It's probably true if there were oil down there, there would already be multiple wells, because it is already *known* that oil reservoirs can be exploited.

At the moment, it's known that there is a body of hot rock down there, but it has not been demonstrated that it can be exploited. A large amount of money has already been spent, and more will be spent, in proving that it's physically and economically possible to extract the energy. The idea could yet prove unviable for some as yet to be discovered reason.

It isn't reasonable to compare oil investments with hot rock investments, because they're at completely different stages in the investment cycle.

Sylvia you are correct. The problem with investing in renewables is that the return on investment is unknown and risky. It is very risky if it depends on artificial products like carbon credits and emissions permits where the return depends on the whim of a government.

To take market share from an established technology a new technology has to be cheaper and better for it to be adopted. Renewable energy is no different.

Even in situations where there is an almost immediate return on investment companies are unwilling to invest because they have "better things" to do with their money. Our company would not spend money on insulation with a ROI of one year because we need all our money to increase sales.

To solve the emissions problem we need investment. The government could tax us and then distribute the money but that is an inefficient way to allocate resources. Fundamentaly emissions permits and carbon credits are mechanisms to encourage investment in renewables.

Giving the tax (surcharge) back to the purchaser and REQUIRING that the purchaser spend the money on emissions reduction infrastructure of their choice is a simpler and more direct way of solving the investment "inertia" problem. It uses the existing market place of renewable energy and emissions reduction infrastructure as the market place. It is simple and implementation is low cost and fast. The cost to the purchaser is the surcharge minus the return on the investment so the net cost is lower than a straight tax.

There are many innovative ways to distribute the tax to amplify the effect. For example we now tax the coal we sell overseas. Why not give some of the tax back to purchasers but REQUIRE them to spend the money IN Australia developing the renewable energy resource of their choice. The renewable energy would be in Australia and we can tax it in the future. There is an abundance of untapped renewable energy in the world and the countries with first mover advantage will get the biggest market share.