ad infinitum.

"mhaze - OLO's "clever contrarian" calmly outsmarting the "wOkE" with inconvenient "fAcTs"!"

In the immortal words of Henry Higgins "By george, [he's] got it."

Meanwhile prices continue to rise. And will do so while ever we adhere to this madness. But I think things are moving. I even saw one of the left's spokesperson (Patricia Kavalas) on The Insiders yesterday say that at some point the ALP will have to admit that prices will never come down.

mhaze,

Your "retail prices are all that matter" line sounds punchy, until you apply it to actual policy or market structure.

Retail prices include far more than just generation costs: there's transmission, distribution, retail margins, taxes, legacy subsidies, environmental charges (including fossil fuel cleanup), and yes - state rebates expiring, as the ABS explicitly noted.

When we talk about wholesale prices, it's not to dodge the reality consumers face, but to trace where generation costs are heading, since they flow through with a time lag.

I think you're well aware of this now.

If you genuinely want cheaper retail prices, you follow the inputs - just like you'd track wheat prices when predicting bread costs. Would you dismiss falling fuel prices because people still pay tolls?

As for your Spain "gotcha": yes, Spanish electricity prices rose approximately 13% YoY in early 2025, but from a historic low - after massive drops in 2022-2023 due to cheap solar, capped gas prices, and reforms. Retail prices remain below 2021 levels. Sweden's prices are down. Portugal's remain stable. (EU stats back this up.)

Germany? It's always the go-to for deniers - but it's not renewables per se that made prices high, it's 20 years of policy layering, feed-in tariffs, and recently, gas exposure. The Energiewende's early mistakes don't invalidate solar's now-record low LCOE.

And no, I didn't say you wanted nuclear. I said companies are calling for it (e.g. AEMO's IESS paper, Origin's advocacy). Yet you mock renewables while offering no viable alternative.

Finally, the $275 figure was based on RepuTex modelling of wholesale savings. And guess what? Those savings are happening. The policy lag isn't deception, it's market inertia.

You pretend renewables must instantly fix 15 years of rising network costs, stranded fossil assets, and geopolitical gas shocks - or they're a failure.

You're not engaging in any sort of rational analysis here, just motivated reasoning and expectation sabotage.

Re Spain.... still just making it up JD?

From 2020 to 2025, average annual electricity retail prices rose by approximately 30–40% overall. You say that there were "massive drops in 2022-2023" when in fact 2022 was the peak year. Then a 2023 drop from the peak followed by a steady rise.

Lomborg's data looked at 168 countries to achieve the trends he found. Yet you continue to scrounge around trying to find one country that disproves his data. Even if you did find such an outlier, it would make no difference to the overall findings.

"The $275 figure was based on RepuTex modelling of wholesale savings."

The ALP and subsequently the government promised these savings to the retail customers. They never happened. Fudge all you want by thems the facts.

But its always the same in the climate realm. Bold predictions followed by mealy-mouthed excuses as to why the bold predictions didn't happen followed by more bold predictions which only the truly gullible fall for anymore.

"Still," mhaze?

//Re Spain.... still just making it up JD?//

How did we get to "still" when there hasn't been first time yet? You, on the other hand, have misrepresented both the data and my claims.

On Spain

I never denied that from 2020-2025, prices were higher than in 2020. I said that prices dropped massively from the 2022 peak to 2023 - and they did. You now admit this: "Then a 2023 drop from the peak…"

So your gotcha concedes my point.

Retail prices in Spain in 2022 were sky-high due to the gas crisis. Reforms like the "Iberian exception" capped gas prices, and massive renewables deployment brought 2023 prices below 2021 levels (see Eurostat and Ember data). A modest 2024-25 increase from those lower baselines does not contradict the larger trend.

Cherry-picking the 2020-25 delta ignores the extreme volatility and ignores that 2023-24 prices were still lower than peak fossil-era pricing. That's not "making it up." It's reading the full picture.

On Outliers vs Trends

I cited Spain, Portugal, and Sweden to counter your blanket claim that "higher renewables penetration causes higher retail prices." It only takes a few counterexamples to break a universal claim.

Lomborg's global correlation doesn't prove causation. Countries with high renewables tend to also have stronger economies, higher urban density, and more complex grids - all of which influence price. Unless you isolate variables (which Lomborg doesn't), you can't claim renewables cause higher prices. That's high-school statistics.

But we went through all this once before.

On the $275

The $275 figure was based on modelling wholesale cost reductions. The ALP's poor comms confused this into a retail promise. That's fair criticism, but it's not deception by the industry or RepuTex. The wholesale savings are happening. Retail lags due to baked-in network and policy costs.

You keep repeating "they never happened," as though ignoring timeline, structure, and cause-effect nuance strengthens your point. It doesn't.

In short, you're not refuting me. You're shifting the goalposts, flattening complexity, and insisting that any delay or nuance equals failure.

Try again.

It's a bit early in the debate, but I figure we best we nip this sort of behaviour in the bud sooner rather than later.

Question:
In the attached debate, is there anything to suggest that John Daysh has been "making it up" at any point, as mhaze claims he has?

Grok:
No, there is nothing in the debate to suggest that John Daysh has been "making it up" at any point. His claims are consistently backed by references to credible sources (e.g., AEMO, CSIRO, IEA, Lazard, ABS, UN reports), logical reasoning, and data that aligns with publicly available information.

Specifically regarding mhaze's accusation about Spain's electricity prices:

- John's description (massive drops in 2022-2023, a ~13% YoY rise in early 2025 from historic lows, and prices remaining below 2021 levels) is accurate based on historical household electricity price data for Spain. Prices spiked in 2021-2022 (e.g., peaking around €0.36/kWh in mid-2022 due to the energy crisis), dropped sharply in 2023 (by 20-40% in some periods), stabilized at lows in 2023-2024 (around €0.195-€0.218/kWh), and saw a modest rise in late 2024/early 2025 while staying below pre-2022 highs.

- mhaze's counterclaim (a 30-40% overall rise from 2020-2025) is incorrect; data shows prices were stable or slightly lower overall (e.g., ~€0.23/kWh in late 2020 vs. ~€0.218/kWh in late 2024), with volatility driven by external factors like gas prices rather than a net upward trend.

Other claims by John (e.g., on Fukushima deaths, land use for renewables, Bill Gates' views, and wholesale price falls) are also factually supported and not fabricated.

http://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk%3D_98654345-0bae-4192-a7c0-2fee28d33b2d
http://drive.google.com/file/d/1PgUdep2gOoGJlnYqzzG_XEN9jXYjhEh9

Defend the undefendable to the end, eh John?

You said there were "massive drops in 2022-2023". When in fact there were massive increases in 2022. You now say "Retail prices in Spain in 2022 were sky-high." Massive drops; sky high. Same thing apparently.

Straight up lying about what you said just yesterday? Impressive.

Again, even if your fantasies about Spain were true (hint: they're rubbish), finding one outlier among the 168 countries Lomborg's data was based on wouldn't alter a thing.

Oh BTW, Sweden's retail electricity costs are 40% higher in 2025 as compared to 2020. oops. Don't you just hate it when the data screws with your fantasies?

Indeed I did, mhaze.

//You said there were 'massive drops in 2022-2023'. When in fact there were massive increases in 2022.//

That's… exactly what I meant by "2022 was the peak year." If prices peaked in 2022 and dropped in 2023, then 2022-2023 represents a net drop.

This isn't complicated.

There's no contradiction between calling 2022 prices "sky-high" and describing the fall from that high point as "massive." That's just… how peaks and drops work. You've misread the sentence and are now accusing me of lying about what I clearly said.

//Even if your fantasies about Spain were true (hint: they're rubbish)…//

You're shouting "fantasy" but citing no sources. I did.

Eurostat data shows that Spain's retail prices peaked sharply in 2022 and dropped dramatically in 2023. They are still below 2021 levels.

That's a fact, not a fantasy.

//Finding one outlier among the 168 countries Lomborg's data was based on wouldn't alter a thing.//

Except I didn't just cite Spain. I mentioned Portugal, Sweden, and Germany - with context. But more importantly, Lomborg's report itself shows variation. He averages across rich and poor nations, some of whom are net importers of energy, others exporters. It's not a clean comparison, and using the global average to handwave away regional context is lazy.

//Sweden's retail electricity costs are 40% higher in 2025 as compared to 2020. oops.//

No "oops."

Sweden's price rise was concentrated in 2022, triggered by the gas crisis. In 2023-2025, prices stabilised and dropped. Sweden also exports clean power to neighbours and has among the lowest household emissions per capita in Europe. So if you think that's an own goal, you might want to check where your net is.

Now there's the "Oops"!

Once again, you're lobbing vague numbers without timeframes or links, while accusing others of fabrication. You haven't cited one official source, just vibes and volume.

Pure deflection.

"you're lobbing vague numbers without timeframes or links,"

You haven't provided a single link in this entire discussion!! !!

As to time frames I've always used 2020 to 2025 whereas you pick and choose based on which year tends to support your fantasies. Spain? Oh lets talk about 2022 to now. Sweden? Oh let's talk about 2021 to now.

You said there were "massive drops in 2022-2023". But there weren't. There was a massive increase in 2022 and return to some normality in 2023. And since I appraised you of that, you been scrambling trying to find a way out of yet another corner your in. But the point is that Spain in 2025 is paying more than they did in 2020 and the trend continues to be up. Why? because they continue to buy into the renewable boondoggle.

Correct, mhaze. Not a single one.

//You haven't provided a single link in this entire discussion!! !!//

Which would be rather hypocritical of me had I not said "timeframes or links" - the former of which I have provided.

And they were well-targeted timeframes, too - timeframes based on cause-and-effect periods, which is more than enough for anyone with basic internet search capabilities to promptly find.

I cited Eurostat - the official European statistics agency - yet you ignored it. The same data shows that Spain's average retail electricity prices peaked in 2022 (41.2 euro cents/kWh) and dropped to 30.2 in 2023 - a 27% fall in one year.

That's not just "some return to normality." That's what normal people call a massive drop.

Here's a link:
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Electricity_price_statistics

You also insist "Spain in 2025 is paying more than in 2020." Sure. But what matters is why. Between 2020 and 2025, Spain endured:

- A global gas crisis
- Russian invasion of Ukraine
- A major policy shift to insulate consumers
- Energy tax cuts
- Temporary gas price caps

Yet despite all that, retail prices in 2023 are below 2021 levels. Again: that's not "boondoggle failure," that's proof that renewables helped limit further damage.

Your 2020-2025 window conveniently flattens the context. It's like saying a patient's worse off than five years ago while ignoring the fact they recovered from a heart attack in the middle.

As for Sweden, you threw out "40% higher" with no timeframe or source. I looked it up. From 2022 to 2023, Sweden's prices dropped 24% for households (Eurostat again). You're cherry-picking the worst possible anchor year, ignoring rebounds, and calling it analysis.

But the real tell is this line:

//since I appraised you of that, you been scrambling…//

Projection, meet desperation.

You're not citing sources. You're not explaining price drivers. You're shouting "boondoggle!" like it's a spell.

That's not a rebuttal, mhaze. That's a tantrum with footnotes missing.

Now let me get this straight JD.

You criticise me for not having links or timeframes and then admit you haven't provided any links but some timeframes. Double standard, meet hypocrisy.

But yes you do (sometimes) have timeframes. Each one carefully selected for each country to try to achieve the answer you want. Whereas I've consistently worked by only comparing 2020 to 2025.

Oh and as to links, I've been referring throughout to the Lomborg data that I linked to and explained to you in an earlier thread. Do I need to show it to you each time I mention it?

But fear not JD. I've done your work for you and found data which compares data for every European country from 2020 and 2025. And behold I found you two countries where electricity prices have actually fallen over the past five years, due, I'm sure you'll rush to assert, to renewables or something.

The countries? Montenegro and Malta. Leading the world to a green paradise!! :)

No, mhaze.

//You criticise me for not having links or timeframes and then admit you haven't provided any links but some timeframes.//

I criticised you for lobbing vague numbers with no sources, while simultaneously accusing others of fabrication. That's not a "double standard," that's me expecting you to meet the standard you're demanding of others.

I've cited Eurostat, RepuTex, and AEMO across this and previous threads. I've quoted figures, used specific year-on-year timeframes (like 2022 to 2023), and explained why a 2020-2025 bracket often obscures crisis spikes and recoveries.

That's called context.

It's not "cherry-picking" to look at how we got from A to B, especially when you're trying to blame renewables for a fossil-fuel-driven price spike.

//Do I need to show it to you each time I mention it?//

When you accuse others of not linking sources? Yes. You can't claim the moral high ground while outsourcing your footnotes to some unspecified earlier thread.

//Behold I found you two countries where electricity prices have actually fallen…//

Except that's not what I claimed.

I said some European countries saw dramatic price drops from the 2022 crisis peak, not that prices are universally below 2020 levels. That's a straw man.

Spain's prices, per Eurostat, dropped over 40% from 2022 to 2023. Germany saw a drop of approximately 20%. Sweden and Portugal also dropped. That's not "Malta and Montenegro," that's the EU's 4th, 1st, 8th, and 14th largest economies.

So again, if you want to talk about net 5-year change, go ahead. But if you're blaming renewables for price volatility and hardship, then you need to address what actually drove the 2022 spike and why prices dropped once fossil-gas dependence eased.

Until then, your arguments remain what they've been from the start: Big on tone, short on facts, allergic to nuance.

It all goes on and on with all those here arguing about the wrong
problem. We have two different solutions to a none existant problem.
The cause of global warming has been known for some time and it is not CO2.
Well not totally as co2 may just crank temperatures up a bit.
The basic problem is we are in the "Modern Warming Period".
This period started in 1800ad at what was known as the"Little Ice Age".
That time was the end of the "Medieval Warm Period" which started
about 450ad.
Around 900 ad the Vikings decided Greenland was good for settling.
They lived on Greenland for about 500 years when it got too cold
for farming in Greenland. Their Global warming had ended and they
had to leave.
So roughly the "Medieval Warm Period" was about 900 yrs long.
Unfortunately there were no good thermometers in those times.
The previous cycle the "Roman Warm Period" started some time around
300bc which led to a boost to agriculture in Europe and Rome becoming
a major trader in the Mediterranean.
One event of note in that time was the Roman settlements in Scotland
having large wineries to suit their taste for the drop.
What about before the Romans, well there is an "Egyption Warm Period"
and a "Minoan Warm Period" mentioned but I have not found much about them.
So perhaps geologists with better access than me can dig them out.
Now you can have a three way argument.

What a heap of abbreviated trollop. Weather systems are getting bigger and more destructive than ever. We are not in an ice age or an exorbitated hot weather system.
A proven fact is CO2 causes a greenhouse effect. Since 1950 temps are in a rise, same time as industrial pollution is increasing world wide.
We are talking on a world scale. Not stone age manufactures.
The starting point was in the 1950,s, when the scale of CO2 got bigger by year by year.
Now we are concentrated on bringing CO2 down on a world wide scale.
But all the yoyha over 40 years has delayed any reduction of Co2 for any effect to take place until the year 2050 Caused by all the climate deniers.
In the days of ancient romans or Greenland pastoralists did not have the science we have today if only deniers can believe.

No Doog, I did not say we were in an ice age.
What I said was that this warming started at the time that has
been called "The Little Ice Age" in 1800ad.
Incidentally 1800 was also known as the Maunder Minimum.
Because he had been counting sun spots and 1800 was the lowest count,
Co-incidence ? Perhaps, except low sunspots means lest strong and
disturbed earth magnetic field and so more cosmic rays can enter
the earth atmosphere and cause more clouds and more shading and
reflection of heat back into space, so less warming.
In that period there used to be Ice Carnivals on the frozen
River Thames. The warming started then and the last Ice Carnival
on the Thames was held in 1814 because the Thames no longer froze.
It still doesn't.
The earth is getting warmer and will do so for a few more 100s
of years.
Now you are right CO2 is a greenhouse gas and will make the earth
even warmer than it would have been.

There are a few very solid facts;
There have been warm periods in the past, perhaps 8 of them.
The 1800 Little Ice Age coincided with a big increase in coal burning.
The Maunder Sun Spot Minimum was centered around 1800.
Less sunspots more clouds. More sunspots less clouds.

I would suggest that these functions are far more powerful than CO2.

"Malta John" has a nice ring to it. Kudos mhaze.