With another new year behind me, I was reflecting on the many interactions I’ve had with people about the pros and cons of renewables.

I’ve studied the market mechanisms and spent hours in the big data generating charts. I’ve asked questions, sought answers, written submissions and challenged the popular narrative. I’ve lost a couple of points here and there, but I’ve used those lessons to hone my arguments, to burn off any unnecessary fat.

From this, I’ve built myself a solid scaffold supporting my hypothesis that the cheapest possible electricity system must be dominated by baseload generation, and I’ve condensed my arguments into two themes, supply chain and missing money.

The supply chain argument asks which part of the electricity supply chain is made less (or more) expensive by renewables. The missing money argument points out that ‘the plan’ says we need a more expensive system (more generators and more grid equipment), but as more people opt out of paying for the system (home batteries and solar) the system must cost more for those left paying.

There is no response to these arguments that negates them in any way, although people have tried. The best of the trolls will say that wind and solar lowers 5min wholesale prices – true for short periods – but when we look at the quarterly averages that underpin the contract market the higher costs from increasing price volatility emerge. Price volatility is caused by supply volatility (scarcity and abundance) which is caused by the lack of baseload generation.

Market data matches up perfectly with the thought experiment – all energy policy for the last 15 years has been aimed at prematurely closing coal power and not building any more of it. Baseload coal generation is stable, dependable and, in most cases, low cost. The same energy policy that is closing coal has built lots of wind and solar and is now shifting to hydro, gas and battery. These latter are expensive options and only take advantage of price volatility without ameliorating it.

And that doesn’t even consider the other costs waiting on the threshold like an expectant Amazon delivery, e.g. transmission and distribution networks, Capacity Investment Scheme and anything the Nelson review can think of while desperately avoiding saying the word subsidy.

The trolls say that home batteries and solar reduce system costs for everybody because there is less generation called on, and self-sourcing your electricity reduces load on the network. First point – ‘the plan’ calls for an absolutely massive overbuild of wind and solar and transmission network. There are no fewer generators or transmission lines in ‘the plan’ because a few well-off folks send $10,000 to the Chinese battery industry in exchange for lower bills for a decade. All those generators and networks still have to be paid for, but that $10,000 (plus the taxpayer subsidy) is going elsewhere – missing money.

Second point – there are no electricity poles and wires being pulled out anywhere because some residents have batteries. There are not even any upgrades being reduced because of home battery installations. Imagine the suburban outrage if an electricity distributor like Energex here in Brisbane or AusGrid in Sydney said, ‘You can’t install your EV fast charger this year, we need 50 more batteries to go in first, sorry.’ Or this one, ‘We can’t meet power demand this evening, we pushed back the network capacity upgrade because we thought more batteries would be installed.’ Not happening.

With all this obvious stuff laid out in excruciating detail, all supported by physical evidence (not modelling), why do so many people continue to support the narrative?

Some of it is ego. They’ve backed the ideology with all their intellectual might and cannot accept it is wrong.

Some of it is financial. They’ve either invested, are employed in the industry, or otherwise benefit from the ideology.

Some of it is political. They don’t actually care what works, they just want to win elections.

Some of it is stubbornness or stupidity or arrogance. They will continue to back the ideology because they’ve always backed the ideology, or because ‘the other side’ criticises it.

Some of it is faith. They believe ‘the experts’ whether that’s the climate or the renewables angle, either one will do and they’ll stick with that come hell or high water.

At this stage I’ve engaged with all these flavours of energy opinionista – in person and online – and I believe they are all intractable. Nobody displaying these symptoms can be cured by logic, the facts, or patient debate. They even wave off inexorably increasing electricity bills or boast about not having one at all.

They would say the same about me – that I’m intractable – but I’d simply ask them which part of the supply chain is made cheaper by renewables and immediately get called a climate denier, thus proving my point. Very few admit that the extra cost is worth it to them, which is the only honest response. I can respect that point and immediately say then let’s be honest about the cost with everybody. Which usually ends the conversation.

Looking inwards, there would be little debate if ‘the plan’ was working. Most of us would overlook or at least come to terms with the environmental or social impact if we all benefited from the lowest-priced electricity in the world (as we used to).

What will it take to change course on our energy policy, to revert to sanity? Arguing with individuals dedicated to the cause, for whatever reason, will not change their minds. However, it will hone your arguments, and it does help non-active observers (never lurkers !!) to frame their own thoughts and arrive at thoughtful conclusions.

I’ve often said that to get out of this mess, average Australians will need to become the smartest energy consumers on the planet. To get there we need more debate – online and IRL.

More and more people are tuning in because ‘the plan’ and the promises have failed. Now more than ever we need the common sense, the pub test, the short comeback that cuts to the bone and exposes the truth. We need the stupid dense arguments made plain to see.

Long live the trolls.

Ben is an electrical engineer in the gas and power sector.