Fester,

No, what I mean is that government support through mechanisms like CFDs and capacity markets helps to create a stable environment for investment in renewable energy. This isn’t about offloading all the cost and risk onto taxpayers but rather about facilitating a transition that benefits everyone in the long run. Governments have historically played a role in major infrastructure projects (whether it’s highways, telecommunications, or energy systems) because these projects often require a level of investment and stability that the private sector alone can’t provide.

Yes, there’s a significant cost involved, but the intention is to avoid greater costs down the line, such as those associated with climate change, energy insecurity, and reliance on volatile fossil fuel markets. This isn’t about driving inflation and debt without a clear outcome; it’s about investing in a future where our energy systems are cleaner, more sustainable, and ultimately more cost-effective.

The complexity and expense of the transition is indeed a massive undertaking, but calling it untested isn’t entirely accurate. The technologies we’re talking about are already in use around the world and are proving their viability on increasingly large scales. The investment required is substantial, but it’s also important to consider the ongoing costs of maintaining and expanding a fossil fuel-based system, which includes not only financial costs but also environmental and health impacts.

The possibility of innovation and cost reductions in competing technologies is absolutely something worth keeping in mind. However, nuclear power comes with its own set of challenges: high upfront costs, long development timelines, waste disposal issues, and complex regulatory environment. These factors often make nuclear less competitive compared to the rapidly declining costs of renewables, especially when you factor in the speed at which renewables can be deployed.

The decision to invest heavily in renewables isn’t about ignoring other technologies; it’s about recognising where the trends are heading and where we can get the most value and sustainability in the long term. While the challenges are real, the benefits of moving towards a renewable energy future (both economically and environmentally) make it a responsible and forward-looking choice.

It's incredible how the far right has become. They still do not believe in climate change but now they are green as grass.

Fester,

I just took a closer look at the link you provided to the IEEFA article, and while it does discuss the role of government in financing renewable energy projects through the CEFC, it doesn't necessarily support the idea that this approach will drive inflation and debt with no guarantee of a viable grid.

In fact, the article highlights the CEFC's role in catalysing private investment and reducing financial risk for clean energy projects, which is intended to be a positive driver of innovation and sustainability. The CEFC's goal is to leverage government support to encourage private sector investment, not to offload the entire cost onto taxpayers. This kind of financing is meant to accelerate the transition to a cleaner energy system while also providing economic benefits, rather than burdening the economy.

The IEEFA generally advocates for this transition as a necessary step for both environmental and economic reasons, and while it acknowledges the challenges, it doesn’t portray the strategy as inherently risky or economically damaging in the way you suggested. It’s important to consider the article in its full context when drawing conclusions about the role of government support in the energy transition.

John,

What caught my attention was the 1.5 trillion investment by 2030 and the 7-9 trillion investment by 2050. To me that means higher inflation and seems far more costly than the wildest estimates for nuclear power.

Whatever happens, I would guess that private investors will do their due diligence. I'd prefer to see nuclear rejected as an option for economic reasons rather than reasons of legality.

doog,

And here I was feeling sorry for you being a cult member. My empathy is now amplified with the realisation that you are a member of a doomsday cult. I'm sure that the climate god will duly punish the capitalist sinners for refusing to glorify Them with the erection of windmills, solar panels and the sacrifice of koalas. And the punishment will surely be all the worse for their dabbling in the heresy of nookular power. Do remember to say hi to cult leader Albo for me.

How can inflation come into the building of renewable power. That is either star wars or propaganda. The latter is a constant:
Elements of the far right with no costings or direction swear by nukes. It's hard to put a reason on that, unless you are young and dumb and believe in b/s.
Where do those unbelievable figures for reenables come from. Pie in sky estimations no doubt.
nukes have gone quiet lately what does that signify. Is the passion waning or has spud gone fishing.

Poor doog. Cult leader Albo is treating you like a mushroom it would seem. Yes, seven to nine trillion dollars with wind and solar, but maybe Australians will have until 2060 to cough up. Several times the area of Tassie will be involded as well, a full on environmental Armageddon, but I'd guess that's another secret your cult leader is keeping from you.

https://www.fenex.org.au/to-get-to-net-zero-australia-needs-to-make-big-changes-and-fast/