Roses1
If what you're saying is true, then obviously there's no need for any government policy on the matter. People will do it because it's cheaper and more profitable.

"Wind and solar farms run at a profit, not a loss, the main reason being that they don't have to pay for fuel. They are also immune from fuel price volatility such as the predicted trebling of gas prices we are about to see."

Great. All for it.

So we've now established that there's no need and no reason for government to fund them, haven't we?

Jardine K Jardine. Great news!! Wind and power make a profit! As you say, no need now for RET, it is redundant. The market will be onto this in a shot.

This article covers ALL the requirements, it refers to Al Gore, hidden weapons agenda, long term cancer death toll, 16000 indirect death toll, nuclear refugees, fires, vast areas of environmental contamination..... Where is the bit about not being able to live anywhere approximate to that area of Japan for a gazillion years? And, just to put a cherry on the top of this particular case, we have ...da da.. Crude RACIST nuclear industry..... Give us a break will ya?

If wind farms are profitable, why is it that the suggestion that the RET will be adjusted is enough to stop people investing in them?

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/oct/23/wind-turbine-maker-sacks-100-workers-blaming-renewable-policy-uncertainty

If there was any genuine concern about nuclear proliferation or Australian exports freeing up local uranium for nuclear weapons, we have an option of processing ours to power producing strength, then building the nuclear reactors that are supposed to burn it, as inherently safer pebble reactors!
And that would do no harm to our domestic iron and steel industry/rust belts either!
Given these things can be trucked on site, they could be shipped in purpose created containers, off loaded and immediately trucked to their proposed site.
It may not have occurred to many, but pebble reactors may well be smaller than some of the truly massive diesel engines now powering bulk shipping, particularly that carrying our own trade goods to the world!
Were we but led by pragmatists, not patent penny wise pound foolish Ideologues, seemingly hell bent on proving a real pragmatist like Lee Kwan Yu, right, and turning us into the poor white trash of Asia!?
[And given how little we still own or control of what used to be ours, halfway there already!]
We would be flat out building a nuclear powered national fleet, to allow our trade goods, to be given an incredible advantage over other competitors!
Our impressive exports of very fast ferries, prove we are more than very competent and innovative ship builders!
Bulk freight forwarding and short haul roll on roll off ferries, remain two of the most profitable business models ever!
And we could use that fact and our natural wealth of resources, to our enduring advantage; were we not seemingly intent on proven pragmatists like Lee Kwan Yu, (the government not only should be but must be in business) completely right and entirely vindicated.
We who own 40%+ of the world's uranium, and invented the much much cheaper pulsed laser light enrichment process; should be using these factors and very adjacent Asian markets, to our enduring advantage!
Rather than (selectively advantaging) anybody else with a fistful of dollars, or carpet bagging, price gouging, tax avoiding foreigners!
Rhrosty.

"the repeatedly-demonstrated pattern of peaceful nuclear programs repeatedly paving the way for WMD proliferation"

You mean like this pattern?

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/jamesconca/files/2014/10/weapons-states.jpg

Yeah, right.

Jardine, Prompete, Rhian: Yes I was waiting for your protest - "why indeed do wind and solar require subsides at all". It's not quite so simple as you are perhaps thinking, so please bear with me in this and the next post:

Wind and solar are profitable while there is a RET target, which mandates a certain portion of electricity must be renewable. It enables wind and solar generators to sell REC certificates at the REC market price for every megawatt hour they generate. This is not a price price set by Govt. Govt only sets the annual RET targets. Renewable energy (RE) generators sell the RECS they produce to electricity companies, enabling them to purchase the percentage of renewable electricity required by the RET. This gives RE generators two income streams - electricity and RECs)

But as you say, why do they need the extra income from RECs? 4 reasons:
Coal generators are also subsidized by Govt in three ways:
- Govt charges little or no resource cost for the coal - $10 - $40 per tonne compared to export price of >$80/ tonne.
- Most coal power stations were paid for years ago by taxpayers and flogged off very cheap to private companies who now have little capital cost to recoup
- Since the carbon price was abolished, there is no charge for the cost to society (taxpayers now and in the future) of coal pollution - deaths and disabilities from air pollutants and mercury pollution plus global warming impact of CO2. These costs are estimated to be $50 - $60 per MWh.
- Last but not least is that the cost of renewables is >80% capital and less than 20% operational. Coal and gas are the reverse, because they pay for fuel while renewables do not. Investors require a high rate of return on the high capital cost of these 'newer' renewable technologies. Much higher than the government bonds that would have financed the old coal power stations.