Josh writes:
Hi, inspired by Alex Epstein’s video on X
All the best
Josh
Web: cartoonsbyjosh.com
X: @cartoonsbyjosh
Renewables Catastrophically Expensive
- Monday, May 11, 2026
Josh writes:
Hi, inspired by Alex Epstein’s video on X
All the best
Josh
Web: cartoonsbyjosh.com
X: @cartoonsbyjosh
What happened to common sense..? Not profitable..? Not risky..? Too old-fashioned..?
You can either have common sense or communist sense,
but you can not have both.
And the latter was created to eradicate the first,
and that’s why all its modern branches and manifestations, be it feminism, hippies,DEI or energy have an inverted Midas effect,
by turning everything they touch into shit.
Don’t sugar coat it like that. Tell us how you really feel.
Upvoted.
Yep.
Rationality and ideology cannot function in the same mind at the same time.
I thought it was ‘straw’…
Electricity Prices Decreased In South Australia Because Of Clean Renewables
Norway generates about 98% from renewables as well. – Clean Technica
That was funny. For example, did you know that average annual hydropower generation is about 95% of total electricity production in Norway?
Excellent stuff.
And they’re not using wind and solar to heat buildings either. Google’s AI says:
Indeed they do. But then, Norway’s population is about 5.7 million, the country has lots of rivers with hydro dams producing very low-cost electricity, very large oil deposits (mostly sweet and low sulfur) and gas deposits in the North Sea which they recover and export mostly to Europe. All this provides lots of income to the citizens so they can purchase and inexpensively charge lots of electric cars.
That’s the luck of the geological draw.
And plenty of fish. And huge Thorium deposits. We got a significant share of the pie.
I bet they don’t do the kind of long distance driving Americans do- so the problem of long wait times to recharge isn’t a problem.
So the Norwegians have all this money. Have they agreed to pay reparations to other Europeans for the terrors their ancestors inflicted a thousand years ago during the Viking era?
Hydro is now a renewable. The folks change the meaning of words at will to support their arguments.
if you’re willing to kill eagles, what are a few million salmon?
Go home Griff.
You’re drunk.
Yes, the Q4 AEMO report is out, and SA is lowest price (about equal with Vic and Tas). The coal states are improving, but still far behind.
Sounds like you are quoting wholesale prices Nick. And ignoring the obvious fact that South Australians pay much more for their power than other states – almost twice as much as some states.
Yep it’s the old Nick games never tell the truth and lie lie lie..
Shouldn’t it be “Nick games the truth”?
“Sounds like you are quoting wholesale prices Nick”
Yes. Because that is the price to deliver electricity to the web, and where the difference between FF ad W&S counts. After that, the distribution and retail system responds to power from whatever source. SA has high costs there, but would (and did) have the same costs for coal.
Wholesale prices don’t matter a damn to the average power user Nick. What matters to them is the price they pay. And it’s a known fact that Australians pay far too much for their power, with the highest electricity costs in all Asia. All due to the federal government’s stupid obsession with renewables and their refusal to use clean nuclear power that will end up a lot cheaper.
There it goes the big LIE
SA distribution costs are higher because of renewables and importing expensive power to cover shortfalls that is the point of the cartoon.
SA is the 4th largest state/territory and all it’s population and distribution is squashed in and around Adelaide (80% or 1.46 million live in Greater Adelaide). It’s distribution costs should be the same or even less than other states.
So Nick you have some answering to do SA has the cheapest wholesale cost of power (We all agree on that). So how does that become the most expensive power of any state or territory?
You options aren’t many SA is corrupt, SA are stupid or perhaps the obvious it costs a lot to backup renewable energy in a grid.
Why do you think that prices are any sort of guide to costs? What drives cost is the various inputs to production. How much it costs to get dispatchable electricity supply delivered to where demand is.
What determines price is nowadays mainly regulation.
As an example: suppose that LPG for cars costs more at retail than diesel. Does this mean that LPG is higher cost to produce and deliver? No, it just means taxation is charged differentially. If the taxation is reversed, LPG now becomes cheaper at retail. Does this means it costs less to produce and deliver? Of course not!
You want to know whether wind generated electricity is lower cost than gas generated, you have to look not at what either is selling for in the present environment with renewables obligations, contracts for difference and other forms of subsidy. You have to look at what it costs to deliver dispatchable electricity to the point of demand for each of the methods. That is the only correct way of comparing them.
The UK recently started to tax some foods by sugar content. Did that mean that the cost of producing the identical bottle of coke in the same way delivered to the same stores had risen?
The UN Economic Commission for Europe has recently (10 Dec 2025) launched an initiative to develop a full system cost to guide investment in unreliables.
“Traditional cost metrics such as LCOE, widely used around the world to assess investment opportunities in different energy options, provide a baseline for technology comparison but overlook critical system wide elements such as grid upgrade, balancing costs for renewables, flexibility needs, eg storage, demand response, essential reliability services ( reactive power, frequency reponse), back up capacity and externalities like unserved energy costs and environmental and climate impacts. This leads to sub optimal investment, increased planning risk and over reliance on intermittent sources without adequate firm capacity”
https://unece.org/climate-change/press/unece-and-partners-launch-initiative-develop-full-system-cost-approach-guide
Isn’t this decision some sort of miracle?
You get a low mean because you have negative spot prices. Negative spot prices are NOT a good thing because they are a sign you built over capacity. There is no industry where over production is not considered waste….except in ‘wind/solar’ where you can collect constraint subsidies.
Also, spot price for electricity from the generator does not include the costs of connection and distribution to get it to the consumer.
Negative spot prices unusually indicate that excess production is available at times of low or no demand. The generation source is not capable of responding to demand. That makes it useless as a practical energy source. Like solar and wind.
Got it in one. The only thing that makes it attractive to business investors is that they can get paid for what they can generate, regardless of it is consumed. When those subsidies dry up, the business model collapses.
Ie. Paid NOT to produce also.
Thank you Nick for providing this valuable “insight.”
Read all the comments to see where you swung and missed.
Upvoted for not pushing ideology.
Nick, Do you understand what NEM is?
I have had solar panels (Tesla) for 10 1/2 years. The utility company forces a NEM agreement on you. This is a flexible pricing scheme which allows the utility to maximize their profit.
It’s almost 7:00 and raining. My house is using 500 Watts, all from the grid since the solar panels are producing nothing. The 500 Watt usage is the fan on my gas furnace.
Nick that is a garbage graph … As per above you are looking at wholesale cost which is not the retail cost. There network costs to support there crazy renewables percentage is off the planet and increasing
South Australia has the highest retail cost of any State or territory and it is getting worse … you showing graphs of wholesale costs is just laughable.
What are you going to do next to make SA power cheaper take the GST off it that will make it 10% cheaper 🙂
You’re not suggesting that our Nick would promote Mann-esque graphs as evidence for his position on a situation are you?
Surely Shirley.
So Nick, the real test of cost effectiveness of SA renewables should be –
what would SA consumers be paying for their electricity if they DIDN’T use renewables?
Nick is exceptionally talented at finding proxies that don’t actually reflect what is happening.
Mr. Gino: Yep, it’s a grif….er..gift!
maybe even a …grift?
What rubbish. South Australia has the highest domestic power costs in all of Australia, and it is entirely dependent on transmission lines to other Australian states for power continuity, as the state is a net energy importer – it cannot generate sufficient power itself. Also South Australia occasionally uses diesel generators to supply extra power when its wind turbines fail to generate sufficient power, as they often do.
Not only that, but South Australia uses a small fraction of the electricity of any of the three eastern states..
It is a minnow…. a regular nothingburger
Even so, at the current time (Wednesday 10:30 pm) it is taking 37% of it electricity through the interconnect from Victorian BROWN COAL.
NSW and Queensland are currently using well over 87% Coal and 83% Coal + Gas respectively
“as the state is a net energy importer – it cannot generate sufficient power itself”
Barely true, it is almost in balance. Vic sends a tiny balance to SA, but a much bigger flow to NSW – a coal state.
Let’s look at the actual data. Last year South Australia consumed 11,408 GWh, of which 668 GWh was imported. Unless my maths is wrong, 5.8% of their power has to be imported. Not sure if I would define 5.8% as “barely in balance”.
You said it was a net importer. Your maths does not include what it produces, does not consume, but exports.
You are correct in that I used the wrong figures (I’ll blame AI), but the actual comparison data clearly shows that they are nowhere near “in balance”. From Table 8 on Page 37 of the AEMO report “South Australian Electricity Report”, the figures for 2024/25 are:
Imports: 1659 GWh
Exports: 990 GWh.
Can you explain how you managed to obtain a “balanced” viewpoint from these figures?
“ how you managed to obtain “
Likeyou, I am quoting AEMO data. Yours is for the year ending June 2025. Mine is mostly for Uune-Dec 2025, with Q4 of 2024 added. More recent data.
No data Nick? Just a claim?
You’re using a whole year. Nick is using 9 months, including all of summer (highest air-con use but also most solar production).
So if you’re happy having electricity 3/4 of the time, has Nick got a “cheap” deal for you!
“As of February 2026, residential electricity prices in South Australia (SA Power Networks area) are among the highest in Australia, with standard market offer usage rates typically ranging from 34c to over 50 cents per kilowatt-hour (c/kWh). ”
The gap has widened in recent years too.
MyUNRL misleading again, no surprise.
I assume that your prices are Oz$.
California is US$ 0.35 to 0.45 per kWh. Our national average is US$0.17.
Prices from my February electricity bill. (US value from on-line currency converter)
Off peak … 30.5C (AUS) 21.2C (US)
Shoulder… 43.8C (AUS) 30.8C (US)
Peak……… 51C (AUS) 35.9C (US)
I dont think 50c a KWH is cheap in anyones language
same company in vic when I compared… VIC was 32c SA was the 50c and that was a while back
Vinnies, a charity organisation in Australia, has looked into the average power costs in South Australia, and has confirmed that South Australians pay over A$0.50/kWh for their power. Think the figure quoted by Vinnies was 56c.
I suppose you believe the Spanish Inquisition was merely a Sunday School event.
Note the source: CleanTechna.com
Other biased sources of “facts” about South Australian power seem to be adding the output of battery systems to their power output.
ROFL yeah all they need is more renewables 🙂
Key Takeaways: SA Power Costs
While wholesale costs have dropped in SA, retail prices remain high due to network costs, market dynamics, and other retail components
You post yet another misleading article. This time focussing almost exclusively on wholesale prices, not what households actually pay.
The wholesale price drop and renewables’ role in the article are real and well-sourced (AEMO data backs it). But the article is misleading in implying this translates straightforwardly to cheaper power bills for South Australians right now, or that high-renewable grids are unambiguously cheaper without major caveats around volatility, grid upgrades, and retail structure.
It’s classic pro-renewables cheerleading that omits inconvenient nuances.
I have to ask yet again, why you don’t read these articles critically before posting them?
Everything is going up – save for prosperity, that is – costs, emissions, the alarm rate, and anything else you can think of.
Having prayed mightily and consulted the holy modelled scriptures, and the sacred attributions…
Ed Miliband has approved 157 new solar farms and 28 onshore wind projects, which are expected to cover an area of farmland nearly the size of Manchester; oh and four experimental tidal schemes totalling 21 megawatts. . Not only, but also; another crack at a failed and inequitable idea.
Miliband pledges up to £1bn for community green energy schemes
The UK government is pledging to spend up to £1bn on community-owned green energy schemes in an effort to combat growing scepticism and resistance to renewables and grid upgrade projects.
Ed Miliband, the UK energy secretary, said the new funding was intended to help democratise the energy system. – Guardian
If it’s anywhere, it’ll be places like the wealthy, leafy peoples’ republic of Islington.
…every time a politician commits £1 billion to something, it costs on average £35 per household. If there was such a thing as a “community” worthy of the term, surely the least that it would have within its means is to raise its own funds. What is a “community” if it is not defined by its capacity to act in such a way? Furthermore, what is a “community” if the £35 is to be taken as tax from households, to be given to the “community”? – DS
Mad Ed has managed to make wealth trickle up.
“Mad Ed has managed to make wealth trickle up.”
Which makes him a very successful & rich politician, putting the plebs in their place … at the bottom of the heap.
Not a Robin Hood, but a robbing bastard.
Like father, like son.
There’s no such thing as a rich socialist…
Once it was beer and sandwiches at No 10
Now it’s champagne socialism.
The socialist voters are impoverished while the socialist leaders are fabulously wealthy.
There should be no such thing as a rich socialist.
But there are lots of rich phoney socialists; just look at the UK’s socialist government.
intended to help democratise the energy system.
Capitalism (i.e., supply and demand) is pure democracy. People vote with their wallets.
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore
Riding through the land
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore
Without a merry band
He steals from the poor
And gives to the rich
Stupid Bitch.
STORY TIP..just too funny!
https://www.sott.net/article/504686-Germanys-largest-LNG-terminal-running-out-of-gas-The-tanker-got-stuck-the-icebreaker-broke-down
Quote of the day:
“Who would have thought in the era of “advanced global warming” that in the middle of winter a serious ice sheet could form in the Baltic Sea? This is absurd. Therefore, they were not ready for such a “whim” of nature in Germany,” writes Alexey Grivach, Deputy director of the FNEB.
Yes, the German government idiots (which would be mostly SPD with help from the CDU/CSU) fell for the Net Zero hogwash. They diverted money from needed energy infrastructure (Energiewende) and wasted it on wind and solar. Now Deutschland is reliant on Poland and France for electricity and on a poorly maintained ice breaker to allow LNG to flow into their woefully undersized storage system.
and then there are the disposable costs which don’t even get mentioned but are massive – an environmental nightmare in the making
And now the company taking all the damaged blades has walked away from some 4000 blades!
At least the blades were removed from the site. In Australia they just dump them on the ground and walk away.
Solar isn’t good for peak power demand, not without the added expense of battery storage. Solar peak generation is 10am until 2pm. Electricity usage peaks at around 8 am, before solar can generate. Electricity also peaks between 6pm to 9pm well after the 2pm – 4pm solar fall off.
Solar is really only good as a dedicated back-up battery recharging power source.
.
The absolute best option is Nuclear Power Generation.
And how many minutes of grid energy can that battery backup sustain?
Would depend on the battery(ies). You would need a 50 storey building sized battery just to supply a few hours for a single city. Several 50 storey building sized batteries for a full day and dozens of 50 storey building sized batteries for a week. Then you would need State Sized Solar installations to recharge those depleted batteries in the 4 hour availability window of peak solar generation. Because you might only get a single day of good sunlight between weeks on bad solar availability.
I knew the answer. I should have marked as a rhetorical question.
I am awaiting those massive batteries. I have a good stick and a bag full of marshmellow.
New York could place them in Battery Park.
Even at the best of times, solar disappears for 1/2 the time. And for another 1/4 to 1/3 of the time it produces little to no power.
And that’s before considering clouds, snow and bird droppings.
Solar nameplate capacity is a bad joke. I have 10 years of data on my 3.125 kW solar panel system. The 10 year average production is 9.2% of nameplate. In the UK and Northern EU, I would expect the percentage to be lower then my location in California’s Central Coast.
The World Bank’s ‘Global Photovoltaic Power Potential by Country’ compares the solar panel potential of 230 countries worldwide. Britain ranks 229th only Ireland was worse.
That hasn’t stopped Mad Ed recently announcing a further 157 new solar farms to be built. He is using a lot of the country’s prime agricultural land for these.and those he has sanctioned in the last two years!
Only 17% CF for large-scale grid solar in “sunny” Australia.
On a typical Summer Day at latitudes below 45°N or S with little clouds
Solar will function over a typical 24 hour period
Midnight to 1am … Zero generation
1am to 2am … Zero generation
2am to 3am … Zero generation
3am to 4am … Zero generation
4am to 5am … Zero generation
5am to 6am … Zero generation
6am to 7am … Zero generation
7am to 8am … 2% generation (morning peak)
8am to 9am … 40% generation
9am to 10am … 80% generation
10am to 11am … 95% generation
11am to 12am … 98% generation
12am to 1pm … 99% generation
1pm to 2pm … 95% generation
2pm to 3pm … 80% generation
3pm to 4pm … 40% generation
4pm to 5pm … 10% generation
5pm to 6pm … 2% generation
6pm to 7pm … Zero generation (Evening Peak)
7pm to 8pm … Zero generation (Evening Peak)
8pm to 9pm … Zero generation (Evening Peak)
9pm to 10pm … Zero generation (Evening Peak)
10pm to 11pm … Zero generation
11pm to Midnight … Zero generation
During Winter and at higher latitudes you can reduce those generation percentages by 50%-80%
if you already have panels deployed ( i am at 41 N) you can expect increased winter generation because the panels are colder and snow reflects more light onto the panels. In the summer i have never gotten more than 75% of rated power for any of my 3 types of panels.
If you can actually get 99% during mid-day i stand in awe.
“Even at the best of times, solar disappears for 1/2 the time. And for another 1/4 to 1/3 of the time it produces little to no power.”
An old “worst- and best-case in a calendar year” graphic I did for the GB electricity grid, which has most of its solar panels installed along the south coast of England (Cornwall to Kent, ~50-51°N latitude).
Note also that the December 2024 and 2025 minima were around 1.2 to 1.3 GWh per day … but that may just be due to 27/12/2023 being really, really, cloudy.
After nearly 4 weeks, the rooftop solar panels in my neighborhood are mostly clear of snow and ice.
I really do not understand mounting on a north or west facing slope with the opposing side empty.
“Solar disappears 1/2 the time” is a gross exaggeration. Production is high for about four hours per day in clear weather in summer. The rest of the time it is pretty well nothing and rapidly fluctuating at that.
I asked Grok about the difference in power grids between public utilities, where a corporation has a government granted monopoly to supply power and owns the power plants, transmission lines, and provides service to residences, and the independent model where power plants are owned by profit seeking corporations. He opined that there was little difference in costs to the consumers, perhaps even more expensive with the private model, but an upside of the private model was that those grids have been quicker to build wind and solar farms. He thought that was a good thing.
When you reflect on this, the opposite is true. The one corporation model does not eagerly build solar and wind farms precisely because there is no economic benefit to the grid. It raises costs and makes the grid much more complicated to manage. In the private model, profit (rent) seeking corporations build solar and wind farms which parasitize all the other producers as well the the grid management company. This should be obvious, even to an AI.
AI searched the internet. Everything on the internet is true because it says so on the internet.
AI works on the preponderance of the evidence. If a statement appears 100 times versus an opposite statement posted once, AI will go the the 100.
AI is not conscious. AI does not think. AI is not intuitive. AI is software and can only process based on the programmed algorithms. AI is amoral. AI cannot assess itself.
It is elaborate pattern recognitions & decision tree software hidden behind a robust human interface module.
Take the subsidies AND RUN !!!
‘Green dream’ in ruins: Abandoned solar farm leaves locals up in arms
The worm’s turning slowly-
EVs are DEAD as car giant REVIVES diesel engines! | MGUY Australia
How’s the Portsmouth ship charging white elephant?
Alex is far too kind to wind. Wind doesn’t work if it did it wouldn’t need storage. Storage doesn’t make it work, stop saying it does.
This has been a scam from the get-go. Not very smart people telling dumber people to let them run (ruin) their lives.
The whole thing about wind & solar is, electricity generation only consumes/makes up about 20% of our power/energy needs, the other 80% is coal/oil/gas
While a battery-based peaking power plant may someday be economic, the cheapest source to charge those batteries will not be by building intermittent wind or solar. It will be by dialing up the off-peak conventional power plants.