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.