So if there were a 'level playing field' where all power stations were new and their owners had to recoup whole capital cost at the same interest rates, pay world prices for fuel (not currently the case for coal in Australia)and the health and climate costs of fuel burning, then PV and wind wouldn't need a subsidy. In future the capital costs of solar PV, solar thermal and to a lesser extent wind are predicted to decrease and this will further reduce the REC market price for these technologies.

Here is a reference from a Government website (BREE) for the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) for all electricity technologies - coal, gas, renewables and nuclear:
http://www.bree.gov.au/publications/australian-energy-technology-assessments. It shows the costs with and without a price on carbon.

Meanwhile, don't worry because as I explained in a previous post, while the RET subsidy is paid by us electricity consumers, we are are more than repaid by cheaper electricity prices. Renewables bid the electricity market price down because they don't have to pay for fuel.

I hope this has not been too confusing; it took me quite a bit of reading and research to get my head around it so I've tried to simplify it.

Back to Jim Green

Next you'll be knocking the benefits of nuclear war.

Have you no humanity?

Pete

“Wind and solar are profitable while there is a RET target, which mandates a certain portion of electricity must be renewable.”

In other words, they’re not profitable.

“Loss-making” is the word you’re looking for.

“govt charges little or no resource cost for the coal”
That’s an argument for abolishing governmental interference in the coal industry, not an argument for governmental interference in the solar or energy industries.

“- 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”

So we’re agreed there's no reason government can be trusted to manage the energy supply economically or environmentally.

This counts against your argument, not in favour.

“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.”
”

You’re arguing that a first layer of failed government intervention – subsidising the coal industry, combined with a second layer of failed government intervention – failing to rationalise the costs of what it did in the first layer, combined with a third layer of failed government intervention – energy policies that allegedly threaten the habitability of the planet – now justify a fourth layer of government intervention on exactly the same assumptions that government has superior knowledge and competence in managing the energy supply?

Sorry, that’s a fail.

“So if there were a 'level playing field' … then PV and wind wouldn't need a subsidy. “

They don’t need a subsidy now. So far as the unlevelness of the playing field comes from government action, that’s an argument against government action, not in favour of more of it.

So far as the unlevelness comes from the market, it means that PV and wind are loss-making, because they use more resources not less so you haven’t advanced the case from where you began, and are promoting more unsustainable practices, not less.

Jardine - Getting back to Jim's article - By your 'no government intervention' argument, if anyone wants to make a profit from U mining - let them sell it to N Korea or Iran or any other bomb- making nation that wants it because Governments should not intervene?

Also, Government hospitals should not treat respiratory illness/ cancer cases caused by pollution or smoking?

And of course they should not do anything to help people affected by flood, droughts and sea level rise that is demonstrably exacerbated by climate change? I can predict your answer to that - you don't even think its happening - it's a conspiracy of all the world's universities , who are all 'warmists'.

You should come to the US where I am at the moment and join the Libertarians in the Tea Party, or maybe you'd best continue as you are supporting Abbott's policies, which are similar.

Trouble with Libertarians is that they are the first to scream if there is insufficient health facilities or police force to help them when they are in trouble or education system to teach their kids. Of course those in the 1% 'uber rich', who finance the Libertarian movement don't need most of these because they can pay for their own private facilities. But they still want Governments to finance wars to protect their largesse.

Roses1

Is that the best you can do?

You raise a lot of off-topic issues. But it is sufficient to dispose of the on-topic issues between us to note that what you're saying is not true and you have admitted it. It's not true that PV and solar are profitable, and cheaper. That is entirely a result of forced redistributions in favour of loss-making activities which means you are supporting less sustainable practices not more.

As for the off-topic issues you raise, it is sufficient for me to return your barb, and at the same level, by asking whether you favour totalitarian government?

Attempts by warmists to justify their cult of state-worship have gone down in flames in this forum over and over again here, always failing on the same critical issues
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16680&page=0,
here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16726&page=0
here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16753&page=0
and here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16757&page=0

Assuming they're right again when we have repeatedly demonstrated that they have no rational argument, is only on a par with your prior tactic of arguing that "cheaper" means "more costly".

Repeating false wishes doesn't make them true.