According to the website OilPrice.com: " on a global level, it’s increasingly apparent that renewables are simply too cheap to fail.

Over the past three decades, advances in technology and a maturing development ecosystem have made renewable energy projects more economical, less risky, and increasingly rewarding for landowners.

Not only have renewables outgrown subsidies and become independently successful, they’ve become so cheap that they are the most logical choice for new energy installations even in the poorest country contexts".

What a marvellous thing human ingenuity is. Natural oil and gas are resources that are far too important to waste on energy generation.

That's great WTF. So you are now in favour of technology neutrality and abolishing all subsidies to wind and sun?

I'm not sure if you realised this, but if we didn't have the subsidies, most of the arguments here would disappear.

That doesn't really follow, Graham.

Most of the cost declines we're talking about have already happened. New wind and solar are now the cheapest forms of new generation in most markets even without subsidies. That's why they keep winning auctions where subsidies are minimal or absent.

Also, "technology neutrality" only works if you apply it consistently. Fossil fuels still benefit from legacy subsidies, tax concessions, infrastructure support, and the unpriced costs of pollution and climate risk. Removing all subsidies and distortions wouldn't make renewables disappear. In many places it would make the gap clearer.

Subsidies helped renewables scale. The reason the argument hasn't disappeared is that the economics moved on.