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.