I do hope so. There is no shame in acknowledging failure and changing course. As a voter, as with The Voice, I would like a choice.

The renewable energy rollout is hitting a pinch point with grid saturation, so even with public support commercial interest will wane without a large increase in public subsidies.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/solar-farms-run-at-a-loss-due-to-curtailment-and-poor-weather/

Fester,

There's no point in asking us or anyone else what the Liberals (their National partners have made up their minds) will do about Net Zero when they themselves don't have a clue what they will do. The last I heard, they were going to take 12 months to think about it!

People seem to forget that if it wasn't for the Liberals, we wouldn't have Net Zero in the first place. Morrison rushed off to Scotland, or somewhere, to sign up to it without consulting voters.

You want a choice. I want a choice. Lots of us want a choice.

But, choice is something Australians no longer have, thanks to our virtual one party system, getting closer to a real one party system, with what Ley calls the “modernisation” of the Liberal Party. Australia is headed towards a truly Socialist system as the Liberal Party ‘modernises’ to get more lefty votes rather than do what they used to do: what is best for Australia.

I'm on the way out. My interest in what happens to Australia in the future is purely academic; but what is coming for apathetic, selfish Australians under about 50 years of age, is only what they deserve.

ttbn,

I appreciate your response, but I think that you paint yourself into a corner. It might have been Morrison's decision, but it's not as if the coalition is a cult party and the leader is the voice of God.

Everyone makes mistakes. More harm comes from digging your heels in.

Fester,

“Economic suicide” is a slogan, not an argument. The article you linked doesn’t say Net Zero is impossible, it says our grid is under-invested and can’t keep up with the pace of renewable build-out. That’s not a death sentence for the transition, it’s a flashing neon sign saying “upgrade the grid.”

Every energy system in history has needed state support at critical junctures:

- Coal was subsidised.
- Gas pipelines were underwritten.
- The Snowy Scheme was taxpayer-funded from top to bottom.

If you applied your standard, Australia should have abandoned coal and hydro before they ever got off the ground.

The Coalition isn’t going to offer some fantasy “opt-out of Net Zero” choice. Their business backers, state governments, and even their rural constituencies are banking on clean-energy investment. That’s why they’re dithering for 12 months - they know the world has moved on, and they can’t afford to jump off without wrecking the economy they claim to defend.

So, the real choice isn’t “Net Zero or not.” The real choice is whether we fix transmission, storage, and planning now - or waste another decade peddling slogans while the rest of the world cashes in.

Fester,

It was Morrison's undemocratic decision: not “ might have been”. He is directly responsible for Net Zero in Australia; so is the Liberal Party, who allowed - probably encouraged him - to do it.

I don't get your “it's not as if the coalition is a cult party and the leader is the voice of God”.

How do you see the Liberals? Still the slightly right of the Labor outfit that was preferable to Labor? Well, sorry mate: it's not that any more. It's just a bunch of self-serving politicians who can't get a proper job. Morrison and Turnbull changed it, with the aid of lefties who would make better Laborites than they do anything approaching a slightly conservative alternative to Labor and Socialism.

“Everyone makes mistakes”? We are not talking about ‘everyone’. We are talking about people entrusted and paid too much to run the country.

The Liberal Party is no longer a ‘choice’ to escape Labor. And, anyway, it seems that the mutton-heads who are forced to vote for one awful side or the other are quite happy with Albanese who, although, in 2022 promised to unite Australia, has polarised us even further. It's no wonder that people who can afford to - the people we need most - are starting to talk about leaving Australia for good.

I know that you are a concerned person, but there are no political movements that Australians are willing to vote for to get us out of the mess we are in.

- Coal was subsidised.
- Gas pipelines were underwritten.
- The Snowy Scheme was taxpayer-funded from top to bottom.
John Daysh,
Whatever is for the use of the community should be paid for by the community ! It's not like Academia, Sport & Art etc. which is of no use to the community yet the community is forced to support them.

Fester,

What we need now is two parties desperate to form or retain government by being different and fighting for our votes for the entire 3 years of a Parliament, not just for a few weeks before an election.

Unlike Australia, most democratic countries use the ‘simple voting’ or first past the post system, results are quick to count; most informal voting is eliminated; stability is provided, and minor parties can win - if they are convincing enough - without 50% of the vote.

Some people think there are disadvantages to the FPTP system; but most democratic countries work well with it, and without undemocratically forcing the population to vote. While it makes sense for people to vote - or shut up - it is not democratic to force them to.

The UK is a good example. No preferential nonsense. First past the post, with a minor party looking like belting both Labor and the Conservatives at the next election.

The Brits can punish their politicians; in Australia, it's the people being punished.

"- Coal was subsidised."

I think there's a little creative history going on there.

It’s worth pointing out that even if Net Zero went to a plebiscite, the denial camp would lose badly. Every major poll for years has shown 70-80% support, including most Coalition voters.

That’s because the reality is already obvious to anyone whose identity isn’t threatened by renewables. Farmers, miners, manufacturers, and big business have all signed onto Net Zero. Every state government has locked it in. Rooftop solar is the cheapest power in the country, and investors are pouring money into storage and transmission.

So a “No” campaign would be slogans about “economic suicide” up against the lived experience of cheaper bills and the global shift already underway. That’s not a winning formula.

Personally, I now pay a fraction of what I used to for electricity since putting in solar. My lawn mower costs me more to run than my car.

Trying to paint renewables as expensive “suicide” is really pushing shite uphill.
___

Indyvidual,

Glad you agree with me then. Energy infrastructure is for the use of the community, which is why it’s always been paid for by the community - coal included.

That was exactly my point.

The irony is, when renewables get the same treatment that coal, gas, and hydro did, suddenly it’s “economic suicide.”

Funny how subsidies only become a dirty word when they’re not propping up yesterday’s technology.
___

ttbn,

Yes, the UK is a shining beacon of stability - five Prime Ministers in six years, governments flipping policy on a whim, and whole elections decided on 35-40% of the vote because the rest was “wasted.”

Truly the envy of the democratic world.

FPTP doesn’t punish politicians, it punishes voters. Millions of ballots get thrown on the scrap heap because they weren’t cast for the “winning” candidate. That’s not stability, that’s disenfranchisement dressed up as simplicity.

Australia’s preferential system isn’t perfect, but at least it forces candidates to appeal beyond their rusted-on base.

If you want more choice, scrapping preferences is the last way to get it.

___

mhaze,

Thanks for picking me up on that.

Coal is STILL subsidised.

Thank you J.D. (and Paul) for your sane, reasoned, always on point and explicitly referenced responses to the intellectual giants on this forum. Most recent example – “ … Academia, Sport & Art etc. which is of no use to the community …” Either that, or they are terrified of the one thing certain in life – change. You have the patience and energy to respond to this dribble. I simply don’t. Instead, I’m off traveling for the next few months. Stay strong.

Funny how subsidies only become a dirty word when they’re not propping up yesterday’s technology.
John Daysh,
Subsidies are good for proven technology but a total waste for guess work that includes cutting down forests, polluting the environment & no means of disposal upon use by date !

You’ve got it backwards again, Indyvidual.

Coal wasn’t “proven technology” when it was subsidised, it was an unproven gamble that governments bankrolled into maturity. Same with hydro. Same with gas. That’s exactly how technologies become “proven”: they scale because public money de-risks them.

As for renewables being “guess work”... they already generate two-thirds of Australia’s electricity on good days, rooftop solar is the cheapest power in the country, and wind and solar are being built faster and cheaper than any alternative. That’s not guesswork, that’s the market speaking.

And if we’re going to talk environmental costs: forests have been cut down, rivers diverted, and toxic waste created for every energy source in history. Coal ash, methane leaks, mine subsidence - all of it conveniently forgotten when it’s yesterday’s technology.

Subsidies didn’t stop being legitimate once coal got its fill. They’re doing exactly what they always did: backing the next generation of energy so the public isn’t left with higher costs and stranded assets.

Indy,

We took a gigantic gamble with YOU, when we subsidised YOU as a Ten Pound POM, or some such thing. All I can say is you win some, you lose some. In your case we just had to take the loss! Gave us $20, we gave YOU millions in welfare payments in return for the next 50 years!

Wait... Indyvidual's a Pom?!

And here I've been reading his posts with an Australian accent.

"Subs’dies are good for proven technol’gy, innit - but a to’al waste for guesswork. Vat’s cuttin’ down forris’s, pollu’in the environment, an’ no bleedin’ way o’ disposal when it’s past its use-by, is there?"

Fixed.

"Coal is STILL subsidised."

True. But only if you utterly mangle the meaning of the word "subsidy".

"so the public isn’t left with higher costs "

"Electricity costs rose 13.1 per cent in the 12 months to July"
ABS Monthly Consumer Price Index Indicator, July 2025

You don’t need to “mangle” anything, mhaze.

//True. But only if you utterly mangle the meaning of the word "subsidy".//

The OECD, IMF and IEA all define subsidies to include tax concessions, royalty holidays, and government-funded infrastructure. By that standard, coal has always been subsidised and still is. Fuel tax credits alone hand mining companies billions every year.

Add taxpayer-built rail and ports, and the rehabilitation costs dumped back on the public when mines are abandoned, and the idea coal was some subsidy-free, self-made success story is just fantasy.

//"Electricity costs rose 13.1 per cent in the 12 months to July"//

Waving around one year of CPI is cherry-picking. Retail bills bounce around with retailer mark-ups, network charges, and global fuel prices. Remember the 2022–23 energy crisis? That wasn’t solar panels pushing up bills - it was coal and gas spiking after Russia invaded Ukraine. Fossil volatility hit households, not renewables.

What actually matters is the wholesale market, because that reflects the real cost of generation. And there the story is consistent: every time renewables flood in, wholesale prices fall. AEMO’s quarterly reports show it, CSIRO’s GenCost shows it, and investors know it - which is why they’re building wind and solar faster and cheaper than any alternative.

In short, if you want to argue renewables are “economic suicide,” you’ve got two problems:

1. You’re redefining “subsidy” in a way that no economist or policy body on earth accepts.
2. You’re blaming renewables for price rises caused by the very fossil fuels you’re defending.

It's back the to drawing board on this one for you, I'm afraid.

John,

"- Coal was subsidised."

If that is the case, then the return has been many times the outlay. In the case of renewables, the outlay is a black hole and the resulting hike in electricity costs has done economic harm. The cheap energy from coal has played its part in our civilisation. The late Sir Leo Hielscher made cheap electricity from coal a major economic driver in Queensland, something the LNP remain appreciative of.

"- Gas pipelines were underwritten."

You bet. Because they can provide gas on demand, you can use supply contracts to arrange financing. That is not the case with renewable energy. Without the handouts they would not get built.

"- The Snowy Scheme was taxpayer-funded from top to bottom."

I was unaware that anyone disputed it as more than a post war employment program.

"The article you linked doesn’t say Net Zero is impossible, it says our grid is under-invested and can’t keep up with the pace of renewable build-out."

What it does show is that solar power is still loss making with massive subsidies and price hikes for consumers. There will be more to come as long as the idiocy continues.

"“Economic suicide” is a slogan, not an argument."

If the predictions for renewable energy of cheaper power were true I would be lauding the economic benefit. Cheap energy is a driver of civilisation and prosperity, so I have no problem with being critical of policy that is making energy markedly more expensive. That is what the pursuit of net zero is doing.

the rehabilitation costs dumped back on the public when mines are abandoned,
John Daysh,
That subject warrants a dedicated thread. I always wonder why closed or finished mine sites require rehabilitation. Many open cuts would make great recreational facilities with very little rehabilitation.
My suspicions are that much of this rehabilitation is nothing more than extorting millions of Dollars for something Nature will do for nothing & probably quicker. Abandoned mine sites would make great training grounds for various activities all the way to Defence.
The eventual rehabilitation of the wind farms will indeed prove to be a massive cost in years to come & some of these towers might come in handy for base jumping etc.
The disposal of the batteries will be a lot more difficult ! I can't see any net zero in that !

Fester,

You’ve just described renewables in the exact terms you reserve for coal and the irony is painful.

Coal subsidies "paid for themselves" not because coal was magic, but because the public bankrolled the mines, rail, ports and power stations until the technology matured. That’s precisely the process we’re watching now with renewables. You can’t call one "investment" and the other a "black hole" without a serious double standard.

Regarding costs, wholesale data says the opposite of what you’re claiming. AEMO’s quarterly reports show renewables consistently push down wholesale prices. That’s why rooftop solar - not coal - now delivers the cheapest power in the country.

Retail bills rose during the 2022-23 energy crisis because fossil fuel prices spiked globally after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. That wasn’t "solar panels causing economic harm." It was dependence on coal and gas exposing households to fossil volatility.

And the idea that renewables are "loss-making" ignores why they’re still being built at record pace: investors chase profit, not ideology. If renewables were just a subsidy sink, you wouldn’t see billions in private capital piling in every year.

You’re right that cheap energy drives civilisation. That’s exactly why the shift is happening.

Coal did its job for the 20th century. In the 21st, wind, solar, and firming are already the cheapest new-build energy. The market knows it. Governments know it. Voters know it. Pretending otherwise is what looks like economic suicide.

At this point the only people calling renewables "loss-making" are commentators, not investors.
_____

Indyvidual,

Rehabilitation isn’t left to nature because abandoned mines leach heavy metals, leave toxic tailings, and destabilise ground for decades. Communities in Mt Lyell and the Hunter know the public health costs firsthand. And taxpayers foot the bill when mining companies underfund rehab bonds and walk away.

That’s a subsidy by another name: profits privatised, clean-up socialised.

As for renewables, end-of-life costs are already planned for. Net Zero is about balancing carbon, not rubbish bins. Battery disposal doesn’t change the maths. Coal left billions of tonnes of CO2, ash, and acid drainage. Against that, recycling steel and lithium looks trivial.

G'day John,

Unfortunately our forum friends from the far right, see renewables as some kind of left wing ideology promoted by the evil Woke/Marxists, trying to pervert the wholesomeness of Capitalism, as personified by the burning of lumps of dirty black coal. No amount of reason and logic on your part is going to convince them otherwise. How sad!

"Waving around one year of CPI is cherry-picking."

Every piece of data you don't like gets described as cherry-picked as though that proves the case. But its wrong. Instead its just one more element in a massive string of data showing that as nations get more renewables they get higher costs.

"Fuel tax credits alone hand mining companies billions every year."

Fuel tax credits aren't a subsidy, they are a return of taxes incorrectly charged. The fuel tax is levied to cover the costs of vehicles on public roads and the tax is returned when used on vehicles and the like tht don't use public roads. But the alarmists always include it in their erroneous subsidy claims because there's precious little other evidence of mining subsidies.

mhaze,

Cherry-picking isn’t about “data I don’t like.” Cherry-picking is about presenting one number while ignoring the wider picture.

You're a bit slow to catch on.

//"Every piece of data you don't like gets described as cherry-picked..."//

No, even the wider picture here is clear. International studies (AEMO, CSIRO GenCost, IEA, Lazard) all show renewables are the cheapest form of new generation. Retail bills spiked during the fossil fuel price surge of 2022–23, not because of solar panels.

If your “massive string of data” exists, produce it.

//"Fuel tax credits aren't a subsidy..."//

That’s simply wrong.

The Productivity Commission, OECD, IMF and IEA all classify fuel tax credits as subsidies, because they’re a tax concession - revenue foregone that directly benefits one sector. And even without them, coal has always leaned on public support with taxpayer-built rail and ports, royalty holidays, underfunded rehab bonds, and state-guaranteed demand.

Either way, nitpicking over whether to call it a subsidy or a rebate doesn’t change the reality. Coal has always leaned on public support - whether through tax concessions, royalty holidays, rehab shortfalls, or publicly funded infrastructure.

Call it whatever you like. The fact remains: fossil fuels haven’t stood on their own two feet, and renewables are just getting the same treatment coal did for a century.

Back in your box...

Indeed, Paul.

A lot of psychological studies have been done on this phenomenon with fascinating findings. You’ll be utterly unsurprised to learn that the concern over renewables has absolutely nothing to do with economics. As Trump’s tariff wars also demonstrated, economic concerns are only a priority for the right when it’s politically convenient.

The distress comes from identity. Coal and gas have been cultural symbols of strength, prosperity, and “real work” for generations. When renewables take over, it feels like those touchstones are being dismantled. That’s why we hear “economic suicide” rhetoric even as AEMO, CSIRO, and private investors all show renewables are cheaper.

What should be an exciting, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for anyone truly economically minded is quickly tossed aside to protect identity. Contrary to what the Reagan/Thatcher era sold us, it appears economics isn't as high on the hierarchy of right-wing concerns as we've believed it to be for decades now.

It isn’t about numbers. It’s about protecting a story that no longer matches reality.

"The OECD, IMF and IEA all define subsidies to include tax concessions, royalty holidays, and government-funded infrastructure. "

Do they? Show me where the IMF says that.

"government-funded infrastructure". That's just rhetoric and mangling definitions. Under that definition, governments filling in pot-holes on city streets is a subsidy to the Uber Eats.

"Either way, nitpicking over whether to call it a subsidy or a rebate doesn’t change the reality"

Oh good. It was a subsidy until it wasn't.

The alarmist community is desperate to dig up false claims of subsidies to coal/gas etc because they realise that the massive subsidies paid in renewables port barrelling exposes the real purpose of the renewables mantra.

"If your “massive string of data” exists, produce it."

Done and done. I showed you the data showing the direct relationship between the levels of renewables and electricity costs. It went over your head.

Nukes are missing in action. Why?
Their arce is still on fire from what they were spruking why not a rerun.
In other words they are hopelessly lost, so what would you suggest for whatever you are proposing that is hidden in plain sight and not to be talked about. In other words you mugs cannot bring to the surface what may cause a total obliveration.

Yes, they do, mhaze.

//Do they? Show me where the IMF says that.//

"Globally, fossil fuel subsidies were $7 trillion in 2022. Subsidies include both explicit subsidies-undercharging for supply costs-and implicit subsidies-undercharging for environmental costs and forgone consumption taxes."
http://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2023/08/22/IMF-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Data-2023-Update-537281

And here are links for the two others you, for some reason, didn’t request:

IEA:
http://www.iea.org/reports/fossil-fuel-subsidies-in-clean-energy-transitions-time-for-a-new-approach

OECD:
http://www.oecd.org/en/topics/fossil-fuel-support.html

//"government-funded infrastructure". That's just rhetoric and mangling definitions. Under that definition, governments filling in pot-holes on city streets is a subsidy to the Uber Eats.//

There’s a difference between universal public goods like city roads, and taxpayer-funded rail lines, ports, and power stations built specifically to serve coal. One is general infrastructure, the other is industry-targeted support. Pretending they’re the same is your mangling, not mine.

//"Oh good. It was a subsidy until it wasn't."//

No, it was always a subsidy. Or, as you would put it: "i DiDn'T sAy ThAt!!1!"

I said even if you stripped out fuel tax credits completely, coal has always leaned on public support: rail and ports, royalty holidays, underfunded rehab bonds, and state-guaranteed demand. You can call it subsidy, rebate, or concession - it doesn’t change the underlying reality.

//"The alarmist community is desperate to dig up false claims..."//

This is just rhetoric. The irony is, I’ve backed every point with international institutions (IMF, IEA, OECD) while you’re stuck asserting without evidence. If anyone’s desperate, it isn’t me.

//"Done and done. I showed you the data..."//

Where?

You waved at "a string of data" and produced nothing. Meanwhile, AEMO, CSIRO, IEA and Lazard all publish real datasets showing renewables are the cheapest new-build generation and consistently drive down wholesale prices.

If you have actual sources, cite them. Otherwise, "I already proved it" is just another empty line.

Unfortunately our forum friends from the far right, see renewables as some kind of left wing ideology promoted by the evil Woke/Marxists,
Paul1405,
well, that's exactly what it is ! An expensive ideology that does not add up in the long run. They should concentrate on real possible technology ! One that doesn't create yet another bandwagon !

Global warming is well and truely here after 40 years of denialism that is how far behind we are. Thailand just had 300mm of rain in no time flat.
Nukes are poison, so what is your alternative.,
Black tar, coal, are in the forbidden bin.
may be we can catch some lightning bolts.

Indy,

We don't want another aged welfare bandwagon, all those useless old farts with their snouts in the taxpayer trough! I know of one blow in who as soon as the ship docked he was into a taxpayer funded cab and off to the nearest Centrelink office, where he's been camped for the last 50 years!

John,

You often speak of climate change denial, yet you seem in denial of the reality of renewable energy.

Remember the promises? Renewable generation would bring power prices down, and the more there was the greater the drop. Oh, and we wouldn't need fossil fuel generation any more because we were going to be a renewable energy superpower and who needs baseload? And with all the cheap power the economy would boom and bring an era of prosperity whilst saving the planet from global warming.

So what happened? Prices have risen steadily, and if you count the costs you can't use the tobacco executives' "correlation aint causation" excuse: The rising costs rest with renewable energy as this example shows:

https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-papers/why-have-electricity-bills-risen

And the jobs? Plenty being lost as industries powered by cheap energy close down. The coal generation? The ones that weren't blown up in renewable energy zealot extravaganzas and not maintained because "We won't need them.". Well, they are desperately needed, clapped out and in disrepair, as all those wonderful solar panels and wind turbines cannot generate dispatchable power. The environment? Vast areas being trashed building wind and solar farms. The saving grace is that grid saturation has stopped investment in wind and solar, pausing the desecration. And what about global warming? With most of the world not giving a stuff about emissions, Australia won't make a jot of difference by destroying its economy.

What, and I'm really motivated by politics? You couldn't be more wrong.

Fester,

Your reply comes across as a laundry list of grievances thrown up in the hope that volume looks like substance, but it’s full of recycled talking points.

//Renewable generation would bring power prices down…//

And it has. Wholesale prices fall whenever renewables flood the grid.

That’s why rooftop solar is the cheapest power in the country, and why AEMO’s quarterly reports consistently show renewables cutting wholesale costs. Retail bills spiked in 2022-23 because coal and gas prices exploded after Russia invaded Ukraine, not because of solar panels.

Fossil volatility hit households, not renewables.

//…we wouldn't need fossil fuel generation any more…//

No serious planner ever said we could flick the switch overnight. AEMO’s Integrated System Plan explicitly models renewables plus storage, firming, and transmission. That’s why new investment is going into batteries, pumped hydro, and demand management - firm capacity, not blind faith.

//And the jobs? Plenty being lost…//

Industries aren’t shutting because renewables are “too cheap.” They’re struggling with fossil fuel price spikes.

Meanwhile, clean energy is creating tens of thousands of new jobs in construction, manufacturing, and regional services. That’s why business and unions are on board - because the opportunity is real.

//The environment? Vast areas being trashed…//

Compared to what?

Coal has left billions of tonnes of ash, methane leaks, acid mine drainage, and entire landscapes gutted. A few hectares of solar panels or wind towers, recyclable at end-of-life, hardly compare.

//…Australia won't make a jot of difference…//

That’s the same excuse used by every country that doesn’t want to act. But when you add them together, that’s the majority of emissions. We export fossil fuels that drive emissions overseas, so pretending we’re irrelevant is a convenient but false dodge.

So no, this isn’t “denial of reality.” It’s refusing to confuse rhetoric with data. Renewables are cheaper, they do drive down wholesale prices, and they’re the only credible path to affordable, low-risk energy.

What you’ve listed isn’t reality, just yesterday’s talking points dressed up as prophecy.

"If you have actual sources, cite them. Otherwise, "I already proved it" is just another empty line."

You've spent too much time around Paul. He also goes through this process of demanding proof of something he don't want to be true, then ignoring the evidence when presented, only to demand the same proof the next time the issue is raised.

We already had a thread on the data showing total electricity costs being highest in countries with high renewable penetration and lowest in countries that have yet to be coerced into going wind/solar. Go look it up yourself. It went over your head the last time and I don't have the will to try to explain it all over again.

"I said even if you stripped out fuel tax credits completely,"
Yeah, because they're not the subsidy you claimed them to be.

As to infrastructure built for specific purposes, again you try to mangle the definition. First, ports built primarily for coal aren't used solely for coal. Ditto rail lines etc. And even if they were they are built by government because they know they'll get it all back in royalties and taxes.

But again, its just hand-waving at an industry you don't like. There's no economic difference between building a rail line to a mine and building a rail line to a new suburb development in western Sydney. Or building a port for coal or a passenger ship terminal. The only difference is that some people have an irrational hatred of the source of most of our power needs

The real world future. We are always told that we'll miss the boat if we don't double-down on wind/solar. But the real boat is sailing in the other direction and the anti-nuclear brigade are holding us back.

http://tiny.cc/1gvr001

This was always going to be the path to the fabled net-zero. Always

In other words, mhaze, there isn’t any.

//We already had a thread…Go look it up yourself.//

That’s not evidence, that’s burden-shifting. If your "string of data" really proved costs were highest in renewable-heavy countries, you’d link it instead of waving vaguely at phantom threads. Meanwhile, AEMO, CSIRO, IEA and Lazard publish their datasets publicly - and they all show renewables are the cheapest new-build power.

//Fuel tax credits aren’t subsidies.//

The IMF, IEA and OECD all classify them as subsidies. That’s not my definition, that’s international consensus. You don’t get to redefine terms to suit your argument.

//Ports built primarily for coal aren’t used solely for coal… governments get it back in royalties and taxes.//

If that were true, taxpayers wouldn’t be stuck with billions in unfunded rehabilitation liabilities. Rail to a suburb doesn’t leave acid mine drainage when the industry walks away. The comparison is nonsense.

//…an industry you don’t like…irrational hatred of the source of most of our power needs.//

This isn’t about liking or hating anything. Coal did its job for the 20th century, but economics change. Respecting what coal contributed doesn’t mean pretending it can deliver cheapest power in the 21st. Pointing that out isn’t "hatred," it’s just acknowledging reality.

And since you’ve now switched boats:

The US SMR project you linked is a pilot, not proof of an industry shift. It’s still years from operation, depends on subsidies, and is being tested as a complement to renewables, not a replacement. Nuclear isn’t the “real boat” sailing away, it’s trying to climb aboard the renewables fleet that’s already left port.

You call this "hand-waving," but I’ve cited IMF, IEA, OECD, AEMO, CSIRO and Lazard. You’ve cited nothing.

So let’s be clear: the only "irrational hatred" on display here is your refusal to accept data from every major economic and energy body on earth.

Phantom threads and playground deflections aren’t evidence.

It is strange that people who know that the fossil fuel/carbon dioxide cause of climate change is bullsh.t, still go on about nuclear power when black coal remains the cheapest, most efficient source of electricity; and we don't have to do anything that we are not doing now. Except get rid of unreliables and Chris Bowen.

Furthermore, mhaze...

I’ve had a look through some of your previous drubbings and couldn’t find this evidence of yours.

//It went over your head the last time and I don't have the will to try to explain it all over again.//

It seems the 'Clever Dissector' persona has its limits.

Appealing to this “string of data” over and over won't make it real. The truth is, you’ve never actually produced it. Not in any of the threads where renewables were mentioned. What you *have* offered in the past is correlation (“countries with high renewables have high retail prices”) without any demonstration of causation.

So, whatever it was that was that "went over [my] head" is still a mystery - and it will remain a mystery because you're all about performance.

Meanwhile, AEMO’s quarterly reports, CSIRO’s GenCost, Lazard’s LCOE analysis, the IEA, and the IMF all publish transparent datasets showing renewables are the cheapest new-build electricity and consistently drive down wholesale prices. That’s not rhetoric, it’s hard numbers from the institutions whose job it is to measure these things.

So let’s be clear: your “string of data” doesn't exist. Mine is verifiable, public, and internationally recognised. The only reason you keep pointing vaguely at past threads is because you know that when the numbers are on the table, they don’t break your way.

We’ve all seen this schtick from you before - the phantom evidence, the retreat, and then the same claim recycled later as if nothing happened.

It's freaking Groundhog Day with you, isn't it?

We discussed the Lomborg data previously which compared renewable penetration in a range of countries to the price of electricity in those countries to show that more renewables leads to higher prices.

That you don't like the data doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That others use different criteria to arrive at more politically correct results doesn't prove the data doesn't exist. That the current mantra is that we need to reduce CO2e emissions irrespective of price doesn't mean that price is irrelevant.

You started off claiming that building rail lines to a mine is proof of subsidy and have now abandoned that and want to talk about alleged pollution. Oh well I'll take that as a win.

You started off telling us that it was fine and dandy to subsidise wind/solar since all new technologies need subsidy, but now tell us that SMR's aren't the future because they need subsidy. It must be nice ot have such 'flexible' standards.

I see what you're referring to now, mhaze.

//"We discussed the Lomborg data previously which compared renewable penetration in a range of countries to the price of electricity in those countries to show that more renewables leads to higher prices."//

And it's no wonder you didn't link to it: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10573&page=0

Like I said at the time - that’s not a dataset, it’s a correlation graph. And correlation is not causation.

“…the interpretation is overly simplistic. Yes, there’s a pattern in some countries where higher renewable penetration correlates with higher electricity prices. But correlation isn’t causation, and context matters. Many of those countries (e.g. Germany and Denmark) started their transition decades ago when renewables were far more expensive and less efficient. They also layered in high energy taxes, carbon pricing, and legacy grid costs.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10573#369409

Germany and Denmark don’t have high retail prices because of renewables, they locked in high bills early by subsidising solar and wind back when costs were many times higher. Add in hefty taxes, legacy network charges, and policy levies, and yes, their bills are high. But none of that proves renewables themselves are expensive.

Meanwhile, the present-day evidence is unambiguous:

AEMO’s quarterly reports, CSIRO’s GenCost, Lazard’s LCOE, and the IEA all show the same thing: when renewables enter the wholesale market, prices fall. That’s why rooftop solar is the cheapest electricity in the country. Retail bills went up in 2022-23 because coal and gas spiked after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine - fossil volatility, not “solar panels causing economic harm.”

So, you still have no evidence.

Lomborg’s chart was the mystery evidence you keep appealing to. It’s correlation dressed up as causation, and it ignores both timeframes and the wholesale market where prices are actually set.

I've cited AEMO, CSIRO, IEA, Lazard and the IMF. You’ve cited Lomborg’s graph. That’s not a contest - it’s the difference between analysis and propaganda.

Groundhog Day.

I see someone mentioned nuclear. I knew they would. But nukes wont come from the culprits that drove the word to fame. Australia voted and we now have a depleted oposition.
Next vote yous tipe of voters should vote for the red heaired one you would be better off.
Will the coalition reject net zero, not in this life.
Transmittion lines will go through just as they did in the 50,s same same again.

Let’s tidy up a few loose ends, mhaze.

//That you don't like the data doesn't mean it doesn't exist.//

I haven’t expressed a preference for any evidence. This is simply you reframing my observation - that you haven’t presented any evidence - as a matter of taste.

//That others use different criteria to arrive at more politically correct results doesn't prove the data doesn't exist.//

To quote an infamous sophist:

"Well, it's lucky I didn't say that then. Just something else you made up."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10649#371634

But I do like that you consider the result of looking at ALL the data to be "politically correct." It would be a travesty to cherry-pick one slither of data and present it as "correct" on any level.

//That the current mantra is that we need to reduce CO2e emissions irrespective of price doesn't mean that price is irrelevant.//

You’ve completely made that up. I’d ask for evidence for this claim, but we all know now just how fruitless that endeavour is.

//You abandoned subsidies for rail lines and moved to pollution. I’ll take that as a win.//

I didn’t abandon it, I expanded it.

Coal was bankrolled with taxpayer-funded rail and ports, royalty holidays, and rehab bonds that never cover the clean-up. That’s still public money propping up private profit.

Declaring a "win" because the list is longer than you expected is… creative.

//You … now tell us that SMR's aren't the future because they need subsidy.//

For the easily distracted and those with comprehension issues:

"The US SMR project you linked is a pilot, not proof of an industry shift. It’s still years from operation … and is being tested as a complement to renewables, not [as] a replacement."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10653#371838

//It must be nice ot have such 'flexible' standards.//

Apparently, I wouldn’t know. You’ll need to fill us in there.

I said you dismissed SMRs because, among other reasons, they need subsidies.

You dispute it and quote what you said. And you truncate that quote by using the standard "..." to skip irrelevant matter. BUT the words you left out are "depends on subsidies,". You tried to hide from your own quote that you'd said SMR's need subsidies!!

How desperate are you that you'd be prepared to try to hide what you actually said a mere 24 hrs ago in the same thread? Things not going well, eh JD? And how dumb are you to think I'd let you get away with it.

Oh dear, mhaze.

You seem to have missed the part where I literally flagged the ellipsis with ‘For the EASILY DISTRACTED and those with comprehension issues’.

In other words, exactly your situation.

Nothing hidden - just cut to help the easily distracted and to demonstrate that it made no difference to my point.

How dumb are you to think I'd pull that - let alone need to.

Just on the cost issue. Yet again!

There are many ways to calculate the costs of wind/solar... and coal and gas and nukes and hydro for that matter.

And I agree that many of the government run institutions use methods that arrive at the answers the establishment want by looking at a subset of the over all cost of installing wind/solar.

But that's not conclusive unless you want it to be.

Alternatively, rather than look at a subset of the costs, others look at the overall cost borne by the nation and use price as a proxy for the costs. Higher the price = higher cost. Rising price = rising cost. Economics 101.

This is what Lomborg's analysis does. His data derives from the IEA. It look at the system at its entirely. But its not the only analysis to do that. Others (Ueckerdt et al.) for example use a process called “System LCOE” (Levelized Costs of Electricity ) to show that higher penetration of renewables makes them more expensive per unit of output. For example they show that, in Germany, the MwH cost of renewable electricity rose by 60% when renewables went from 10% to 40% penetration. Other studies have found similar results in China which, for example, "revealed that all provincial S-LCOE of China's PV is currently higher than local desulfurized coal electricity price (DCEP)."

And bear in mind that price is adjusted down by subsidies. So our own government's policy of electricity bill rebates reduces the headline cost of power. In the US wind/solar subsidies reach around $60 billion per year. If they were included in the overall costs, it would make the wind/solar cult look even worse.

Little wonder that the more forward thinkers are looking at SMRs again.

Nothing to say on your ellipsis blunder, mhaze?

OK, let’s move on. Perhaps headings and separators will make things easier for you.

LCOE vs "System LCOE"

//…many of the government run institutions use methods that arrive at the answers the establishment want by looking at a subset…//

In other words: "Every energy economics body on earth is wrong except the handful I cherry-pick."

LCOE is used because it compares apples to apples: the cost of building and operating a generator. That’s why investors trust it, and why private capital pours into wind and solar but not coal.

System LCOE isn’t a "gotcha." It models integration costs - transmission, balancing, storage. AEMO’s ISP and CSIRO’s GenCost already do that. Their conclusion? Even with integration, renewables plus firming are still cheaper than new coal or nuclear in Australia.
__________

Germany/China cherry-pick

Germany’s bills rose early because they were early adopters, building when renewables cost 5-10x more. They locked in high FiTs and layered hefty levies. That’s not today’s reality.

China? Coal looks cheaper only because pollution isn’t priced, supply is state-controlled, and renewables remain at pilot scale. That’s not proof renewables are expensive, it’s proof coal is artificially cheap when externalities are dumped on the public.
__________

Subsidies hypocrisy

//In the US wind/solar subsidies reach around $60 billion per year…//

Global fossil subsidies hit $7 trillion in 2022 (IMF). So if subsidies are the metric, fossil fuels dwarf everything else.

You hold subsidies against renewables, but SMRs (your “forward-thinking” future) literally depend on them. NuScale exists only because billions in government underwriting keep it afloat.

By your own standard, that makes SMRs "a cult propped up by subsidies."
__________

TLDR

- Your "system cost" cherry-picks early Germany and provincial China while ignoring present-day evidence from AEMO, CSIRO, Lazard, and IEA.

- Your subsidy argument collapses once you admit coal and nuclear are subsidy-dependent too.

- Your "price proxy" shortcut confuses correlation with causation - high bills in some countries stem from taxes and fossil volatility, not renewables.

Meanwhile, investors are voting with their money - and they’re not buying what you’re selling.

So here's the thing. JD says subsidising wind/solar is fine because they are new technologies and he claims, sans evidence, that all new technologies need subsidy. Then he claims that (new technology) SMR isn't viable because, among other things, it has to be subsidised.

I point out the rank hypocrisy.

Rather than try to defend the rank hypocrisy, he simply tries to hide it by offering a quote where he deletes his claim about SMR's being subsidised.

And he thinks that's valid, honest, and not the least childish. Ethics of an alley cat. I've never understood the willingness of people to play the clown rather than admit error. JD is near the top of that shameful list.

_____________________________________________________________________

And now he's back on cherry-picking. Every bit of evidence he doesn't like is, he claims, cherry-picked. Somehow Lomborg using world-wide data from a world-wide organisation to show a world-wide phenomena is cherry-picked. Still playing the clown.

"Global fossil subsidies hit $7 trillion in 2022 (IMF). "

Of which 81% are so-called 'implicit costs', ie not actual costs. I'd explain it to you if I thought you had the slightest interest in understanding the rubbish you fall for.

No, that’s not "the thing", mhaze.

//JD says subsidising wind/solar is fine because they are new technologies and he claims, sans evidence, that all new technologies need subsidy.//

It's not “sans evidence” at all. Coal, gas, hydro, nuclear - all were subsidised in their early stages. That’s the historical record.

//Then he claims that (new technology) SMR isn't viable because, among other things, it has to be subsidised.

No, what I said was the US SMR you linked to wasn’t suggestive of an industry shift.

//I point out the rank hypocrisy.//

Only you didn’t - because, with or without subsidies, my point still stood:

“cut … to demonstrate that it made no difference to my point.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10653#371850

//Rather than try to defend the rank hypocrisy, he simply tries to hide it by offering a quote where he deletes his claim about SMR's being subsidised.//

Once again for the slow:

“Nothing hidden - just cut to help the easily distracted and to demonstrate that it made no difference to my point.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10653#371850

Again, I flagged the ellipsis explicitly and the point remained intact.

//Every bit of evidence he doesn't like is, he claims, cherry-picked.//

"No, cherry-picking is using one narrow and contextless metric to distract."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10628#371076

What I pointed out is that Lomborg’s retail-price chart is correlation, not causation. Germany’s high bills come from early high-cost renewables, FiTs, and levies - not the cost of renewables today.

//Somehow Lomborg using world-wide data from a world-wide organisation to show a world-wide phenomena is cherry-picked.//

World-wide data plotted without context is still cherry-picking. Correlation =/= causation. Every credible body shows renewables drive wholesale prices down.

You’ve produced one correlation chart. That’s the difference between propaganda and analysis.

//“Global fossil subsidies hit $7 trillion in 2022 (IMF).” Of which 81% are so-called 'implicit costs', ie not actual costs.//

So “not actual costs” = climate damage, air pollution, and health impacts? That’s the very definition of externalities - costs dumped on the public. The IMF, IEA, and OECD all treat them as subsidies because they are: private profit, public loss.

Try again.

SMR are not made for large amounts of power. One million wat hours = 1,000 KwH. Places like car manufacturers or Aluminium smelters. You would need 1000 SMR for i gig of power. We have sunshine galour which is free.
It is only gueswork to say how long a solar panel goes for. The first solar panels built in the sixties for an experiment are still producing power

John,

The $7 trillion is calculated in an interesting manner.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tilakdoshi/2023/09/06/energy-subsidy-shenanigans-the-green-imf-at-work/

Probably not unlike the CSIRO's Gencost methodology, but in that instance, even after inflating all the cost estimates, coal generation still cost less.

https://www.cis.org.au/commentary/video/the-csiro-report-that-proves-coal-is-cheaper-than-renewables-zoe-hilton/

Renewable energy subsidies are currently nine billion and rising annually plus who knows how much more through the secret capacity investment scheme. What return does the government get from this outlay?

Fester,

The Forbes piece you linked admits the costs are real. It just objects to calling them subsidies.

//The $7 trillion is calculated in an interesting manner.//

But if the public pays for climate damage, health costs, and lost tax revenue, that’s still a subsidy. Private profit, public loss. As I said to mhaze, Change the label if it helps you sleep, but the bill doesn’t go away.

//CSIRO’s GenCost… coal generation still cost less.//

That CIS clip is theatre.

CSIRO uses LCOE because it’s transparent and lets investors compare apples to apples. That’s why private capital keeps going to wind and solar, not coal. CIS’s "system LCOE" just piles on externalities while ignoring fossil costs we all pay for - the very definition of cherry-pick.

//Renewable subsidies are nine billion and rising…//

Global fossil subsidies: $7 trillion (IMF). Renewables: billions. Fossils: trillions.

If you want to play the subsidy game, your side dwarfs mine. And SMRs - the "forward-thinking" option you like - literally depend on subsidies for survival. By your own standard, they’re a cult propped up by handouts.

//Renewable subsidies are nine billion and rising…//

In Australia, fossil subsidies are consistently higher than renewable ones. For example, fuel tax credits alone are worth $11-12 billion a year - more than the $9b for renewables.

//What return does the government get from this outlay?”//

Plenty.

Lower wholesale prices (AEMO shows renewables consistently cut them). Cheaper household bills (rooftop solar now the cheapest power in the country). Tens of thousands of regional jobs. New tax revenue from the clean-energy boom. And avoided health costs from coal pollution that currently kills thousands of Australians a year.

That’s a return any Treasurer would recognise.

Compare that to fossil subsidies - which give us price shocks, pollution, and stranded assets in return.

"Again, I flagged the ellipsis explicitly and the point remained intact."

You didn't mention the ellipses until I pointed out your attempt to hide the fact that you'd had two different attitudes to subsidies depending on whether they were going to systems you favoured or systems you didn't favour. So nothing explicit in the slightest.

ie rank hypocrisy which you're no trying desperately to hide.

And comically failing.
___________________________________________________________________

"The $7 trillion is calculated in an interesting manner."

Its a falsely manufactured figure that has no validity and has been created to lure in the anxiously gullible.... in the case of JD, successfully.

Oh, but I did, mhaze.

//You didn't mention the ellipses until I pointed out your attempt to hide the fact that you'd had two different attitudes to subsidies depending... So nothing explicit in the slightest.//

For the third time now: I literally wrote "For the EASILY DISTRACTED and those with comprehension issues" before the quote, flagging the ellipsis. That’s the definition of explicit.

"Easily distracted" would make no sense without that context - whether explicit or implied.

You can keep pretending otherwise, but the post is still there for your audience to check.

So no, there was no "different attitude" to subsidies. I said that the US SMR you linked to wasn’t suggestive of an industry shift, while hinting at your hypocrisy on subsidies. Your own metric - sneering at subsidies - collapses the moment we apply it to the tech that doesn't threaten your identity.

SMRs, coal, and gas have all leaned heavily on subsidies. If you hold it against renewables, you have to hold it against them too. That’s consistency. What you’re doing is projection.

//ie rank hypocrisy which you're now trying desperately to hide. And comically failing.//

This is just empty sneering to cover the fact that you’ve misrepresented my position.

I haven’t hidden anything, and the evidence of that is in the timestamps: I flagged the ellipsis before you started screaming about it. Anyone can scroll back and see it.

//[The $7 trillion is] a falsely manufactured figure that has no validity and has been created to lure in the anxiously gullible…. in the case of JD, successfully.//

Wrong again.

The $7 trillion is the IMF’s number. Not Greenpeace. Not "alarmists." The IMF - one of the most conservative financial institutions on earth.

They call it subsidies because that’s what it is: foregone tax revenue, under-priced fuel, and unpaid health and climate costs. Those are real costs. Just because they’re externalised doesn’t mean they vanish.

Calling them "false" doesn’t erase the reality that the public is footing the bill while fossil companies pocket the profit. That’s not gullibility, that’s accounting.

Groundhog Day.

Moving on, mhaze, let’s recap what you’ve been frantically trying to distract from:

1. You still haven’t produced a single piece of credible data showing that renewables cause higher electricity prices - only a recycled correlation graph from Lomborg that ignores taxes, early adopter costs, and legacy infrastructure. You wave it around like it’s gospel, then pretend it “went over everyone’s head.”

2. You’ve offered no rebuttal whatsoever to the sources I cited - AEMO, CSIRO, Lazard, IEA, IMF, OECD. All of them show the same thing: renewables are the cheapest new-build electricity and consistently push down wholesale prices. That’s data. Not slogans. Not cherry-picked graphs. Just reality.

3. You tried to redefine “subsidy” to exclude fuel tax credits, government infrastructure, and externalised pollution - despite the fact that every major economic body (including the IMF) explicitly includes those costs. Then you mocked the $7 trillion figure without even attempting to address what that money pays for.

4. You sneer at subsidies for renewables but give nuclear and coal a free pass - despite both being heavily subsidised from the beginning and still reliant on public support today (e.g. SMRs, unfunded rehab liabilities). That’s the hypocrisy I pointed out. Not that SMRs need subsidies, but that your outrage is entirely selective.

You’ve now spent three posts obsessing over an ellipsis - one I literally flagged in advance. You’re not trying to clarify anything. You’re just trying to bury the fact that you’ve been caught bluffing - with no data, no consistency, and no answer to the central point:

- Renewables are cheaper.
- They reduce price volatility.
- They’re being built at scale because they make economic sense.

So if we’re done with the punctuation tantrums, maybe try engaging with the actual evidence.

Or, y’know... just keep doing what you’re doing. It’s going great.