Experience overseas suggests that, apart from hydro power, renewables are unreliable, uneconomical and very unfriendly to the environment they are claimed to protect. Evidence from places investing heavily in renewables such as Denmark, Germany and California demonstrates they are intermittent power generators needing back-up from conventional energy sources

South Australia found this out the hard way earlier this year, when heatwaves caused widespread blackouts there (and in neighbouring Victoria). That giant back-up battery Elon Musk sold the former Labor government at undisclosed and, presumably, enormous cost, failed after a few hours and they had to fire up expensive diesel generators to keep the lights on.

According to a recent report by the Heartland Institute, it is estimated that up to 328,000 birds are killed each year in the US by wind turbines.”

studies report the same problems.

When even Bob Brown turns against wind turbines you know the technology’s moment has all but passed. And the Greens patron saint is not the only one to lose the faith. Time magazine “environmental hero” Michael Shellenberger says he was once a firm believer in wind and solar, but the Californian experience changed his mind.

Every major study, including a recent one by the British medical journal Lancet, finds the same thing: nuclear is the safest way to make reliable electricity.”

Australian steel producer BlueScope will invest $1 billion in an Ohio-based American steel plant, citing the United States’ energy-friendly policies which have driven power bills down to a third of what Australians pay as a decisive factor. The United States has reinvigorated its manufacturing sector thanks to its shale gas revolution and the cutting of red tape to lower electricity bills.

The Australian government lacks the guts to do the same, preferring to waste taxpayers money on unreliable, expensive wind and sun power

A further note on you beaut, unreliable and expensive energy: Australia’s net emissions are DOWN 12 per cent since 1990 while NZ’s are UP a whopping 65 per cent over the same period - despite their natural energy advantage, hydro electricity.

ttbn,
I think your memory's tricks on you. Heatwaves didn't cause widespread blackouts in SA this year, and those that occurred were the result of distribution problems (transformer failures) rather than inadequate supply. The big battery (the cost of which is no mystery, and small compared to the benefits it provided) didn't fail. Expensive diesel generators were used in SA, but that was mainly to alleviate a shortfall in Victoria after one of their coal fired power stations.

The Heartland Institute is an unreliable source. They set out to discredit wind turbines because those threaten the profitability of Koch Industries. And note the weasel words "up to"?

Early wind turbines had exposed trusses, which looked birds like good nesting sites. Now tubular structures are used instead, bird strike is a lot less common. Some does still occur, so Bob Brown's comments were not baseless, but birds usually know to avoid wind turbines. Bats are more susceptible, so there are some locations unsuitable for wind turbines. But to claim the technology's had its day is rather silly, as it used to be quite an expensive option but is now cheaper than new coal even when the cost of firming's included.

But of course many people are far too pig headed to accept that wind or solar could ever be cheaper than fossil fuels...

"Cutting of red tape to lower power bills" wouldn'tt be effective here. Unless the USA, we have no export restrictions here, so more fracking wouldn't lower the domestic gas price except by the minuscule amount that it would lower the international gas price. And don't forget: the regulations are there fro a good reason: there were a lot of shoddy firms involved in the gas rush in Australia, resulting in water pollution and gas leaks. Until that problem is completely solved, a moratorium in environmentally sensitive areas is the best policy.

I'm not arguing against the safety of nuclear power; merely that it's expensive. Nor do I know the reason for NZ's increase in emissions, though I expect starting from a very low base plays a big part.

"Cutting of red tape to lower power bills" wouldn't be effective here.
Aidan,
I'd say it'd be effective, it's the unwillingness of the hordes of bureaucrats to curb it as would deny them to continue on the Gravy train.
Just about every backward step is down to Bureaucracy & the selfishness of those who don't contribute ! A perfect example is the objection to a National Service scheme. It's all take but no give !

individual,
Regardless of what you say, cutting red tape won't prevent companies charging as much as they can get away with, nor will doing so reduce the amount they can get away with charging.

People contribute by paying taxes. Imposing a National Service scheme on top of that would just cause resentment. and there's no good reason for such a large confiscation of people's liberty.