4 ms·

A chart that has been disproved dozens of time from a site that peddles all the regular anti-renewable talking points. The biggest issue with comparing electri

A chart that has been disproved dozens of time from a site that peddles all the regular anti-renewable talking points. The biggest issue with comparing electricity rates across countries is that they have wildly different taxes included in the prices. So direct comparison of the prices is an apples-to-oranges comparison. To say nothing of the fact that prices in many countries are often set by the marginal generator, which in the case of say Germany on that graph is oil, gas, or coal. Most of which is imported from other countries as fluctuates wildly with fuel costs (e.g. price shocks after Russian’s invasion of Ukraine).

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
mpweiher 1y ago
If the chart "has been disproven" so many times, you should be able to give that proof. I don't see it. And what is your claim with the taxes? That taxes correlate so strongly with intermittent renewables that they override a trend for the cost of intermittent renewables that actually goes in the opposite direction? That is a very bold claim that would need to be backed by some extremely strong evidence. You provide none. If, as you claim, there are "wildly different" taxes, then this would be a random overlay that wouldn't really affect the positive correlation that we see. And of course a lot of renewable subsidies are financed with these taxes, so a positive correlation between taxes and intermittent renewables does not get intermittent renewables off the hook. And no, just claiming, again without evidence, that a site "peddles anti-renewable talking points" is not a refutation. In fact, it is a big nothing-burger. I'd say that this site, which I don't know, I just did a quick search for a linkable version of the correlation that I am well aware of from other sources, simply collects and publishes the widely available and extremely obvious evidence against high penetration of renewables. And the energy crisis 2021-2023 affected the entire world, yet for some reason the countries with intermittent renewables were worst affected? How is that, when the intermittent renewables were supposed to remove those dependencies on fossil fuels? All these non-sensical talking points you peddle, the narratives you spin to protect renewables from the cold, hard evidence just don't add up. And I notice that you dropped your equally evidence-free claims about GA vs. CA. Narratives don't work. You need to look at the numbers. And the numbers don't add up for intermittent renewables above a certain percentages of generation. The numbers do add up for nuclear.
- _aavaa_ 1y ago
  > And no, just claiming, again without evidence, that a site "peddles anti-renewable talking points" is not a refutation. In fact, it is a big nothing-burger. It is not a nothing burger. If the rest of the site is full of falsehoods and fallacies (e.g. (front page article about the “large” amounts of waste from use wind turbine blades) then anything else they post is also dubious by default. I’m sure they also have articles about how much waste solar panels produce at the end of their life, or the whales “hurt” by offshore wind, or the birds hurt by onshore wind, or any number of other outright falsehoods or bad faith arguments. One does not have time to read every source and regenerate every figure themselves to verify, so picking reliable sources is important. > I am well aware of from other sources Then post it from a more reputable source. > And the energy crisis 2021-2023 affected the entire world, yet for some reason the countries with intermittent renewables were worst affected? Other than the US or Australia all the other countries are in Europe. Conspicuous given that this should be a trend that hold worldwide. The countries worst affected are those that are most reliant on fossil fuels but produce none of their own. “high fossil fuel prices were the main reason for upward pressure on global electricity prices, accounting for 90% of the rise in the average costs of electricity generation worldwide (natural gas alone for more than 50%).” [0] Feel free to pursue at your pleasure some articles on how renewables have positive impacts on the grid and lower costs. [1-5] > The numbers do add up for nuclear. Yes, unfortunately the cost does keep going up and up and up. > the numbers don't add up for intermittent renewables above a certain percentages of generation. Yes yes yes. A few years ago it was that renewables would never work. Then it was that it would have to be a very small percentage of the grid. Now it’s that it’s a certain (slightly higher percentage). Someone better tell the Chinese that they should slow down their exponential renewable rollout and instead wait for their slow nuclear one to hopefully catch up. In the meantime I hope us in the rest of the world don’t get left behind chasing a predatory delay strategy: why build renewables now when we can wait another decade or two for nuclear. “Look at China’s large nuclear buildout”, forget for a second that its orders of magnitude smaller than their renewable buildout. [0]: https://www.iea.org/commentaries/the-global-energy-crisis-pushed-fossil-fuel-consumption-subsidies-to-an-all-time-high https://www.iea.org/commentaries/the-global-energy-crisis-pu... [1]: https://www.bde.es/f/webbe/SES/Secciones/Publicaciones/InformesBoletinesRevistas/BoletinEconomico/24/T3/Files/be2403-art09e.pdf https://www.bde.es/f/webbe/SES/Secciones/Publicaciones/Infor... [2]: https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/utilities/dont-blame-clean-energy-for-rising-electric-bills https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/utilities/dont-blame-cl... [3]: https://ieefa.org/sites/default/files/2025-03/BN_Why%20are%20power%20bills%20higher%20now%20than%20they%20used%20to%20be_.pdf https://ieefa.org/sites/default/files/2025-03/BN_Why%20are%2... [4]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-025-01704-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-025-01704-0 [5]: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26941899.2022.2158145 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26941899.2022.2...

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

mpweiher 1y ago

If the chart "has been disproven" so many times, you should be able to give that proof. I don't see it. And what is your claim with the taxes? That taxes correlate so strongly with intermittent renewables that they override a trend for the cost of intermittent renewables that actually goes in the opposite direction? That is a very bold claim that would need to be backed by some extremely strong evidence. You provide none. If, as you claim, there are "wildly different" taxes, then this would be a random overlay that wouldn't really affect the positive correlation that we see. And of course a lot of renewable subsidies are financed with these taxes, so a positive correlation between taxes and intermittent renewables does not get intermittent renewables off the hook. And no, just claiming, again without evidence, that a site "peddles anti-renewable talking points" is not a refutation. In fact, it is a big nothing-burger. I'd say that this site, which I don't know, I just did a quick search for a linkable version of the correlation that I am well aware of from other sources, simply collects and publishes the widely available and extremely obvious evidence against high penetration of renewables. And the energy crisis 2021-2023 affected the entire world, yet for some reason the countries with intermittent renewables were worst affected? How is that, when the intermittent renewables were supposed to remove those dependencies on fossil fuels? All these non-sensical talking points you peddle, the narratives you spin to protect renewables from the cold, hard evidence just don't add up. And I notice that you dropped your equally evidence-free claims about GA vs. CA. Narratives don't work. You need to look at the numbers. And the numbers don't add up for intermittent renewables above a certain percentages of generation. The numbers do add up for nuclear.

_aavaa_ 1y ago
> And no, just claiming, again without evidence, that a site "peddles anti-renewable talking points" is not a refutation. In fact, it is a big nothing-burger. It is not a nothing burger. If the rest of the site is full of falsehoods and fallacies (e.g. (front page article about the “large” amounts of waste from use wind turbine blades) then anything else they post is also dubious by default. I’m sure they also have articles about how much waste solar panels produce at the end of their life, or the whales “hurt” by offshore wind, or the birds hurt by onshore wind, or any number of other outright falsehoods or bad faith arguments. One does not have time to read every source and regenerate every figure themselves to verify, so picking reliable sources is important. > I am well aware of from other sources Then post it from a more reputable source. > And the energy crisis 2021-2023 affected the entire world, yet for some reason the countries with intermittent renewables were worst affected? Other than the US or Australia all the other countries are in Europe. Conspicuous given that this should be a trend that hold worldwide. The countries worst affected are those that are most reliant on fossil fuels but produce none of their own. “high fossil fuel prices were the main reason for upward pressure on global electricity prices, accounting for 90% of the rise in the average costs of electricity generation worldwide (natural gas alone for more than 50%).” [0] Feel free to pursue at your pleasure some articles on how renewables have positive impacts on the grid and lower costs. [1-5] > The numbers do add up for nuclear. Yes, unfortunately the cost does keep going up and up and up. > the numbers don't add up for intermittent renewables above a certain percentages of generation. Yes yes yes. A few years ago it was that renewables would never work. Then it was that it would have to be a very small percentage of the grid. Now it’s that it’s a certain (slightly higher percentage). Someone better tell the Chinese that they should slow down their exponential renewable rollout and instead wait for their slow nuclear one to hopefully catch up. In the meantime I hope us in the rest of the world don’t get left behind chasing a predatory delay strategy: why build renewables now when we can wait another decade or two for nuclear. “Look at China’s large nuclear buildout”, forget for a second that its orders of magnitude smaller than their renewable buildout. [0]: https://www.iea.org/commentaries/the-global-energy-crisis-pushed-fossil-fuel-consumption-subsidies-to-an-all-time-high https://www.iea.org/commentaries/the-global-energy-crisis-pu... [1]: https://www.bde.es/f/webbe/SES/Secciones/Publicaciones/InformesBoletinesRevistas/BoletinEconomico/24/T3/Files/be2403-art09e.pdf https://www.bde.es/f/webbe/SES/Secciones/Publicaciones/Infor... [2]: https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/utilities/dont-blame-clean-energy-for-rising-electric-bills https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/utilities/dont-blame-cl... [3]: https://ieefa.org/sites/default/files/2025-03/BN_Why%20are%20power%20bills%20higher%20now%20than%20they%20used%20to%20be_.pdf https://ieefa.org/sites/default/files/2025-03/BN_Why%20are%2... [4]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-025-01704-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-025-01704-0 [5]: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26941899.2022.2158145 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26941899.2022.2...