The present proponents for 'renewables' are in panic mode since they realised that Silver & Gold are a much safer investment proposition than environment-destroying wind farms & solar farms.
They're desperately trying to stall the failure they conned people into investing in.
It could be this year that the fallacy collapses but by then the cons will be off the island in some untouchable tax haven.
Even the once supposedly savvy Germans are openly lamenting the haste in which they pulled down nuclear stations. They're really no smarter than a pack of Australian Greens !

https://www.facebook.com/reel/2108719873312659
That's what it seems to be all about !

Indyvidual,

That video relies heavily and Appeal to Authority fallacy, with large, unsourced numbers. She gets a lot of basic facts wrong.

For starters, the claim that wind turbines receive $600k-$900k per turbine per year in subsidies is simply false. Australia's Renewable Energy Target paid per megawatt-hour generated via certificates, not per turbine. Certificate prices varied, were capped, and declined as the scheme wound down. Converting that into a flat annual per-turbine payout requires cherry-picking peak prices, assuming unrealistically high output, and ignoring capital and operating costs.

No serious market analysis does this.

Her assertion that renewables are "reaming $40 billion a year" from the economy is even more detached from reality. Australia's entire electricity market doesn't support numbers of that scale annually. The historical cost of the RET was orders of magnitude lower.

Her technical claims are worse. Wind turbines do not draw coal-fired power to spin. They use small amounts of electricity for control systems, but when they're turning, that is wind energy being converted into electricity. The idea that wind farms are secretly powered by coal is a long-debunked myth.

The portrayal of coal plants being unable to ramp and simply "dumping steam" whenever wind output changes is outdated. That’s not how grids are run anymore. Operators forecast wind output in advance and manage it with gas, hydro, batteries, and other tools that are already part of normal system operation.

SA is repeatedly blamed for blackouts, but the major SA blackout in 2016 was caused by extreme storms and transmission failures, not wind farms. This has been established by AEMO and independent inquiries. Since then, SA has operated securely with very high renewable penetration.

Her claim that farmers carry turbine liability are also wrong. Turbines are owned, insured, and maintained by operators, not landholders.

Being a former policy adviser doesn't make someone an energy engineer or market analyst. This video contains mere political talking points, not technical or economic reality. If these claims were true, Australia's grid would already have failed. It hasn't - and that should be the first red flag.

The woman's a shonk.

I am surprised that no one has taken into account the cost of transmission
lines from the remote areas where the generation is being built.
I have seen estimates of one to two $Trillion dollars.
This is a cost solely applied to wind & solar.
They will have legal and community costs all the way.
I find it hard to believe that underground cables would be too
expensive considering underwater costs are not too expensive.

Bezza,

Transmission costs aren't being ignored, but the $1-2 trillion figure is incorrect. It's an order of magnitude higher than Australia's entire existing grid asset base.

Transmission also isn't a cost "solely applied to wind and solar". Coal plants were built near coal seams, not cities, and required major transmission too - those costs are just sunk and forgotten. Replacing ageing generation and connecting new load would require grid investment under any pathway.

AEMO's Integrated System Plan explicitly models transmission build-out, staging and cost-benefit trade-offs. The numbers are in the tens of billions over decades, not trillions, and are weighed against avoided fuel costs, coal failures and reliability risks.

Undergrounding sounds attractive, but high-voltage underground cables are far more expensive than overhead lines and are used selectively where necessary. Subsea cables are the same story.

Transmission is a real cost, it's just not the existential show-stopper it's often portrayed as.

The woman's a shonk.
John Daysh,
Of course the Govt funding chasers would say that !