Renewables aren’t just about “green” credentials—they offer real, practical benefits. For example, by decentralising power generation and incorporating inverter-based technologies, renewables can actually improve grid stability and flexibility. This means fewer outages and a more resilient energy system, as confirmed by studies from the International Energy Agency (IEA) https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2022
Moreover, the cost reductions in renewable technologies have been dramatic over the past decade. Falling prices for wind and solar have translated into lower electricity costs for consumers in many regions. The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) documents how renewables are increasingly the most cost-effective option for new power generation: https://www.irena.org/publications/2021/Jun/Renewable-Power-Costs-in-2020
Other benefits include reduced greenhouse gas emissions, improved public health, and local job creation—all of which contribute to a more sustainable and economically sound energy future. Let’s focus on real solutions rather than clinging to outdated narratives.
I am very sorry if you won’t face facts, and both your comments just show you won’t do that any time soon
Like many non-scientific people you get confused with artistic ideology versus hard reality
I did include some sources from experts that tell the facts and as said if you won’t accept them it’s your problem
Just about every jurisdiction that has adopted a so called green technology is suffering with low reliability and high costs
Other than off grid remote applications that can tolerate low reliability the grid is no place for it or be part of a modern society
Battery technology would have to break the laws of physics by an order of magnitude to even stand a chance to make this green technology work ant that won’t happen any time soon…. So its ok if you want to come back when it does..
There has been a lot of propaganda out there to work on suckers…. but many are wising up…. let’s hope you do as well
Here is another presentation and you won’t like it!
Europe's going bust over Net-Zero (and the rest of the world doesn't care) | Paul Marshall
Your response is spot on, but I'm afraid you should be questioning yourself as well, checking if you're actually facing the real & hard facts. I personally already do that frequently enough, ensuring I'm not blindly following an ideology, but contrasting my opinions and adapting them when I realise they aren't correct anymore. I invite to do that as well.
I appreciate your passion, but I must point out that simply citing “experts” isn’t enough if their claims aren’t backed by data or real facts. Expert opinions—while useful—can be influenced by personal bias or selective presentation. Also, anyone can be self-proclaimed expert about anything these days. What matters is hard evidence from verified, peer-reviewed sources.
Consider Spain as a real-world example. Spain now generates a significant portion of its electricity from renewables and is widely recognised for having some of the lowest energy prices in the EU. This press release from Spanish's grid operator explains that the increase of renewables in the electricity mix is cutting down prices, not the contrary https://www.ree.es/sites/default/files/2025-01/EN_1912_NP%20Cierre%202024_0.pdf. This demonstrates that a high renewable share can coexist with competitive pricing and a reliable supply, countering the notion that renewables inherently lead to instability or prohibitive costs you are spreading.
As of yesterday for instance, 68% of Spanish electricity has been generated by renewables, there is no blackouts, and prices has never been lower than now. Take a look, again real facts, not some random (yet charismatic) dude speaking in front of a brainwashed crowd:
Regarding battery technology, saying it must “break the laws of physics” is just a nonsense. Advances in battery technologies (lithium-ion, sodium-ion, solid-state batteries, and grid-scale storage) and recycling are delivering substantial improvements in performance and cost efficiency. Recent reports have highlighted significant cost reductions—incremental progress that is making a real impact on energy storage solutions. I invite you to take a read from page 142 of this extensive report (and feel free to look at the other parts of that great outlook of the industry): https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2024/Sep/IRENA_Renewable_power_generation_costs_in_2023.pdf
Moreover, while fossil fuels may offer short-term reliability, many non-US nations face energy security challenges due to their reliance on imported petrol and gas—a situation which lots of people had to find out the hard way by the price shocks following the Russian invasion. In contrast, renewables not only contribute to energy independence but also help reduce environmental and economic vulnerabilities.
I encourage us both to ground our arguments in robust data rather than rhetoric. I'm sure we do share opinions in common, like the role nuclear should play in our energy systems. However, real progress is driven by measurable advancements and economic realities—not by appealing to ideology as you rightly pointed.
I have been looking for a country with a high penetration of renewables and low electricity prices, and had yet to find one. I see Spain is doing pretty well with low electricity prices for Europe, but they do have a significant portion of Hydro in their renewable category. So without the Hydro, wind and solar only provide 30 to 40% depending on the time of year.
So yeah, Spain appears to be doing pretty well in that area, but they are not the norm. Typically high penetration of renewables also carries with it high electricity, prices, and the greens like to blame it on natural gas, but that doesn’t seem to be a valid reason as all the countries in Europe are paying basically the same for natural gas, but only the ones with a high percentage of renewables have the highest prices, such as Germany, Denmark, in the UK.
Everywhere wind and solar penetration have increased significantly, prices on the grid went up and stability of the grid went down.
It is very hard to integrate an intermittent power supply with a power system that requires demand match supply exactly every second of every day. Since renewables can basically go to zero output for several days or weeks. The grid still must have a 100% backup of dispatchable power to keep the lights on. So you’re basically paying for two different grids, one renewable and one not. That’s why the prices are higher. You’ve got to pay for more infrastructure and more transmission lines.
Just look at Germany, daunkelflaute is a real problem there.
As David MacKay, the British physicist, mathematician, and academic famously said, “I like renewables, but I’m pro-arithmetic.”
The math doesn’t add up for renewables to make a significant impact on de-carbonizing the grid.
The only plausible way is to build lots of nuclear plants.
I say the path to mostly renewables is the road to nowhere.
Can you please stick with comparative data and stop trying to fool yourself with the green rhetoric.
Please review this Lomberg video at least from 6 mins in..
Its clear that without distortion of subsidies that the unreliable and parasitic option of renewables have a long way to go…
I also see no viable way we should be buying green products from China at great risk to western economic autonomy and security that is made using coal.. such a hoot 😊
Plus… the scale up of these technologies is already hitting the supply chain wall for the increasing rare minerals they use.
I also don’t know whey we are wasting our time on anything other than Nuclear as its hands down the best option. And if not that yet…. then natural gas that can displace coal.. Of course hydro if you can get it.. but all of them only when its economically practical.
When is the western world (other than the US and soon Canada) going to stop shooting itself in the foot….
An Inconvenient Truth: Our climate policies cant save the environment. So what will? | Bjorn Lomborg
BTW, do you know the main reason driving Spain's, and the EU's electricity prices up? The high prices of Natural gas... again, fossil fuel causing this high prices, not renewables! So please, stop using that argument, this graph is designed to drive wrong conclusions.
Let’s break a few things down with comparative data, as you suggested:
1. Subsidies:
I'm glad you mention them because it's also something I think that should stop for Fossil Fuels. I invite you to look at this report from the International Monetary Fund: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2023/08/22/IMF-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Data-2023-Update-537281 whey they state: "Globally, estimated fossil fuel subsidies were $7 trillion in 2022 or 7.1 percent of GDP" I ensure you that this dwarfs all subsidies received by renewables. It would be great to see which is more economically viable if they ever stop being funded with tax payers' money...
2. China
You raise a valid concern about supply chains and dependence on China, but dismissing renewables for that reason alone overlooks the fact that diversification is happening. Europe and the U.S. are investing heavily in domestic manufacturing of solar panels, batteries, and rare earth alternatives. It’s a work in progress, but so is every energy transition. Also, I find it so ironic that people like you who complain that China owns most of the supply chain, you didn't want to get this technology developed in the first place. Now it's here and viable, you argue that you're not the one who developed it, and that they have an unfair advantage... you just have a lack of vision, and biased interests, that's what you have!
3. Resource Constraints and Rare Minerals
Yes, supply chain challenges exist, but innovation is addressing this too—think recycling, alternative materials, and more efficient designs. For example, sodium-ion batteries are emerging as a promising alternative to lithium-ion, bypassing rare earth dependency altogether. And it is already available in some commercial EVs at scale, you guessed it already, in China! If you're so worried about it, why not diverting some of the subsidies given to fossil fuels to ensure we develop those alternative here, and try being competitive while securing durable supply of our critical materials?
4. Nuclear Power
I actually agree with you here, nuclear can and should play a crucial role. However, it’s not a silver bullet. New nuclear plants take 10–15 years to build, face massive cost overruns, and require public support. In the meantime, wind, solar, and storage are providing immediate carbon-free capacity at scale.
Finally, calling Spain “foolish” while ignoring its competitive energy prices and high renewable integration feels dismissive rather than data-driven. Let’s focus on facts rather than name-calling if we want to have a productive discussion.
The subsidies models have been ran and its mainly in W&S favor.
It does not change the picture I have presented where we have an operating cost differential of almost 3 times between nations that are moving up the W&S usage curve.
It’s a bad choice for any modern economy that needs low cost energy 24/7
The overall technology is just not ready for prime time without significant battery readiness that does not exist now.
It also consumes too many resources and real estate and has a short life cycle compared with other solutions.
The main issue is that reliability kills its power grid capability and its parasitic.
We don’t need this technology for many decades by then we can decide if we want to make or import.
As you say its useful for off grid where reliability is not an issue.
I would rather use the minerals supply chain for much more important electronic applications and not for W&S and EVs and also avoid the huge mining environmental issues due to the massive scaleup even if it were possible.
If we focused on the real solution of Nuclear and put as much wealth into what we have wasted on W&S its lead times and costs would drop considerably. Also the supply chain for nuclear is all in our backyard... no need for China. Or unattainable supply chain scale up.
Look we should halt all efforts on climate mitigation and focus on adaption and halt all of the renewables insanity. I stand by my statement “you are a fool if you make your energy supply more unreliable and more expensive”.
Spreading poorly argued pieces like this does more harm than good. It oversimplifies complex energy challenges, ignores technological progress, and fuels misinformation. Yes, renewables and EVs face real hurdles, but dismissing them as “fantasies” ignores decades of advancements in grid storage, supply chains, and clean energy integration. And it's also putting your beloved president and his new Tesla in a strange situation isn't it?
Claiming wind and solar are “wasteful parasitic technologies” is not just misleading – it’s dangerous. This kind of rhetoric risks derailing serious discussions about the energy transition, which need to balance pragmatism with innovation, not cling to outdated paradigms. History shows that energy systems evolve – from coal to gas, from steam to electricity – and renewables are part of the next evolution.
Instead of flogging tired myths, we should focus on real solutions: improving grid flexibility, scaling battery technology, and ensuring sustainable supply chains. Critique is healthy, but spreading unfounded doomism only slows the progress we urgently need.
I am very sorry if you won’t face facts, and both your comments just show you won’t do that any time soon
Like many non-scientific people you get confused with artistic ideology versus hard reality
I did include some sources from experts that tell the facts and as said if you won’t accept them it’s your problem
Just about every jurisdiction that has adopted a so called green technology is suffering with low reliability and high costs
Other than off grid remote applications that can tolerate low reliability the grid is no place for it or be part of a modern society
Battery technology would have to break the laws of physics by an order of magnitude to even stand a chance to make this green technology work ant that won’t happen any time soon…. So its ok if you want to come back when it does..
There has been a lot of propaganda out there to work on suckers…. but many are wising up…. let’s hope you do as well
Here is another presentation and you won’t like it!
Europe's going bust over Net-Zero (and the rest of the world doesn't care) | Paul Marshall
Renewables aren’t just about “green” credentials—they offer real, practical benefits. For example, by decentralising power generation and incorporating inverter-based technologies, renewables can actually improve grid stability and flexibility. This means fewer outages and a more resilient energy system, as confirmed by studies from the International Energy Agency (IEA) https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2022
Moreover, the cost reductions in renewable technologies have been dramatic over the past decade. Falling prices for wind and solar have translated into lower electricity costs for consumers in many regions. The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) documents how renewables are increasingly the most cost-effective option for new power generation: https://www.irena.org/publications/2021/Jun/Renewable-Power-Costs-in-2020
Other benefits include reduced greenhouse gas emissions, improved public health, and local job creation—all of which contribute to a more sustainable and economically sound energy future. Let’s focus on real solutions rather than clinging to outdated narratives.
I am very sorry if you won’t face facts, and both your comments just show you won’t do that any time soon
Like many non-scientific people you get confused with artistic ideology versus hard reality
I did include some sources from experts that tell the facts and as said if you won’t accept them it’s your problem
Just about every jurisdiction that has adopted a so called green technology is suffering with low reliability and high costs
Other than off grid remote applications that can tolerate low reliability the grid is no place for it or be part of a modern society
Battery technology would have to break the laws of physics by an order of magnitude to even stand a chance to make this green technology work ant that won’t happen any time soon…. So its ok if you want to come back when it does..
There has been a lot of propaganda out there to work on suckers…. but many are wising up…. let’s hope you do as well
Here is another presentation and you won’t like it!
Europe's going bust over Net-Zero (and the rest of the world doesn't care) | Paul Marshall
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7j7jU3cwDQw
Your response is spot on, but I'm afraid you should be questioning yourself as well, checking if you're actually facing the real & hard facts. I personally already do that frequently enough, ensuring I'm not blindly following an ideology, but contrasting my opinions and adapting them when I realise they aren't correct anymore. I invite to do that as well.
I appreciate your passion, but I must point out that simply citing “experts” isn’t enough if their claims aren’t backed by data or real facts. Expert opinions—while useful—can be influenced by personal bias or selective presentation. Also, anyone can be self-proclaimed expert about anything these days. What matters is hard evidence from verified, peer-reviewed sources.
Consider Spain as a real-world example. Spain now generates a significant portion of its electricity from renewables and is widely recognised for having some of the lowest energy prices in the EU. This press release from Spanish's grid operator explains that the increase of renewables in the electricity mix is cutting down prices, not the contrary https://www.ree.es/sites/default/files/2025-01/EN_1912_NP%20Cierre%202024_0.pdf. This demonstrates that a high renewable share can coexist with competitive pricing and a reliable supply, countering the notion that renewables inherently lead to instability or prohibitive costs you are spreading.
As of yesterday for instance, 68% of Spanish electricity has been generated by renewables, there is no blackouts, and prices has never been lower than now. Take a look, again real facts, not some random (yet charismatic) dude speaking in front of a brainwashed crowd:
https://www.ree.es/en/balance-diario/nacional/2025/03/24
Regarding battery technology, saying it must “break the laws of physics” is just a nonsense. Advances in battery technologies (lithium-ion, sodium-ion, solid-state batteries, and grid-scale storage) and recycling are delivering substantial improvements in performance and cost efficiency. Recent reports have highlighted significant cost reductions—incremental progress that is making a real impact on energy storage solutions. I invite you to take a read from page 142 of this extensive report (and feel free to look at the other parts of that great outlook of the industry): https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2024/Sep/IRENA_Renewable_power_generation_costs_in_2023.pdf
Moreover, while fossil fuels may offer short-term reliability, many non-US nations face energy security challenges due to their reliance on imported petrol and gas—a situation which lots of people had to find out the hard way by the price shocks following the Russian invasion. In contrast, renewables not only contribute to energy independence but also help reduce environmental and economic vulnerabilities.
I encourage us both to ground our arguments in robust data rather than rhetoric. I'm sure we do share opinions in common, like the role nuclear should play in our energy systems. However, real progress is driven by measurable advancements and economic realities—not by appealing to ideology as you rightly pointed.
A great explainer of energy prices & ways to reach low carbon intensity in the EU, which made me think about our little thead here:
https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=dUvKzs82Mi0&si=8KrsJGB_oZRDpbA6
I have been looking for a country with a high penetration of renewables and low electricity prices, and had yet to find one. I see Spain is doing pretty well with low electricity prices for Europe, but they do have a significant portion of Hydro in their renewable category. So without the Hydro, wind and solar only provide 30 to 40% depending on the time of year.
So yeah, Spain appears to be doing pretty well in that area, but they are not the norm. Typically high penetration of renewables also carries with it high electricity, prices, and the greens like to blame it on natural gas, but that doesn’t seem to be a valid reason as all the countries in Europe are paying basically the same for natural gas, but only the ones with a high percentage of renewables have the highest prices, such as Germany, Denmark, in the UK.
Everywhere wind and solar penetration have increased significantly, prices on the grid went up and stability of the grid went down.
It is very hard to integrate an intermittent power supply with a power system that requires demand match supply exactly every second of every day. Since renewables can basically go to zero output for several days or weeks. The grid still must have a 100% backup of dispatchable power to keep the lights on. So you’re basically paying for two different grids, one renewable and one not. That’s why the prices are higher. You’ve got to pay for more infrastructure and more transmission lines.
Just look at Germany, daunkelflaute is a real problem there.
As David MacKay, the British physicist, mathematician, and academic famously said, “I like renewables, but I’m pro-arithmetic.”
The math doesn’t add up for renewables to make a significant impact on de-carbonizing the grid.
The only plausible way is to build lots of nuclear plants.
I say the path to mostly renewables is the road to nowhere.
http://www.infoshare.org/main/People's_Summary_of_Roadmap_to_Nowhere_-_The_Myth_of_Powering_the_Nation_with_Renewable_Energy.pdf
Right on
Theo
Can you please stick with comparative data and stop trying to fool yourself with the green rhetoric.
Please review this Lomberg video at least from 6 mins in..
Its clear that without distortion of subsidies that the unreliable and parasitic option of renewables have a long way to go…
I also see no viable way we should be buying green products from China at great risk to western economic autonomy and security that is made using coal.. such a hoot 😊
Plus… the scale up of these technologies is already hitting the supply chain wall for the increasing rare minerals they use.
I also don’t know whey we are wasting our time on anything other than Nuclear as its hands down the best option. And if not that yet…. then natural gas that can displace coal.. Of course hydro if you can get it.. but all of them only when its economically practical.
When is the western world (other than the US and soon Canada) going to stop shooting itself in the foot….
An Inconvenient Truth: Our climate policies cant save the environment. So what will? | Bjorn Lomborg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN_ARfPY9rY&t=12s
PS Spain is up there with the other fools so not a great role model eh?
BTW, do you know the main reason driving Spain's, and the EU's electricity prices up? The high prices of Natural gas... again, fossil fuel causing this high prices, not renewables! So please, stop using that argument, this graph is designed to drive wrong conclusions.
You can't be believing what you're saying...
Let’s break a few things down with comparative data, as you suggested:
1. Subsidies:
I'm glad you mention them because it's also something I think that should stop for Fossil Fuels. I invite you to look at this report from the International Monetary Fund: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2023/08/22/IMF-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Data-2023-Update-537281 whey they state: "Globally, estimated fossil fuel subsidies were $7 trillion in 2022 or 7.1 percent of GDP" I ensure you that this dwarfs all subsidies received by renewables. It would be great to see which is more economically viable if they ever stop being funded with tax payers' money...
2. China
You raise a valid concern about supply chains and dependence on China, but dismissing renewables for that reason alone overlooks the fact that diversification is happening. Europe and the U.S. are investing heavily in domestic manufacturing of solar panels, batteries, and rare earth alternatives. It’s a work in progress, but so is every energy transition. Also, I find it so ironic that people like you who complain that China owns most of the supply chain, you didn't want to get this technology developed in the first place. Now it's here and viable, you argue that you're not the one who developed it, and that they have an unfair advantage... you just have a lack of vision, and biased interests, that's what you have!
3. Resource Constraints and Rare Minerals
Yes, supply chain challenges exist, but innovation is addressing this too—think recycling, alternative materials, and more efficient designs. For example, sodium-ion batteries are emerging as a promising alternative to lithium-ion, bypassing rare earth dependency altogether. And it is already available in some commercial EVs at scale, you guessed it already, in China! If you're so worried about it, why not diverting some of the subsidies given to fossil fuels to ensure we develop those alternative here, and try being competitive while securing durable supply of our critical materials?
4. Nuclear Power
I actually agree with you here, nuclear can and should play a crucial role. However, it’s not a silver bullet. New nuclear plants take 10–15 years to build, face massive cost overruns, and require public support. In the meantime, wind, solar, and storage are providing immediate carbon-free capacity at scale.
Finally, calling Spain “foolish” while ignoring its competitive energy prices and high renewable integration feels dismissive rather than data-driven. Let’s focus on facts rather than name-calling if we want to have a productive discussion.
This message is no surprise for most of us but the numbers he uses are very interesting and must make Germany and the UK look very foolish!!
WATCH: Gerard Holland lays out the staggering cost of renewable energy at ARC Australia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRhNOv1Uo4M
I do believe everything I am saying…
The subsidies models have been ran and its mainly in W&S favor.
It does not change the picture I have presented where we have an operating cost differential of almost 3 times between nations that are moving up the W&S usage curve.
It’s a bad choice for any modern economy that needs low cost energy 24/7
The overall technology is just not ready for prime time without significant battery readiness that does not exist now.
It also consumes too many resources and real estate and has a short life cycle compared with other solutions.
The main issue is that reliability kills its power grid capability and its parasitic.
We don’t need this technology for many decades by then we can decide if we want to make or import.
As you say its useful for off grid where reliability is not an issue.
I would rather use the minerals supply chain for much more important electronic applications and not for W&S and EVs and also avoid the huge mining environmental issues due to the massive scaleup even if it were possible.
If we focused on the real solution of Nuclear and put as much wealth into what we have wasted on W&S its lead times and costs would drop considerably. Also the supply chain for nuclear is all in our backyard... no need for China. Or unattainable supply chain scale up.
Look we should halt all efforts on climate mitigation and focus on adaption and halt all of the renewables insanity. I stand by my statement “you are a fool if you make your energy supply more unreliable and more expensive”.
Spreading poorly argued pieces like this does more harm than good. It oversimplifies complex energy challenges, ignores technological progress, and fuels misinformation. Yes, renewables and EVs face real hurdles, but dismissing them as “fantasies” ignores decades of advancements in grid storage, supply chains, and clean energy integration. And it's also putting your beloved president and his new Tesla in a strange situation isn't it?
Claiming wind and solar are “wasteful parasitic technologies” is not just misleading – it’s dangerous. This kind of rhetoric risks derailing serious discussions about the energy transition, which need to balance pragmatism with innovation, not cling to outdated paradigms. History shows that energy systems evolve – from coal to gas, from steam to electricity – and renewables are part of the next evolution.
Instead of flogging tired myths, we should focus on real solutions: improving grid flexibility, scaling battery technology, and ensuring sustainable supply chains. Critique is healthy, but spreading unfounded doomism only slows the progress we urgently need.
Remove the subsidies and the mandates and let the markets function.
I am very sorry if you won’t face facts, and both your comments just show you won’t do that any time soon
Like many non-scientific people you get confused with artistic ideology versus hard reality
I did include some sources from experts that tell the facts and as said if you won’t accept them it’s your problem
Just about every jurisdiction that has adopted a so called green technology is suffering with low reliability and high costs
Other than off grid remote applications that can tolerate low reliability the grid is no place for it or be part of a modern society
Battery technology would have to break the laws of physics by an order of magnitude to even stand a chance to make this green technology work ant that won’t happen any time soon…. So its ok if you want to come back when it does..
There has been a lot of propaganda out there to work on suckers…. but many are wising up…. let’s hope you do as well
Here is another presentation and you won’t like it!
Europe's going bust over Net-Zero (and the rest of the world doesn't care) | Paul Marshall
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7j7jU3cwDQw
Nigel, I believe this reply was intended for Theo.
Roger that
I suggest you educate yourself and read through my other responses to the comments.
I also suggest you look at the facts and not the information sources or you will end up in your own echo chamber.
Maybe this will help…
An Inconvenient Truth: Our climate policies cant save the environment. So what will? | Bjorn Lomborg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN_ARfPY9rY&t=12s