Mike Jonas,
The climate scare is failing fast, but the damage it has done could take a long time and a lot of money to fix.
In How to Cut the Electricity Price in Australia, it was shown how a day-ahead market could stabilise the electricity grid, and start to bring down the price of electricity. For the price to come down more in future, there needs to be political courage, because it is not too hard to imagine mass protests against new coal-fired or nuclear power stations.
Looking into the future for Australia’s electricity supply, what is the best that could be expected?
Australia already has a lot of wind and solar supply in place. In the latest quarter, renewables (including rooftop solar) provided 42.7% of total supply. That isn’t going to go away quickly, but as the wind and solar equipment ages and needs replacement, facilities will close if more cost-effective sources of supply are allowed to compete. The media tell us that we face rapidly growing demand from AI, which will need a lot of cheap reliable electricity. Well, that’s true of course, but why have they kept so quiet for so long about the need for humans to have a lot of cheap reliable electricity?
With an efficient market, and with no subsidies, targets or mandates, how could Australia’s electricity supply change? I asked Grok, which replied that with …
“… streamlined approvals (e.g., one-stop federal permitting, no state bans), $50-100B public-private funding, and workforce training. No delays from protests/lawsuits.
- Short-term (2026-2030: 5 years): Repower/extend coal (2-3 years/construction); build 5-10 GW gas (1-2 years). VRE [Variable Renewable Energy] closures begin (1-2 years wind-down). Prices fall 30% by 2028. Achievable: Similar to QLD’s gas expansions.
- Medium-term (2031-2035: 7-10 years total): First nuclear (1-2 GW SMRs) online by 2035 (lead time cut from 15+ years via modular fab in Australia). Full coal/gas optimum by 2030.
- Long-term (2036-2040: 10-15 years total): 10-20 GW nuclear fleet (parallel builds); coal peaks then plateaus. Full transition: 12 years to 80% dispatchable mix.
Risks: Supply chain (nuclear fuel fab) or labor shortages could add 2-3 years, but political will mitigates this via imports/training. This beats Coalition [the opposition in parliament] projections (2037 first plant) by fast-tracking regs.“.
A lot of the expense and delay (“12 years to 80% dispatchable mix“) is simply because we have been going very expensively in the wrong direction – we should have been at 80%+ dispatchable all the time. To put a 30% price fall in 5 years into context, the price is up 37% in just the last year. Compared with where Australia is heading right now, a 30% price fall would feel like a miracle.
“$50-100B public-private funding”. That is a lot, but it’s similar to the current rate of spending on renewables.Like I said, the damage that the climate scare has done could take a long time and a lot of money to fix.
PS. “modular fab in Australia” – it’s tempting to be cynical, but hey!, why not???
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The climate scare is failing fast, but the damage it has done could take a long time and a lot of money to fix.
Well when you’re drowning in red ink as a lefty where would you get hold of a really big pot of money for your noble works?-
Worker super funds to foot bill for compo safety net
Yes folks that’s just subsidising even more moral hazard by socialising their losses and why wouldn’t you naturally extend that thinking to subsidising your good works and adventurism? One small step for the compassionatte then one giant leap for elites and their morally good works for you all with your 12% compulsory savings. They never let up with their compulsory compassion and virtue signalling.
When the guns fell silent across Europe in May of 1945, the task of rebuilding must have seemed incredible. Compared to back then, we have an easier job on the material and infrastructure side. We don’t need to rebuild, just build (or drill baby drill). The future is natural gas and nuclear. But we have a more difficult task this time. The seeds of disinformation are much more difficult to weed out. For generations, the warmunist lie has been drilled into our collective mind, deeper than any well. Think of every Wikipedia entry that talks about climate, whether in the past or future. Think of all of the literature, the peer-reviewed papers, the education systems. I can’t talk to anybody here where I live without the inevitable look of wistful longing and defeat whenever we have a winter warm spell like we’re about to go through. Inevitably, they’ll say, winter or “this time of year isn’t like it used to be”, “it used to snow more”. I have to explain to them that we live in a semiarid climate, this is La Niña, this is exactly what happens during La Niña. I then remind them of the snow that we just had during the last two years, as if that was a century ago. Human perception is notoriously bad; human perception multiplied by years of brainwashing is dangerous. At least the Germans immediately after WWII realized, oh damn, we f**ked up, rather quickly. This is going to take a while for us now.
The Germans had, what, 15 years of brainwashing to overcome. We have had 50.
“In the latest quarter, renewables (including rooftop solar) provided 42.7% of total supply.”
Is that percentage based on installed nameplate capacity stated in megawatts; or is it instead based upon megawatt-hours produced by each category of generation source?
Hydraulic (hydro) is included in renewables. Solar and wind, even in Australia, produce trivial amounts of Australian electricity.
What counts as trivial?
NEM figures for the last year on Australia’s Open Electricity website are Black Coal (38.7%), Brown Coal (13.4%) versus Rooftop Solar (13.2%), Utility Solar (8.1%), Wind (15.4%), Hydro (5.8%), however solar does not work at night, and has poor performance in conditions that reduce sunlight – rain, cloud etc, while wind only works when the wind blow. If there’s no wind and no sun …!.
26.3% of coal capacity is scheduled to close before 2030! Can Australia build enough power generation in 4 years to provide the 14% contribution that’s going to be carved out of it? What about the growing demand due to mass migration, or promotion and subsidisation of EVs?
Remember though that 52.1% (38.7+13.4) is only the average over the course of the year. In the last day alone it rose to a peak of about 67.5%. Go back a couple more days and you’re hitting a peak of around 74%! So the real question is, can Australia build more than 20% of its contributing capacity in a mere 4 years? That’s contributing not nameplate as Wind’s nameplate capacity is many times it’s actual real standard contribution. And as for solar, yeah you need at least 16 hours worth of battery capacity!!!
“And as for solar, yeah you need at least 16 hours worth of battery capacity!!!”
What happens if there is a rainy day, or two? Does it never rain in AU?
I have never seen a rational analysis of how much battery capacity is needed to provide 100% reliable output over a one year period covering weather and seasonal variations.
If the battery system cannot do that what use is it at all?
Ayers Rock in the background of the article’s pic.
Was a sacrament to climb it on a clear, pre-dawn winter morning in August.
I could see for miles and miles and miles and miles . . .
(that’s over for everyone now – imaginary spirits would be upset, apparently)
That Sheila in the (photoshopped) picture, could have got there either by plane, 2 hours from Sydney, or by car, 2 days from Sydney. Never with anything electrically powered.
“I asked Grok”
It’s very annoying when people reel off paragraphs of an AI answer without giving the text of the question.
I asked Grok the question as stated here
“With an efficient market, and with no subsidies, targets or mandates, how could Australia’s electricity supply change?”
and got a very different answer:
_1. Renewables like solar and wind would likely become dominant for new electricity generation, as they offer the lowest unsubsidized costs, potentially leading to a more decentralized and variable supply mix by the 2030s.
_2. Coal-fired power would persist longer without phase-out mandates, but retirements of aging plants (many by 2035-2040) would accelerate a shift, with gas possibly bridging gaps for reliability.
_3. Electricity prices could decrease long-term due to cheaper renewables, but short-term volatility might increase without policy-driven investments in storage or transmission.
_4. Nuclear could emerge as an option if bans are lifted, though its higher costs make it unlikely to compete broadly without specific incentives.
_5. Overall, the evidence leans toward a faster renewable transition in an efficient market, though slower than under current targets, with potential for lower emissions if economic signals favor low-cost clean tech.
An “efficient market” contemplates no government interventions to put their thumbs on the scale of demand – supply response free markets.
“Renewables” have never had to operate in a proper demand – supply market environment.
That is how Michael J phrased the question, at least here, and that is how GROK answered (deep level).
Which is why Grok’s answer came back as nonsense.
Which is why the next iteration of Grok will be renamed Crock.
This WUWT article is based on a GROK response (to something??)
In Mike’s case Grok gave an exceptionally realistic answer, leading to the removal of all the massive expensive and erratic grid wind and solar (before or after it dies a short unnatural death).
Short-term (2026-2030: 5 years): Repower/extend coal (2-3 years/construction); build 5-10 GW gas (1-2 years). VRE [Variable Renewable Energy] closures begin (1-2 years wind-down). Prices fall 30% by 2028. Achievable: Similar to QLD’s gas expansions.
Medium-term (2031-2035: 7-10 years total): First nuclear (1-2 GW SMRs) online by 2035 (lead time cut from 15+ years via modular fab in Australia). Full coal/gas optimum by 2030.
Long-term (2036-2040: 10-15 years total): 10-20 GW nuclear fleet (parallel builds); coal peaks then plateaus. Full transition: 12 years to 80% dispatchable mix
.
Pretty hard to fault its response, wouldn’t you say !!
I asked Grok a question
Will WUWT commentator Nick Stokes ever give an honest answer?
Funny reading it … you got points for detailed answers but the fact most of them are smokescreen and bullshit seems to be beyond it.
Think it summed you up best with this line
Polarizing figure: skeptics view him as a “warmist troll” pushing biased narratives, while others praise his rigor
I am firmly of the view you are a troll and the obfuscation in your response shows standard modus operandi.
I complained elsewhere about and answer without the question. This time it is a question without an answer. So I asked that vary question, and started to feel more warmly towards GROK:
“Nick Stokes is a retired Australian climate scientist (formerly with CSIRO) who runs the blog Moyhu, where he develops tools for plotting and analyzing climate data. He’s been a frequent and often lone contrarian voice in the comments section of Watts Up With That? (WUWT), a prominent climate-skeptic blog run by Anthony Watts. There, Stokes consistently pushes back against what he sees as methodological flaws, cherry-picking, or unsubstantiated claims in skeptic arguments—drawing on his expertise in statistics, data processing, and software.
From what I can gather, Stokes does give honest answers, at least in the sense of being transparent, evidence-based, and civil, even when outnumbered and downvoted. He’s guest-posted on WUWT multiple times (e.g., on topics like Nyquist sampling in temperature records and Australian Bureau of Meteorology data), where he lays out his analyses step-by-step, often including code or data sources for verification. Commenters there describe him as “thoughtful,” “objective,” and someone who “adds value” by forcing skeptics to sharpen their arguments—though they rarely agree with him. Outside WUWT, blogs like HotWhopper praise him as “the only sane voice” amid the site’s echo chamber, and he’s even donated to a WUWT moderator’s family after their death, earning grudging respect from Watts despite tensions (Watts has moderated or threatened to ban him for “persisting” too much).
That said, “honest” is subjective in polarized debates like climate change. Skeptics on WUWT and sites like Real Science accuse him of bias toward mainstream climate science (e.g., defending adjustments in datasets like USHCN or UKMO records), calling his critiques “FUD” (fear, uncertainty, doubt) or downplaying natural variability. Pro-science outlets, conversely, see his WUWT participation as a public service, exposing flaws without descending into ad hominem attacks. No widespread evidence emerges of him fabricating data, ignoring counterpoints, or shifting goalposts—unlike some louder voices on either side.
If the question stems from a specific exchange (e.g., a recent WUWT thread), feel free to share details for a deeper dive. Otherwise, based on his track record, I’d say yes—he’s as honest as they come in these trenches, which is why he riles up the room.”
Actually, I was with CSIRO CFD, not climate science.
“
That is not a deep dive and if you think it is, you do not comprehend how AI works.
It is the answer to the question Leon asked.
Nick, thanks for again demonstrating just how idiotic AI can be.
Not a single kW of weather dependent electricity generation belongs on a modern grid.
Weather dependent electricity generation can only be substitutive to dispatchable generation. Whenever the pestilences of wind and solar Ruinables show up, dispatchable generation MUST be curtailed, creating a massive capacity impairment in dispatchable generation which must reverse mirror the weather dependent chaos.
This is a massive cost to the system, because all labor for two overlapping generation systems continue, all capital costs continue, there are increased transmission and distribution costs, increased balancing costs, and thermal generation often cannot be operated at maximum efficiency.
Legacy dispatchable generation is being robbed, pillaged and plundered by corrupt government policies whereby legacy generation is forced to keep the grid stable, back up the Ruinables, and eat the massive capacity impairment that is forced upon dispatchable generation by the current system.
https://www.caiso.com/todays-outlook
https://seia.org/state-solar-policy/california-solar/
Consider the idiocy of California, where it is claimed that 49,000 mW of solar is installed. Government policy has enabled the forcing of almost 17,000 mW of power onto the grid when the sun shines, which is about 22,780,000 hp. I don’t have an explanation for the huge disparity in capacity vs. generation during the day. That 22,780,000 hp must be curtailed by dispatchable generators when the solar duck curve gets going…and that capacity must be ramped up again with the setting sun.
No wonder California cannot get new dispatchable generation to come into the state without subsidies despite the high electricity costs.
https://x.com/i/grok/share/M9HFwYwSgzA290jvPyf8UjHoL
What a stupid system! It will NEVER result in a cheaper system electricity to grid customers, which is why California has the highest electricity price in the lower 48.
The world will NEVER transition away from hydrocarbons…NEVER. Expect hydrocarbon consumption in 2050 to be greater than today, and greater in 2100 than 2050.
Wind and solar are junk energies–they are hopelessly non-dispatchable, hopelessly destabilizing, hopelessly dilute, hopelessly intermittent, hopelessly chaotic, hopelessly remote, hopelessly incapable of being effectively stored, and hopelessly expensive.
Wind and solar junk energies only go, wherever they go, by government subsidies, government mandates, and government requirements. End governments’ risible pursuit of changing the future weather somewhere on earth, and the parasite industries of wind and solar energy die tomorrow.
Despite decades of propaganda and government subsidies, nowhere on earth can it be demonstrated that a modern society can be powered by wind and solar junk energies.
Don’t we need to be seriously planning to dismantle these turbines, in order to cut losses, as quickly as possible?
“ as they offer the lowest unsubsidized costs”
Great to see Nick saying that ALL subsidies and mandates for wind and solar should be removed.
Please write to your mates Albo and Bow-wow to inform them of your decision, Nick. 🙂
Oh no. Grok wants Australia to be in a near permanent state of blackout !!
Grok can be persuaded to give the correct answers when cornered. Problem is, despite claims of ‘machine learning’, it ‘forgets’ the previous day’s answer to the same question and parrots out the nonsense AGAIN.
My question to Grok was: “We recently had a conversation about NEM and Australia’s electricity market. In an electricity grid with an efficient market, and with no subsidies, targets or mandates, and assuming that Australia used its coal, gas and uranium to the full economic optimum, and allowed wind and solar farms to close if they weren’t economically viable, how much could the electricity price be reduced? how much coal, gas and nuclear generation would there be? With full political will, how long would it take? Make any assumptions you need to, about demand from the people, business, and AI.”
What I quoted in the article was verbatim from Grok, but only part of a long answer. Grok started with a bit of preamble which might interest you: Assumptions for This Hypothetical ScenarioTo model an “efficient market” in Australia’s National Electricity Market (NEM, covering ~90% of national demand), I’ll assume:
No subsidies, targets, or mandates: Renewable Energy Target (RET) and emissions schemes are repealed; wind and solar farms close if their unsubsidized output can’t compete (e.g., due to curtailment from cheap baseload flooding the market or high integration costs for intermittency). Existing contracts are honored but not renewed.Full economic optimum: Prioritize lowest-marginal-cost dispatchable sources (coal, gas, nuclear) using Australia’s abundant resources—vast black/brown coal reserves (~150 billion tonnes), gas fields (e.g., Bowen Basin), and uranium (world’s largest reserves, ~30% of global supply). Existing coal plants (~18 GW capacity) are life-extended where viable (e.g., via repowering with supercritical tech). New builds focus on gas for flexibility and nuclear for long-term baseload, assuming fuel costs remain low (~$2-4/GJ gas, <$1/MWh nuclear fuel).Demand growth: Current NEM demand ~210 TWh/year (2025). With electrification (EVs, industry), business expansion, and AI/data centers (projected to triple demand by 2030 per Oxford Economics/AEMO), assume +30% to 270 TWh by 2030 and +140% to 500 TWh by 2040. This is conservative; AI could add 8% of total demand by 2030 alone.Other: No carbon pricing; grid upgrades (~$20B committed transmission) proceed for reliability. System LCOE (not just generator) accounts for ~10-20% integration overhead for any residual VRE. Prices reflect wholesale spot averages; retail would fall proportionally after network costs.This setup favors dispatchables, as intermittents like wind/solar (LCOE $35-100/MWh standalone) require $20-40/MWh firming (storage/transmission), pushing firmed costs to $100-150/MWh—higher than existing coal (~$40-60/MWh marginal) or gas CCGT ($70-120/MWh).
Asking the right questions with sensible constraints such as COST and RELIABILITY.
The total opposite of what Nick appears to have asked.
Which is why you got a rational engineering response….
….. and why Nick got a mindless gibberish mantra regurgitation..
Wind and solar don’t work, I see no reason to have any wind and solar hooked to the grid. It is true some will be opposed to building stuff that works, fossil fuel and nuclear but that is no reason not to build them. They didn’t have a problem building wind and solar because we were opposed to them. They got their way it didn’t work, it is time to move on and build stuff that works. Stuff that works is naturally more affordable than stuff that doesn’t work. Everybody knows that.
What they want is good, what you want is bad. And if you want to use what they want in a way they don’t want e.g. relying on wind or solar but living off-grid in city or suburbia, yeah that makes you a criminal too. It’s getting to the stage where common dialogue is not even possible because some are such extreme climate fundamentalists.
Think about it George, take away the power of government without government the people we are up against don’t amount to anything. Straighten out our government and the whole mess goes away.
The residual climate scare will be around for 5 – 10 years, my guess. The actionable climate scare will die within 3 years. In both scenarios the people win. The new bogeyman has already been formulated so just wait for its’ introduction.
What will the new monster under the bed be I wonder? Any ideas? Seriously.
Democracy. One World Government led by so called “meritocracy” overseen by the UN has been the goal all along. Agenda 21 is the roadmap.
Agenda21 didn’t arrive as planned, so that bus has been rescheduled as Agenda 30.
Same old clunker though.
I don’t believe Agenda 21 has been dropped. It’s still their bible from what I can tell. A2030 is like an addendum to A21 for specific areas that they feel need attention.
The new monster under the bed will be AI coupled to cloud storage augmented with quantum computers.
If you build a better mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door.
Looking at the output charts, more solar panels plus turning off the system every evening would solve the problem.
The expense of soaring energy costs due to so-called renewable power is completing the deindustrialization of Australia.
The future of Australia is solely as an exporter of natural resources: fossil fuels, minerals, and food with PR China as the dominant destination.
I won’t predict the physical climate for Australia in the coming decades, only the political climate: a vassal state or outright territory of PR China.