Shadow,
It's not as if Australia would be going it alone: most of Europe has already set an example. The real problem is we've been setting a bad example, and promoting inaction by others.

The biggest problem with removing any subsidies is that, at least for existing power generation companies, doing nothing is the most profitable course of action. Without an incentive to build new infrastructure, power prices will stay high.

Shadow Minister,

To do nothing has never been an option for me.
If people don't try to deal with the obstacles
that face them, and try to overcome them in one
way or another - how else will they learn and
grow? Each of us goes through transitions and
transformations. The important things is that we
acknowledge them and learn from them.

But everything is relative and everyone has
obstacles to overcome. They are our greatest
teachers.

I'm glad to hear that you don't think we should do
nothing. To me that would not make sense coming
from you - a problem solving engineer.

We live in interesting times - where new technologies
and transformations are taking place all the time.
And Australia is so lucky to have access to so many
really talented people - especially in the sciences -
which are first class and not corrupt. I've worked
for CSIRO - and although that was sometime ago - I
still remember how impressive and dedicated the staff
were and how hard they worked at problem solving.

I have every confidence that we shall find the energy
solutions that will suit us - no matter what they will
be.

Foxy

Given that:

"Massive subsidised investment in renewable energy has been associated with escalating wholesale and retail electricity prices. The number of jobs in renewable energy is trivial, particularly given most its hardware is imported. And jobs have been lost elsewhere because of energy costs. The broader backdrop has been very low productivity growth, particular in the energy sector."

Given the above any measures to reduce CO2 emissions must meet the requirements of low total cost, high reliability and low emissions, to ensure that jobs are not lost in the long term.
The only renewable technology that meet all 3 criteria is hydro that is limited by geography and to some extent biomass technology, which is limited by access to low cost biomass byproducts (such as bagasse)

Wind and solar are mid cost technologies with very low reliability that need to either be combined with gas back up generators (mid range cost but emits CO2) or high cost hydro storage or battery storage.

Nuclear is mid range pricing, with high reliability and zero emissions, whose main opposition is political.

My preference would be to combine renewable power generation with a solid nuclear background for a safe and reliable near zero emissions power system with some gas turbine back up.

Problem solved.

Shadow Minister,

I guess we shall have to wait and see what choices
are on offer.

We should as you point out have open minds to all
the possibilities available and select the best
possible options that suit this great big sun-filled,
wind-blown, surrounded by water, country of ours.

Foxy,

And don't forget the mountains of uranium in SA ;)

Joe

Joe,

The mountains of uranium in South Australia?

How could anyone forget those.

When the South Australian government has stream-lined
the project approvals, improving transparency and
boosting industry and community confidence that the
regulatory processes are effective and promoting efficiency
in mining operations while effectively ensuring the safety
and protection of all South Australians and the
environment. :-)