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.