A recent article in Forbes Magazine highlights an interview with Ramon Méndez Galain, Uruguay's former energy minister, who spearheaded the nation's energy transformation.

"We didn’t start with climate targets. We started with the problem of cost and reliability. The environment was a positive side effect, not the reason," Méndez Galain explains.

The economic impact has been profound. The total cost of electricity production decreased by roughly half compared to fossil-fuel alternatives, and the country attracted $6 billion in renewable energy investments over a five-year period—equivalent to 12% of its GDP. About 50,000 new jobs were created in construction, engineering, and operations, roughly 3% of the labour force.

Its economy has been growing at 6% to 8% annually, and its poverty rate has fallen from 30% to 8%.

That is solid proof that such changes are effective.

This puts paid to the myth that smaller population countries cannot make a difference by changing to alternative energy sources.

It will be interesting to see what other countries scale up this type of model.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2025/10/19/uruguays-renewable-charge-a-small-nation-a-big-lesson-for-the-world/

Hydropower: Contributes a significant portion, at around 42% of the total.
Wind: Accounted for approximately 28% of the power grid in 2024, with the country heavily investing in wind farms.
Biomass: Provided about 26% of the grid in 2024.
Solar: Contributed around 3% in 2024.
Fossil fuels: Used only as a small supplement, around 1% to 3%, for flexible thermal plants to cover periods of low wind and solar output

I guess that Johnny Bullsheet might use signature words like strawman and cherry picking. No myth to break, and the reality of the economic and environmental catastrophe of pursuing a wind and solar grid in Australia continues to unfold. 37% increase last year in power prices.

So what? This has nothing to do with the dog’s breakfast going on in Australia.

Half of it comes from hydro.

How long now is it that Australia has had a dirty great digger stuck underground, with geniuses having no idea how to get it moving?

Apart from the fact that what some unknown scribbler writes cannot be taken as gospel these days (such is the corruption of the media), Australia has made an absolute mess of renewable energy, and we will be reliant on fossil fuels for many years to come. Even the main urgers of transition away from fossil fuels no longer have faith in Bowen-mania.

Good luck to Uruguay if it’s true. But their experience has nothing to do with the tragic nonsense that is occurring in Australia, where our commissars are comically claiming that we are “leaders”. ‘Keep telling the lie enough and it becomes the truth’ has never been truer than it is in Dumbstralia

Interesting WTF. I checked out their biofuel situation, because hydropower doesn't apply here, and found it is a byproduct of a huge pulp mill operation based on harvesting eucalyptus plantations.

So here's an idea. Why don't we turn Australia into a paper-pulp super power and use the biomass generated from it to drive our electricity grid? Tassie could probably forget about bringing the Marinus cable across Bass Strait and sit in splendid 100% renewable isolation.

We could establish operations somewhere like Maryborough in Queensland and feed into the SEQ grid.

You could even stretch things and start burning wood rather than coal in our power stations, as they do in the Drax power station in the UK.

It could provide baseload power, and unlike nuclear, is an established industry.

Australia’s climate full of wind (and solar) idiots wasted $7 million trying to get COP, with all its CO2 generation, to come to Adelaide, but they have never been able to honour the $275 off power bills.

Indeed, they are now talking about removing the $300 per year subsidy that was a sop to struggling consumers for the government's causing prices to soar in the first place.

Who gives a flying f… about what some other country does!

Graham,
There are a number of things I find interesting here.
The first one is that a problem (rising energy costs and reliability) was identified and an effort made to successfully address it.

Secondly, the localised assets were used to a solve the problems.

The third is that there were flow on benefits.

Cutting the cost of electricity production by half is no mean feat.

As stated, the economic benefits are profound - many renewable energy alarmists here on OLO have the economic disaster myth playing on loop.

As an aside, biochar produced by utilising eucalypt for energy would be an added bonus for agriculture.

"Uruguay has some of the highest electricity prices in South America, largely due to its heavy reliance on renewable sources (98% of generation from renewables like hydro, wind, and solar in 2025), which involves significant infrastructure investments."

Among South American countries, only Chile is more expensive.

As usual with these things, the renewable fetishists only want to talk about the cost of production while ignoring all the other costs involved in delivering power. That's because all those other costs surrounding renewables is what makes them so expensive and why we see throughout the world evidence that the more renewables a nation has the higher their retail costs.

We saw Chris Bowen getting a soft-ball interview on the ABC last night, and true to form all he wanted to do was talk about wholesale prices. But even he had to admit that wholesale prices only make up 30% of the total retail costs.

Inflation numbers announced yesterday show inflation surging. And one of the main causes was electricity prices which have risen 37.1% in the year to October 2025.

Tell me again how cheap renewables are!.

WTF?

As per usual mhaze's simplistic outlook crumbles under the pressure of thoughtful analysis.

Uruguay made the move to renewables because the country faced a classic small-nation dilemma: high electricity demand growth, almost no domestic fossil fuel resources, and a rising dependence on imported oil and gas. Hydropower had already been tapped, and blackouts were beginning to creep into both industrial and residential sectors.

By the early 2010s, Uruguay’s government realized that continuing to rely on imported fossil fuels was economically unsustainable.

Hence the pivot to renewables. Resource rich Venezuela can produce electricity for US$0.05 per kWh so Uruguay had to take a different path.

Uruguay now has highest per capita income in Latin America. The reduction in the poverty rate from 30% to 8% is remarkable

The successful forward march of renewable technology in the energy sector continues and no amount of pearl clutching from the alarmists is going to stop this advance.

I wonder if the Uruguay tale was a product of the 480 odd on their taxpayer funded jaunt to cop30? Good to see Australia's future getting weed up a wall.

End net zero. Stop the grifters ripping us off.

Western Australia had a “ 5 year plan” to become a renewable energy and green-hydrogen “superpower”.

The 5 years is now up, and nothing has happened apart from taxpayers getting a $2 billion bill for the experiment.

The state's emissions are also higher than they were 20 years ago.

The WA government has used “bill credits, hidden subsidies and the balance sheets of state-owned utilities” to mask the fiscal and economic consequences of its bad decision.

Australian politicians continue to be shonky.

In Australia generally, economist Judith Sloan says it will be a decade before electricity prices come down, if ever.

Even though the hapless Treasure is still mouthing the absurdity that renewable energy is the cheapest, prices rose by 37% this year!

This “cheap” electricity has undoubtedly contributed to the rise of housing by 5.9%; transport 2.7%; clothing 5.4%, and food 3.2%.

Lying by the Albanese government has increased by umpteen percent; and the long decline of Australia continues.

"Uruguay made the move to renewables because the country faced a classic small-nation dilemma: high electricity demand growth, almost no domestic fossil fuel resources,"

Well Australia doesn't have that problem. Does it? We have domestic fuel resources up the wazoo. So Uruguay has nothing to teach us.

"Uruguay now has highest per capita income in Latin America. "

Actually second highest (facts never were WTF's strong suit). Guyana has a higher per capita GDP. Oh and how did they manage that? By exporting fossil fuels to anyone who'll buy it. So if WTF wants to take a lesson from South America, maybe that's the one he should follow.

Look WTF... I get that you're all in on renewables irrespective of the facts. But maybe you need to stop trying to find reasons we should go along with your fantasies and just come out and say that you think renewables are the only way we can avoid whatever is the latest climate catastrophe du jour and you don't care about the costs to Australia or the affects on Australians.

Some countries will go renewables because they have no choice. We aren't in that group and the sooner you and the other renewable fetishists realise it the better.

WTF?

Yes mhaze facts are important.

Even though Guyana is in South America it is not referred to as Latin American.

The whole point about Uruguay is that it lacks the resources of countries such as Venezuela and Guyana.

By pivoting away from fossil fuels the total cost of electricity production decreased by roughly half compared to fossil-fuel alternatives.

This is not the message that renewable energy alarmists to hear or acknowledge.

Why? - Because this is an example that works and was an economic response to a fossil fuel problem.

A fossil fuel problem resolved by using alterative energy sources - this is psychological kryptonite to the alarmists and denialists.

"many renewable energy alarmists here on OLO have the economic disaster myth playing on loop"

Myth? Like the massive electricity price increases, the loss of power dependent industry overseas and the 10 billion plus in annual subsidies paid to the wind and solar grifters?

Why did Indonesia built 20 coal fired power stations last year when wind and solar are cheaper and faster? Maybe coal is cheaper and wind and solar are a big con destroying the environment, farmland and the economy?

Ditch the grifters.

WTF?

Fester asks: "Why did Indonesia built 20 coal fired power stations last year when wind and solar are cheaper and faster?"

The answer is "Who knows?".

In a Science Direct article from June this year:
"Indonesia has announced a coal phase-out policy, aiming to gradually retire coal power plants by 2030 and replace the energy gap by expanding renewable energy sources".

But don't let the facts make you despondent Fester, Indonesia is considering nuclear energy as one possible arm of their energy future - along with a whole lot of newer technologies generally lumped under the heading of alternatives and/or renewables.

"Who knows?"

That about sums up your objectivity WTF. My concern with wind and solar relate to its high costs, long build time and huge land requirements.

As I've said before, I am swayed by evidence whereas you say what Albo tells you to say.

Ditch the wind and solar grifters. Indonesia is building coal power to provide cheap energy to the mineral processing industry fleeing Australia. So much for wind and solar being cheap.

"The whole point about Uruguay is that it lacks the resources of countries such as Venezuela and Guyana."

or countries such as Australia.

There is nothing Australia can learn from Uruguay's experience since the circumstances are utterly different.

But if your aim is to continue down the path of high electricity prices, then perhaps Uruguay is the way to go.

Meanwhile, despite the continued and age old promises from the renewable fetishists, electricity prices in Australia remain high and are going higher. Even perennial optimist (or political liar?) Bowen now seems reluctant to make promises that prices will fall which he knows he'll never be able to keep.

Oh, and the cherry on top. Despite all this hand-waving. Despite moving massive sums of money from the working and middle classes to the investor class that is pushing all this. Despite telling us we have to meet our obligations for the good of the planet/coral/koalas (insert your favourite thing to save/not save). Despite all this, the government now admits we won't meet our 2030 promises on emission reductions and won't come within cooee of meeting the 2035 targets. (The Greens, who we all know would never lie about this </sarc> say we won't come within a "country mile" of meeting the 2035 targets - although I suspect the Greens think a country mile is the distance between the EV charging station and their favourite latte cafe).

So all this pain, all this virtual signalling and we won't even do what we promised. But that's OK because at the moment almost no nation on earth will come within a "country mile" of fulfilling their promises either.

WTF?

It really is of no concern to me if Governments reach their energy targets on specific dates or not. They are moving relentlessly towards renewables all over the world and that is the point.

Even large population and resource rich countries such as Indonesia have set targets and are moving forward with renewables. Probably not a good example to try to devalue the success of low population resource poor Uruguay.

In the example I gave, the Uruguayan Government met their targets and that is what I am referencing. Any success seems a painful truth for some on this forum to accept.

The energy mix all around the world is changing whether the alarmists and denialist like it or not.

WTF?

Fester states: "My concern with wind and solar relate to its high costs, long build time and huge land requirements."

Firstly, the "high cost, long build and huge land requirements" myth has been shredded so many times, even here on OLO, that I am assuming that any different opinions are the result of youtube ranters yelling into the wind.

Secondly Fester opened with talk about coal fired power stations when the Indonesian Government has announced a coal phase-out policy and then he/she/they gets confused when this anomaly is pointed out.

Quite strange.

"It really is of no concern to me if Governments reach their energy targets on specific dates or not. "

Yes its always been like that in the whole moronic climate debate. This or that issue is vitally important until its shown it can't be done and then the alarmists suddenly don't care.

We had to upend the world to save the polar bear until we found out they didn't need saving. Then no one cares.

Ditto coral.

Now that we know the koala doesn't need saving, they'll quickly come to not care.

We were told we had to keep temperatures below 1.5c above 19th century levels or we'd all perish. Then when they found out that wasn't possible, suddenly they didn't care.

We had to get emissions down by 70% by 2050. Now that that can't be achieved they don't care.

_______________________________________________________________________

On Indonesia. Fester's spot on. They are saying one thing, which is of coarse the thing the anxiously gullible like WTF want to hear, and doing another. They say they'll phase out coal and yet are currently building 20 new coal plants, most of which are being done by China to suit Chinese interests. Tell me again how China is committed to reducing emissions!!

Indonesia will do whatever it needs for the good of its people. And that means telling the gullible western leftists what they want to hear, while advancing the Indonesian economy on the back of its vast reserves of fossil fuel.

And when they fail to meet their unachievable targets, we'll be told they don't care.

So, the strategy of the Albo cult seems based on claiming that all shortcomings of wind and solar are mythical.

"the "high cost, long build and huge land requirements" myth has been shredded so many times, even here on OLO, that I am assuming that any different opinions are the result of youtube ranters yelling into the wind."

What is relevant for electricity prices is the system cost, not the generation cost. System cost modelling shows wind and solar to be more expensive than nuclear and coal. Real world experience, such as the 37.5% yearly price increase in Australia, would suggest that wind and solar are more costly than the models suggest.

There is plenty of reputable research showing why wind and solar are a costly and environmentally destructive option, no mythology required.

Indonesia is taking over Australia's mineral processing and providing the power for it with coal. Why can't Australia keep its mineral processing with all that cheap wind and solar power being generated? Why are all the businesses closing if wind and solar are so cheap?

Australians are being conned. Get rid of the grifters.

WTF?

Poor old mhaze just does not get it.

mhaze states: "when they fail to meet their unachievable targets."

Once again - not my targets so I have no interest in specific dates.

As a technophile my interest is the direction that energy production is moving.

The change is inevitable. Governments can make targets but the economics will dictate the timeframe.

Uruguay is an example of how this can happen in a resource poor country and the renewable energy alarmists are in a tizz because it doesn't fit their youtube ranting misinformation sources.

Poor old mhaze - it's called the shotgun approach. Spew out as much as you can and hope something hits.

Climate debate, polar bears, coral, koala bears - what a hodgepodge of ideas in a thread about Uruguay. There is nothing left in the tank.

The "high cost, long build and huge land requirements" myth has been shredded.

mhaze states: "Indonesia will do whatever it needs for the good of its people."

And they are.

Indonesia's power projects from 2025 - 2034 highlight a US$63 Billion investment in base load renewables, a US$ 34 Billion investment in Solar and Wind and just US$ 26 Billion in base load thermal.

Just like China, Indonesia's future is renewable focused during this transition period.

Bad luck mhaze - wrong again.

Uruguay undoubtedly has a good track record, and is the second richest country in South America, after Guyana, and it has a low Gini coefficient as well - 0.39, which is not too different from Australia's at 0.32. Guyana's is 0.47 or thereabouts, partly because its wealth is from recent oil exploitation, so the benefits are not evenly distributed and represent a windfall to some extent.

But the cause of Uruguay's wealth isn't cheap electricity. It uses small amounts of electricity per capita because it has not much manufacturing. Its economy is based around agriculture and services. So power costs are not central to economic well-being.

It should have cheap electricity anyway as it is essentially a hydropower system with biofuels being used to power its wood pulp industry, and mostly wind being additional to its baseload representing the real "renewables". Hydro is the cheapest form of generation, and is a renewable which has been around for a very long time. Unlike coal it doesn't have to be kept running 24/7, so it can load follow the renewables.

So it's a bit like Ontario, a province in Canada which is almost emissions free in its electricity sector, and where electricity prices are reasonable.

But you can't compare this to Australia where hydro is confined mostly to Tassie.

It all sounds very nice but has Uruguay had to allocate future funds
to build 10,000 km of 500Kvolt power lines ?
In their electricity charges have they included the costs of replacing
all their solar & wind generation in 20 to 25 years time ?
Not to worry, pretty certain Bowen has not thought of that !

"Once again - not my targets so I have no interest in specific dates."

Yes, that's what I said. To the we're-all-gunna-die crowd targets matter right up to the point when they become obviously unachievable and then they no longer matter.

"Indonesia's power projects from 2025 - 2034 highlight a US$63 Billion investment in base load renewables...."

Oh, there you go. Targets suddenly matter again.

What gullible souls like WTF fail to realise is that these 'targets' are not at all what these governments plan to achieve. They are soothing words they put out to appease the western elite, while they get on with the job of utilising their fossil fuel resources.

"Indonesia's power projects from 2025 - 2034 highlight a US$63 Billion investment in base load renewables"

In this instance base load refers to hydro, geothermal, biomass and nuclear.

https://www.ashurst.com/en/insights/indonesias-new-power-development-plan/

Wind and solar are intermittent, but hey, let's not spoil a bs story with factual information. Incidentally, the plan involves building about three times as much coal and gas generation as wind and solar.

How is it WTF, that with all the failed claims and promises, as well as many downright lies (I have a vague memory of all the wind and solar farms being built out in the desert (non-arable/low environmental impact) and the power transferred by hvdc.),you still appear to take every claim and prediction of the wind and solar grifters as gospel?

Ditch the grifters.

WTF?

mhaze: It's governments that set targets not me. You introduced: "Indonesia will do whatever it needs for the good of its people."
I'm just pointing out Indonesia's plan to do "whatever it needs".

I think that Fester has been reading too many of mhaze's posts.

We are all very familiar with how it goes with mhaze.

After realising that he cannot contort the discussion away from the fact that Uruguay's total cost of electricity production decreased by roughly half compared to fossil-fuel alternatives, he uses his one last trick.

It's always good sport when mhaze makes a statement, contribute it to someone else and then argues against it and expects a response.

It now seems that Fester wants to add that to his playbook.

When this happens we know nothing is left for the renewable alarmists' except the usual deflections.

WTF,

Nowhere have I disputed what Uruguay did, as much as you'd like to pretend otherwise.

What I did do, however, is point out that what they did has no lessons or examples for Australia to follow and indeed precious few lessons for the rest of the world to follow.

And that point is what you've been trying very hard to not notice.

This childish notion of yours that you can cherry-pick a few facts that suit your ideology and expect us all to swoon and agree that the whole world should become Uruguay just doesn't fly.

WTF?

mhaze in your first post on this thread you state: "Tell me again how cheap renewables are!.

They are cheap enough to allow Uruguay to have a "total cost of electricity production decreased by roughly half compared to fossil-fuel alternatives."

An interesting aside is that Indonesia's renewable base load future investments (US$63 Billion investment in base load renewables) is not dissimilar to Uruguay's current base load renewables. So someone is paying attention.

I thought I would check out the claim that electricity prices halved because of the introduction of renewables. Turns out that's not true either. It's another spin of the LCOE versus all-up costs shell game. So renewables are cheaper at the point where they leave the generator, but the energy ecosystem they exist in increases that cost substantially. Turns out that the cost of residential electricity in Uruguay is pretty close to what we pay in Australia. And more expensive than what they paid in the past. Currently it is USD 0.27 per KWh, in 2008 it was USD0.177. They had a bad year in 2010 when it peaked at USD 0.34, but that's not representative.

For interest, the fossil fuel they were using was diesel, and the market for oil fluctuates wildly. They also needed to import electricity from neighbouring countries when drought limited hydropower.

Uruguay is an upper-middle income country, but if they want to join the high income countries, as they aspire to, then much more electricity will be consumed - they consume about 33% of what we do in Australia. They have no sites left for more hydro and the best wind sites have been exploited, which leaves only solar, which is reliably absent for around 50% of the day, so they are building new fossil-fuel plants to deal with the issues: http://www.caf.com/en/currently/news/new-caf-co-funded-thermal-power-plant-in-uruguay/

This is why you should never take Greens' claims at face value - the details rarely check out.

Oh come on Graham!

In 2008, consumer electricity costs in Uruguay rose significantly due to a severe drought impacting hydropower and record-high oil prices, forcing the country to import fuel to meet demand.

Uruguay's energy transition under Galain had just started. Electricity demand has gone up substantially since then.

Somehow I don't think Uruguay is going to give up it's highest per capita income status in Latin America to regress back to wasting money on importing vast amounts of fossil fuels.

Who is this Green that you mention?

""Tell me again how cheap renewables are!."

When I made that comment I was referring to the 37% increase in electricity prices in Australia in the past twelve months. Not about Uruguay.

And in that same post I pointed out that ""Uruguay has some of the highest electricity prices in South America, largely due to its heavy reliance on renewable sources (98% of generation from renewables like hydro, wind, and solar in 2025), which involves significant infrastructure investments. Among South American countries, only Chile is more expensive."

So you made one point but managed to make two errors. Well done.

You're the Green, and you've just confirmed you were cherry picking - you knew the halving prices claim was bogus, but you pushed it anyway.

It was the actual lack of renewables that forced them to rely on oil at a time of the highest oil price ever, in real terms. http://inflationdata.com/articles/inflation-adjusted-prices/historical-crude-oil-prices-table/.

The increase in electricity prices didn't occur in 2008 for the consumer because they took their electricity on long term contracts, and that price was reflective of the normal state of affairs, and the state absorbed the increase. The state then recovered the costs over subsequent years at prices above their cost.

Even pretending none of that matters the prices still haven't halved: http://www.ceicdata.com/en/uruguay/environmental-environmental-policy-taxes-and-transfers-non-oecd-member-annual/uy-residential-electricity-price-usd-per-kwh

Oil prices are currently at historical averages, and the dams are apparently OK, so Uruguayans would be back to their cheap power atm without renewables. No wonder they are building more thermal power stations.

WTF?

Graham says: "You're the Green" - not long after talking about posters and misinformation.

The evidence offered for such a claim - "you've just confirmed you were cherry picking'.

So wrong on so many points - quoting an article from Forbes Magazine is hardly cherry picking. If you believe that the former energy minister has deliberately mislead the Forbes reporter then say so.

If you believe that the Forbes reporter has deliberately mislead the reading public then you should say so.

Labels thrown at other poster with scant evidence is just another form of misinformation.

What next - play the woke card?

Further more you acknowledge that "So renewables are cheaper at the point where they leave the generator..."

But then go on to say "..the energy ecosystem they exist in increases that cost substantially... and ..."the energy ecosystem they exist in increases that cost substantially."

When we look at the source you provide the Residential Electricity Price falls from US$0.34 in 2010 (around the time transition started) to US$0.22 on your sources latest update.

So the halving of costs of production coupled with a decrease in residential price (the Industry price has fallen as well) seems to be too ideological damaging to accept.

I repeated myself there.

I meant to say: But then go on to say "..the energy ecosystem they exist in increases that cost substantially... and ..more expensive than what they paid in the past.

Both of these claims are countered by the very source you provided.

WTF?

mhaze is still trying to claw back some credibility.

You wanted to know about cheap renewables - I told you about them.

Where do I start - if Uruguay has almost all of its energy needs met by renewable energy then the cost of electricity can only be "due to its heavy reliance on renewable sources" - did you just realise that?

What lesson can Australia learn (even though it was not the subject of the thread)?
Uruguay has halved the cost of electrical production while at the same time producing a decrease in residential price (the Industry price has fallen as well).

Still no errors.

WTF I think you are just thrashing around trying to win an argument by any means.

So you are not a Green? Well tell us what policies you disagree with the Greens on and I may stop classifying you as one.

Am I saying the Forbes reporter has deliberately misled the public? I don't know whether it is deliberate, but it is misleading. The energy minister most probably was doing it deliberately.

My claim was that power in 2008 was USD 0.17 per KWh and only doubled in price because it was based on unreliable renewable energy in the form of hydropower which failed, requiring rationing, and the importation of oil at a time when oil was at absolute record highs. Then I showed that even using the most favourable cherry pick to you of 2010, prices have not halved, they are only down by around one-third to 2021 from 0.34 to 0.22. I could have shown you figures for 2025 where they are now USD 0.26 per KWh, which is a 25% only decline from the peak, and an 18% increase from the bottom.

And as mhaze points out Uruguay are just about the most expensive place for electricity in South America. http://www.globalpetrolprices.com/electricity_prices/ and as these other economies are not renewable energy economies your argument that renewables are cheaper fails.

I'm not accusing you of acting in bad faith, just as being overly ideological and posting stories which disintegrate under just a small amount of research and analysis.

Graham,

You would have to tell me what the Greens' policies are before I could comment. I usually look up party policies before elections but I cannot recall any specifics (although I have a rough idea). As they yield little to no power I usually wouldn't bother until the next election cycle.
I know that many commentators on here see the world as a dichotomy - "if you disagree with me on one issue then you are the polar opposite of me" types. I don't and had hoped that as our host your world view was more nuanced.

In the last 23 years electricity consumption per capita has gone up 88% - not a bad proxy for economic growth.

Graham you tried to debunk the "almost halving of electrical production costs" by pointing to a source that referenced residential prices.

Was this a genuine error or a misdirection?

Your source clearly shows a drop in residential prices over time.

The Residential Electricity Price falls from US$0.34 in 2010 (around the time transition started) to US$0.22 on your sources latest update.

You state: "They had a bad year in 2010 when it peaked at USD 0.34, but that's not representative." What is representative is the falling trend after 2010 as transition uptake kicks in.

This is the world trend that I see - households are taking up solar rooftop and battery systems. Small resources poor countries are decoupling from expensive fossil fuel imports. Isolated mining companies are moving to renewable power as much as possible.

Small changes matter.

Even Indonesia's future planned renewable baseload electricity production looks vey similar to Uruguay's current production.

So, if we wade through all WTF’s walk-backs, reversals, obfuscations and linguistic triple somersaults with pike, what are we left with?
A minor South American nation, resource poor except for flowing water, decided to solve some of its power problems by adopting the least bad solution i.e. adding a bit of solar and wind power to its hydro power…. at an enormous cost.

End result? Said minor South American nation managed to produce a derisory amount of electricity (they produce barely more than 1% of South America’s total electricity output!!) at an enormous cost to the nation and the citizenry.

And all this is presented as…well who knows? Certainly not WTF. Apparently its specifically not meant to be an exemplar for other nations like Australia. So, all we see is that, if you are resource poor nation that wants to spend enormous sums to produce a minor amount of power, Uruguay is your go to model. But they did it while using imported renewable infrastructure and that magic word, “renewable”, is all that matters in some circles

WTF?

Now this is just straight projection from mhaze.

Over a few years now, many commentators have pointed out to mhaze that most of his discussion points end up as "walk-backs, reversals, obfuscations and linguistic triple somersaults".

There are no second prizes, mhaze, for trying to project your discussion faults onto me.

I've had to bring back the conversation many times to the original topic.

It's mhaze who introduced koala bears and coral into a discussion about Uruguay's energy production.

Unfortunately, we have to go right back to the first post on this discussion to help mhaze with his comprehension.

I stated: "It will be interesting to see what other countries scale up this type of model." No mention of Australia or Indonesia or other non-Latin American countries that others wanted to add to the mix.

All mhaze needed to say was something like "I don't think one of those countries will be (note future tense, mhaze) Australia".

Plenty of other threads have discussed Australia's possible future energy needs. Ironically they tend to end with people pointing out mhaze's "walk-backs, reversals, obfuscations and linguistic triple somersaults".

Maybe it is Uruguay's success at halving electricity production costs and deceasing both residential and industrial electricity costs while maintaining a relatively high annual growth rate that has mhaze in such a flap.

Then we have Fester and his/her/their "what about"-ism moment by introducing Indonesia (high population/resource rich country) to the discussion. Seeing this as some type of off topic "got ya" moment, mhaze pushes all his chips into the middle of the stack.

It was a blunder of course because Indonesia's renewable base load future investments (a US$63 Billion investment in base load renewables) is not dissimilar to Uruguay's current base load renewables.

Stay on topic, mhaze, talking about polar bears when the discussion is about the energy success of a small, resource poor country is just sad.

"Stay on topic, mhaze, talking about polar bears when the discussion is about the energy success of a small, resource poor country is just sad."

Well I talked about polar bears after YOU'D started talking about how targets don't matter.

You get to set the original parameters of the thread but not how the thread plays out. I get that you want to restrict the discussion to a few minor points that you think supports your ideology, but the rest of us don't need to play along.

Most of the discussion was about trying to work out whatever possible significance you saw in Uruguay's energy system (which I shouldn't need to point out yet again produces a derisory amount of power).

And the conclusion we came to was that what Uruguay has done has no significance to us or any other nation for that matter. But they use renewables and that made you swoon and that's all you wanted to talk about and tried to force everyone else to talk about. But most of us don't swoon over renewables. Sorry but its true and I suspect over the next decade you'll come to learn that. (See my other thread).

WTF

Now you are being dishonest. Indonesia builds 20 coal fired power stations and you claim that Indonesia is becoming like Uruguay. As I commented:

"Indonesia is taking over Australia's mineral processing and providing the power for it with coal. Why can't Australia keep its mineral processing with all that cheap wind and solar power being generated? Why are all the businesses closing if wind and solar are so cheap?"

However cheap the intermittent power coming from wind mills and solar panels might be, the added cost of making that power dispatchable make wind and solar far more expensive than coal, nuclear, and even diesel generators.

Remove the ban and ditch the grifters.

Wrong again mhaze,

I said that targets do not matter to me but they certainly matter to you.

My first post includes the quote: ""We didn’t start with climate targets. We started with the problem of cost and reliability. The environment was a positive side effect, not the reason".

I don't know how clearer that message could be.

Your attempt to deflect away from the topic by bleating on about targets is a complete nonsense - as per usual.

I understand that success in the renewable energy sphere causes you a degree of psychological and ideological pain.

We often see that when people's belief system is challenged by factual information.

"I said that targets do not matter to me but they certainly matter to you."

I'm sure you think that's relevant. You'd be wrong.

I get that you don't want to talk about targets now that its plain they can't be met. But that rather was my point. Which of course went over your head.

"I understand that success in the renewable energy sphere...."

Energy costs skyrocketing. Coal stations being kept open beyond their slated closure date. Emission targets being missed and the ignored. If you consider that success, I'd hate to see what your idea of failure looks like.

Anyway, as I said elsewhere, renewables have had their day and the world is starting to move on. I assume you'll eventually catch on.