Paul Kelly in his Australian column, Coal Power Socialists Are The Libs Worst Nightmare, bemoans the Monash Forum’s push for the government to fund a coal fired power station as “coal power socialists.” This must make the recipients of renewable subsidies “sunshine socialists”.
Kelly seems to be denying the Lord Keynes observation that “when the facts change I change my mind. What do you do sir?”
The facts in the case of renewables are that although they seemed like a good idea at the time, dependent on the weather and subsidies as they are, they will always be unreliable, unaffordable and niche boutique at best.
On the suggestion that the government should fund a coal fired power station, the commentariat waxes lyrical with the usual trope that the government shouldn’t interfere in the market and that is true. But if they hadn’t interfered with the energy market in the first place we wouldn’t be at this diabolical impasse.
How does the cry that the government shouldn’t interfere in the market square with the thumb on the scale by way of subsidies for renewables?
What’s the difference between funding and building a coal fired power station and funding and building a Snowy 2.0? The government is confused. Very confused.
By 2030 Australia would have spent upwards of $60 billion on the folly of renewable subsidies with nothing to show for it. How many HELE coal fired, or even better, nuclear power stations could we have built with that same $60 billion?
So much pain for absolutely no gain. Even the Chief Scientist Alan Finkel noted at senate estimates in 2017, that even if Australia totally ceased emitting co2 it would make no difference to the world temperature.