Only a lunatic would describe renewables as "cheap". Repeating lies often enough might fool some people some of the time, but this one won't fool people who see the lie everytime they get a power bill.

Adding to the massive costs of renewables is the risk of grass fires caused by solar panels - already occurring in NSW, with no way of stopping them occurring all over Australia, time and time again in our long hot summers.

No one's arguing that renewables make power bills cheaper, ttbn.

Isolated incidents don't establish inevitability, either. Fire risk is a design and land-management issue, not a property of "renewables" as such. If it were uncontrollable, insurers, regulators, and grid operators wouldn't be permitting large-scale solar at all.

Every energy system carries ignition risk. The relevant question is whether it's understood and mitigable, not whether anecdotes exist.

"Renewables don't "need" massive subsidies to be cheap."

Good. So you're in favour of removing them?

As to the correlation between retail prices and renewable, let me explain again...yet again.

The people who want to think that renewables are cheap, run their numbers by excluding a whole range of costs intricately attached to renewables not the least of which is the cost of building grid to the places the wind blows and the sun shines. The only way to ensure all the costs involved are taking into account is to look at the final price which incorporates all those costs. And when that's done on an international scale, it turns out (surprise, surprise) that those nations with high renewable penetration also have higher costs. Not just in one or two countries, but consistently across the globe.

I don't argue "foregone taxes and fuel credits "don't count". I'm saying that that the things the Australian Institute include aren't foregone taxes. They are tax refunds for monies incorrectly collected in the same way that a refund on PAYE at year's end isn't a tax cut. The diesel fuel tax is meant to recover the cost of diesel vehicles using public roads but its levied on all diesel fuel. So those who buy the fuel with the tax included but use it in vehicles that never see a public road, are due a refund. Calling it a subsidy is just dishonest and shows that they want to fudge the numbers to make a political point.

That doesn't follow, mhaze.

//So you're in favour of removing [renewables]?//

"Cheap to build" is a claim about marginal costs, not a claim about living in a policy-free universe. You're treating "remove all support immediately" as a litmus test in order to avoid engaging with the cost claim itself.

//The only way to ensure all the costs involved are taken into account is to look at the final price…//

No. Retail prices are a composite outcome of network regulation, fuel price shocks, legacy assets, and policy timing. They do not back-solve the cost of new generation. Treating them as the only admissible metric just vetoes any partial analysis by definition.

//Those nations with high renewable penetration also have higher costs… consistently across the globe.//

Correlation isn't explanation. You haven't shown that renewables are the driver rather than gas exposure, network regulation, legacy market design, or fuel shocks. Repeating the correlation doesn't turn it into causation.

//The cost of building grid to the places the wind blows and the sun shines.//

All generation mixes require transmission, redundancy, and grid build-out. Coal and gas systems historically socialised those costs rather than pricing them plant-by-plant. Pointing at grids doesn't establish asymmetry unless you show the costs are uniquely attributable to renewables at scale.

//They are tax refunds for monies incorrectly collected… calling it a subsidy is dishonest.//

Call it a refund if you like. The economic fact remains that diesel used in fossil fuel production is effectively untaxed relative to other energy inputs. That's differential treatment, not neutral accounting.

At this point the disagreement isn't about data. It's about whether any bounded metric is allowed to inform discussion unless retail prices fall immediately.

That standard makes meaningful analysis of energy transitions impossible, and it's not one you apply consistently elsewhere.

What about the cost of labour in all these cost estimates?
Do countries with lower labour costs have different levels of viability for different energy projects?

What if we had the Chinese come in and build our stuff for us with Chinese labour, we might lose the potential Aussie jobs, but the projects might only cost half the price?
2 for the price of 1.

We like to save money by buying cheap Chinese manufactured good from China. There's no Aussie jobs in the manufacturing equation and no big complaints when consumers save money, so what's the difference?

Did you all see that China has built the world's largest offshore solar farm, providing power for 2.6 million people?
The solar farm, developed by Guohua Investment, a unit of China Energy Investment Corp (CHN Energy), achieved full-capacity grid connection in December 2025.
Apparently the panels run cooler when over water and get 10 to 15% increase in efficiency, and they also help marine ecosystems.