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.