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.