Round and round and round...

Spencer Wright,

>” Therefore, Australian’s must participate in other ways.”

Your justification for this statement is not correct. Your moral beliefs are irrelevant. Moral arguments that may appeal to you are repugnant to others. The only way you can justify your proposal is by demonstrating that the benefits exceed the costs. You need to demonstrate that 1) Australians would be better off, and 2) the whole world will participate equally and if they do the world will be better off. You have not done either and cannot do so. Any policy that increases the cost of energy makes people worse off. Read these to understand why (althoug they are about carbon pricing, they apply just as much to any policy that increases the cost of energy):

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/10/26/cross-post-peter-lang-why-carbon-pricing-will-not-succeed-part-i/

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/10/27/cross-post-peter-lang-why-the-world-will-not-agree-to-pricing-carbon-ii/

Global GHG emissions can be tackled globally – but not by command and control polices like you are advocating. Instead, we need to reduce the cost of low GHG energy that meets requirements and is fit for purpose (renewables fail on this). We need to allow energy technologies that meet requirements to compete and be developed. We need to remove the impediments to nuclear power so the cost can reduce and become cheaper than fossil fuels (over time). That will allow the world to have unlimited energy indefinitely. That’s the solution.

You have not provided a cost benefit analysis. You have no valid argument. (look at the second link for a hint how to do CBA).

>” There is nothing stopping the government from investing in international renewables”

Yes there is. It’s a massive waste of money. It’s a boondoggle. There is no valid cost benefit argument. If there was you would have provided it.

> “As for a cost-benefit analysis, private investors and banks invest in renewable projects for a profit.”

So let them do it. There is not need for the CEFC. It will be repealed, eventually, just as all the banks were privatized. There is not justifiable role for government in banks like CEFC or Rudd Bank.

Peter, constantly reiterating the same thing doesn't make it so.

Similarly, trying to extrapolate to future applications using current (or in your case, past) cases without adjusting for changes in impactful factors does not work.

The simple fact is that you're wrong. You're wrong because you don't know enough to be right, which is not your fault in this particular case, but its still the reality of the situation.

Nuclear has a small role to play and the amount of nuclear generation is likely to be relatively constant for the next 50-100 years, so in that sense nuclear will become a larger component as total demand drops, but renewables, particularly solar and especially solar PV, are going to rapidly increase beyond any of the projections you might be able to find. This will become apparent over the next 12-24 months.

There are also other factors which you have no possible way of knowing about that are going to make the case for cost/benefit indisputable.

Now, you don't have to take my word for any of that and I won't add anything further at this point, but if you don't want to have large amounts of egg on your face in a short while, I recommend you moderate your stance.

Peter,

I do not think it is farfetched to suggest Australia must participate in other ways. In fact, I must insist that your argument must rely on this reasoning and I fail to see why you've made this point.

As far as the benefits exceeding the costs: I have previously stated that the CEFC already invests for a positive return despite being limited to the Australian marketplace (contrary to modern portfolio theory). I am not proposing to exclude Australian projects, but to allow the financing of global projects on a merits basis.

I do not understand your point about the whole world participating equally. No one has suggested this, nor is it possible. Fundamentally however your argument is weak as Australia is a high per capita emitter (even excluding export emissions) and therefore Australia must do more. Consequently, I do not see how this is relevant to your argument.

I am unsure how you've made the connection that investing overseas will increase the cost of energy. You have admitted the CEFC is unnecessary, so I shall leave this point until you clarify.

It does not appear my previous points regarding the legislative and political impacts of what I am advocating for. I will reiterate myself in more understandable manner for you but please take these points into careful consideration before reposting:

1. The government tried to abolish the CEFC and failed twice;
2. There is little prospect of abolishing the CEFC before the next election (and a low prospect thereafter);
3. The CEFC has its funding built into the CEFC Act;
4. The CEFC has a mandate to invest that money in Australia;
5. Consequently it is not a question of if we should invest but how we should invest; and
5. I propose a compromise that provides a wider merits review for how the financing is allocated to projects.

Your arguments are illogical and irrelevant in the current parliament. I must ask that you consider your points more carefully.

Regards,

Spencer.

Spencer Wright,

>“I do not think it is farfetched to suggest Australia must participate in other ways. In fact, I must insist that your argument must rely on this reasoning and I fail to see why you've made this point.”

I’ve provided the reasons and fully supported my arguments. You haven’t. Show the cost benefit analysis, or admit you cannot justify your idea.

Your arguments come across as based on beliefs, ideology, and self-interest.

If renewables are viable without government support, the private sector will support it. No need for the CEFC.

If you cannot demonstrate that Australia will receive a benefit that exceeds the cost, you have no case. It’s that simple.

You also need to show you’ve read the links I’ve posted, otherwise I suspect you haven’t bothered, and therefore you are not interested in anything other than advocating for your beliefs.

Your 6 points are based on your beliefs, not rational analysis. Just because CEFC hasn’t been abolished yet doesn’t mean it won’t be. People also said the carbon tax couldn’t be abolished. Legislation can be changed in short time. But reducing global GHG emissions requires policies that will succeed for decades. Therefore, it must be economically rational. What you propose is not.

My main argument

1. Renewables cannot achieve much (they are far too expensive and not viable (because of physical constraints).

2. On the other hand, nuclear can replace virtually all fossil fuels over time (e.g. 60 to 100 years). It is sustainable indefinitely. The costs can reduce by orders of magnitude. There are no insurmountable technical constraints. The only issue is political fanned by anti-nukes and ideologues like yourself. This can and does change. It will change. It’s just a matter of time.

3. You need to support your case with a cost-benefit analysis.

Your arguments are illogical and irrelevant for reducing global GHG emission or benefiting humanity. I must ask that you consider your points more carefully

Peter,

I cannot reiterate my points. You state that there is no need for the CEFC. I have stated multiple times that the government has tried and failed to repeal the CEFC. Your arguments are moot. You can make the point that the CEFC shouldn't exist, that is fine. However, at some stage you need to consider the alternatives or you will just allow sustained investment into renewables into Australia. The CEFC can't be repealed right now, so how can we best use the legislative funding which also can't be repealed.

I will no longer engage with you because drawing the conclusion that a statement such as "the CEFC has its funding built into the CEFC Act" is one of my beliefs, is far from rational.

Furthermore, you have not provided a cost benefit analysis for nuclear in Australia and are providing a double standard.