In any case the claim that "wind and solar are now the cheapest forms of new energy generation" is an accounting trick that neglects the costs of integrating this "renewable energy" into a reliable electric grid. If we are being honest with ourselves it's a lie.
In practice places with aggressive renewable energy programs have some of the most expensive electricity in the developed world and the economic viability of these renewable energy schemes is dependent on having neighbors willing to buy excess solar and wind energy. In some places, such as Scotland and Northern England, the utilities have to PAY for the privilege of exporting excess wind energy. Electricity consumers in Norway, for example, are starting to complain about increasing electric bills that are a consequence of surrounding nations using their hydroelectric powered electric grid as a "battery."
When Scotland generates 200% of it's national electric demand with wind power that excess energy has to go somewhere. Worldwide, the problem of excess wind or solar power is usually dealt with by selling it (sometimes at a negative price... ) to neighbors with dirtier electric grids. If neighbors are not willing to accept this excess power (maybe because they have their own surplus of "renewable energy" ) the knee-jerk solution is expensive battery or pumped hydro energy storage schemes. These add further to the cost of electricity.
The results of large scale renewable energy experiments are not promising. The rough math is:
For fossil fueled electric grids you can triple the price of electricity for a 75% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Further additions of renewable energy have increasingly diminishing returns. Renewable energy cannot displace fossil fuels entirely.
In the long run nuclear power costs less than hybrid gas/wind/solar/battery systems with a quarter the greenhouse gas emission or less. Nuclear power could displace fossil fuels entirely. In doing so it would also make large scale wind and solar projects unnecessary.
South Australia follows the same pattern as other electric grids with aggressive renewable energy programs such as California or Denmark. Electricity is expensive and carbon dioxide emissions are five or six times those of nuclear powered France.
https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/AU-SA/12mo/monthly
Estimating future reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by linear extrapolations of renewable energy trends is unrealistic. I'm certain the fossil fuel industry in Australia and worldwide understands this. If the public will not accept an economy powered entirely by fossil fuels, these aggressive renewable energy programs are the next best thing because they will only prolong our dependence on fossil fuels.
= new reply since forum marked as read