The Coalition's zero sum game over net zero continues

The usual empty tosh.

What exactly should Australia be doing with China beyond the Coalition’s empty posturing which let to wiping out wine and lobster markets?

The Coalition acting in the national interest? Like the didn’t for the 8 years of the Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison government? Hilarious.

Not winning the 2028 election is the result either way.

It’s possible you will actually get this forecast / prediction correct. But ditching net Sussan will be a big boost to Coalition chances.

Bill Shorten, who lost the unlosable in 2019, says hello.

No it won’t. So there’s that.

Australian elections are won in the middle.

seano to find the Middle you’d have to travel so far to your right you’d need a spaceship 🤣🚀

That says more about where you mistakenly “think” the middle is than it does about my politics.

As an operating definition of the middle, see the result of the last election.

Axon are referring to the 34.5% ALP primary vote ?

What was the Liberal National Party primary vote Penold? Oh right it doesn’t matter because we don’t vote first past the post in Australia.

Another classic Penfoldian self-own.

I refer to the election, Penfold. The two-party preferred vote, this being a democracy, was 55% ALP to 45% LNP, or 94 seats to 43, commonly recognised as a landslide result.

You do know how democracy works in Australia, don’t you?
Yet you seem weirdly fascinated with primary votes, so here are primary votes and swings for all successful parties or others:
Centre Alliance: 0.2% steady
Katter: 0.3% down 0.1%
Independents: 7.3% up 2%
Greens 12.2% down 0.1%
LNP 31.8% down 3.9%
ALP 34.6% up 2%
The end result being as I stated. Operationally the government represents the preferences of middle Australia. You do not.

Why do you have such trouble understanding Australia’s democratic system?

Axon – the government represents the preferences of Australia. This “middle Australia” is part of it. Thanks for your stats though, which indicate the LNP were more popular than the ALP last time around. Btw the LNP have formed close to 70% of the post-WW2 years government, including the last 29 years. For good reason. The LNP built Australia. Labor build debt.

I suspect you’re closer to this middle than seano, who like i suggested earlier would need long-haul rapid transport to go and find that middle. But your ideological renewables stance suggests you have some work to do to meet this middle at any stage.

The middle support climate policies but won’t spend a cent to support them, as plenty of polling has demonstrated. The middle want good economic stewardship, which is why the LNP govern 70% of the time.

But it’s nice to see you can google the 2025 election results. Perhaps now you could make the leap to realising how soft those 94 seats are and the only way for Labor is down. The only question next election is how much. But enjoy your high point. Tick tock.

seano – you’ll be delighted to know i happily own all my posts.

Or to use your odd words, “self-own”. Are you suggesting somebody else should own them ?

The LNP lost in a landslide, attempting to point to the ALP’s primary vote when the LNP lost on this metric, LNP’s primary vote was down and Australian elections are not first past is standard Penfoldian puerile nonsense.

It is amusing though that the bigger the hole Penfold digs himself into the sillier his comments get as cover. It’s quite the tell.

Penfold grants that he lives in the past, not the present which I gave in my operational definition. As noticed on other occasions, he just can’t get over the last election.

The youngest of the 1949 voters will be 100 by the next election. The current young cohort, the majority group, votes left as it stands today. They favour climate action, amongst other changes. At least they will benefit from lower cost less polluting electricity generation whatever other problems may be left for them by conservatives.

I am indifferent to whether Labor sheds some seats at the next election, it being likely given the current record majority. More interesting is whether there will be a viable opposition which seems quite unlikely on Penfold’s opening prediction here.

Whether we can do it in time is a different question but we already have the technology to reach net zero. Meanwhile China continues record breaking investment in renewables.

https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-investment-2025/china

China is indeed “playing ball” Stephen Saunders.

Why can human emissions not be stopped from rising? Detail it.

Why can carbon capture not be used in offset? Detail it.

Why would we not simply use cheaper energy with lower emissions?

No-one claims to control planet Earth. Some people prefer not to sit on their hands like useless patsies in the face of clear scientific evidence.

Axon, China has doubled their carbon emissions since 2005 while we reduced ours by 28%. We’ve achieved a greater reduction than Europe or the US. That’s mainly because we started from a higher base as Europe and the US had lower emissions per capita due to their use of nuclear energy. China is on track to miss their 2060 net zero target spectacularly.

Seano, “record breaking investment in renewables”, only after record breaking investment in coal generation that saw China’s emissions double over the last 20 years while we reduced ours by 28%. China is spectacularly off target for their goal of net zero by 2060.

Unless the western world is willing to hit China and India with carbon tariffs (a bit hard with the current White House occupant), knowing that will cost residents more for everyday manufactured goods, we’re probably going to be better off overall by pushing the net zero target to 2060. In so doing we’d be giving very costly immature green technologies like SAF for planes and green hydrogen for cargo ships more time to achieve cost competitiveness.

Bit of a fallacious argument, with the manufacturing base of many Western countries moving to China/Asia while the West moved into service industries. We ended with higher standards of living as a result.

Whilst China needs to do much, much more they are making progress:
https://theconversation.com/china-leads-the-net-zero-transition-heres-what-we-can-learn-from-its-progress-in-beijing-and-hong-kong-237075

“China is on track to miss their 2060 net zero target spectacularly.”

Garfield, on what sources do you base that claim given China is ahead of its targets today, by a solid six years?

Well seano i can’t deny you’re an expert in fallacious arguments.

Yes well if you didn’t keep posting fallacious arguments I wouldn’t be so well practiced in spotting them Penfold.

You are making a category error. Renewables may be an economic winner; more importantly, they are essential.

“If the Liberals look crazy right now, it’s because Labor and a good percentage of Australians were crazy first”

What if it’s not Labor and a good percentage of Australians, who were “crazy”.

Renewables are the cheapest form of new energy. Every major scientific body in the world is not wrong on climate change.

Seano, the latest CSIRO Gencost report has coal as the cheapest form of new energy right now. Not by much, but still officially the cheapest. Integrated renewables are only forecast to be cheaper than new coal in 2030. Just pointing this out as your last paragraph suggests every major scientific body is in agreement about climate change AND the cost of constructing new energy.

More broadly, if renewables are clearly cheaper, why did China and India put so much money into nuclear and coal generation?

Garfield, that is a misleading claim by you, followed by a rather silly “argument”.

All costs in Gencost have a range to cover industry estimates. The cheapest estimate for coal is slightly below renewables with firming. What you conspicuously fail to mention is that the most expensive estimate for coal is well above the most expensive for renewables with firming. Why are you not taking the latter figure to argue coal is far more expensive? Picking the highest number makes as much sense (or more, given the margin) as you picking the lowest. You do not see those who recognise the economic case for renewables trying to mislead by selectively quoting the highest figure, only opponents trying to cherry-pick the lowest, showing how weak are their arguments.

The average of the estimates, the correct working number, is more expensive for coal; today. If renewables with firming are cheaper today on average, and cheaper in all cases within a few years, then you can see why industry has not the slightest interest in new coal. Only the commercially nescient might try to suggest otherwise. Are you in their boat?

Regarding your last paragraph, why are you not quoting what China and the world are doing today, not what they or anyone else did in the past? Why are you not discussing the fact that China already generates more electricity from renewables than from fossil rocks and fluids? That is actual production, not merely capacity. Developing countries passed the capacity milestone years ago.

As pointed out by Axon “not officially” the cheapest at all. Taking the cheapest estimate for coal being slightly lower than renewables while ignoring the most expensive estimate for coal being well above renewables is tedious. Power companies aren’t making economic decisions based on tricky misrepresentations of the data to suit a narrative.

Garfield – so the report finds that renewables aren’t in fact cheaper.

What a shock. Well at least this explains electricity prices sky-rocketing for the past 20 years. More renewables, more cost.

Axon,
Further to your point, Gencost actually combines solar and wind together as “renewables” to provide a more realistic position around what a future renewables dominated grid will look like.

Solar by itself or with firming is identified as the lowest cost generation technology by a significant margin.

Despite the claims of the cherry pickers, its part of the reason why Gencost is a robust piece of work in assessing the likely range of costs, when individual projects will always need to be assessed on their own merits.

That’s not what the report found Penfold, power companies are basing investment decisions on the best case or coal being slightly cheaper than renewables whilst ignoring the worst case for coal being significantly more expensive than renewables.

Only clueless culture warriors do that, not sensible people who make economic decisions and report to shareholders.

Gencost – wasn’t that the CSIRO and AEMO report which assumed nuclear had a capacity of 50% and operating life of 30 years, meaning they got their costings wrong by a factor of at least 5 ?

Regardless, seano you sound like you approve of Gencosts renewable costings but dissaprove of their cheap coal ones. Perhaps you could explain these “tricky misrepresentations”, with some mathematics if you’d be so kind.

Gencost – wasn’t that the CSIRO and AEMO report which assumed nuclear had a capacity of 50% and operating life of 30 years, meaning they got their costings wrong by a factor of at least 5 ?

No, hope this helps

🤡

I explained the mathematics of it above, Penfold, although I can understand that you would hurry past what you do not understand. Only a commercial dill would take an end-point of price instead of the estimated averages and range to plan investments.

Given Garfield has failed the question, why don’t you explain why you don’t take the highest figures rather than the lowest? The answer is obvious: to do either is at best ignorant, lacking knowledge.

I just took the numbers from the report Axon.

It’s quite funny how you love quoting some parts of the report yet reject the parts which don’t suit your narrative. How very confusing it must be trying to work it all out 🤔

Penfold prevaricates. I rejected nothing but dealt with the cost ranges used in commercial decisions. Show otherwise. You cannot.

Penfold keeps pretending there is something hidden or distorted by others — it is a straight falsehood.

The summary charts support my statements; nothing denies them. Industry understands this where Penfold does not. The tables show coal is more expensive per kWh than wind, large scale solar, or rooftop solar.

Need to get your story right Penfold. One minute Climate Change is all a hoax, the next minute it’s real but we shouldn’t do anything because whatever we do will be offset by third world emission increases.
You are confusing us simpletons.

Humblest apologies franky, perhaps we should start at the beginning.

Would you be kind enough to provide a definition for the term “climate change” ?

And perhaps some scope as well. e.g. does the term define a situation, a problem, does it prescribe solutions, are there timeframes involved ?

Penfold makes haste to mislead as usual.

Top emitters? How is China’s relative investment in renewable vs fossils & nuclear going? To save you time googling or looking up an incorrect IPA talking point, China’s current and planned renewable investments massively exceed those in fossil rocks. They are already producing more electricity (production, not merely capacity) from renewables than from fossil rocks.

America has a known problem in its head, yet there are recent reports that fossil fuel companies are not answering the call to “drill” there, because it is uneconomic! Even in Texas the rate of tapping their still ample reserves is in plateau or decline.

Developing countries? You mean a leader like Chile? China as above? Nepal at 99%? It was way back in 2017 that wind and solar accounted for more capacity additions in developing nations, and it was near 60:40 back then. In fact Bloomberg reports that renewables took the lead in 2015.

You like the IEA so read their chart here: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/changes-in-primary-energy-demand-by-fuel-and-region-in-the-stated-policies-scenario-2019-2030

It shows growth in renewables with low growth or decline in fossil fuels, including in America and the EU and except for the Middle East, and India which is still trying to catch up.

The world has stepped back from the craziness of “Hastie, O’Brien, many Nationals, a growing One Nation” and is stepping forward without you.

Classic Penfold mantra – never ever answer the question.

You have claimed several times that climate change is a hoax.
Now you imply it’s not a hoax
Which is it ???

Axon – it’s lovely to hear you’re now all across Total Energy Supply and the difference between energy and electricity.

Though your analysis seems a little off. The graph indicates that between China, India and South East Asia, fossil fuels vastly exceeded renewables on the Primary Energy Demand metric. Though to be fair those numbers are five years ago.

And despite your tales of USA woes, their fuel export levels have surged 26% in the past five years:

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_expc_a_EP00_EEX_mbblpd_a.htm

As for your comment on China “They are already producing more electricity (production, not merely capacity) from renewables than from fossil rocks.” The IEA disagree, with solar and wind are around 13% with coal 61%.

https://www.iea.org/countries/china

So on the subject of misleading ….

“on the subject of misleading” … “[Penfold’s] numbers are five years ago”

Wonderful self-awareness!

And Penfold’s IEA figures are three years ago, while I wrote “China’s current and planned renewable investments massively exceed those in fossil rocks”

Hard of reading, Penfold? Unprepared to deal with the IEA reference I provided?

I said nothing about USA oil exports. I wrote that recent reports have Texas oil plateauing or falling, and that American oil companies seem remarkably reluctant to open new wells in America. In any event, who cares when the world is overwhelmingly moving to renewables, still more so in those developing countries Penfold mentioned as having increased demand in total.

Penfold is able to contradict nothing but himself.

franky – you didn’t ask a question. CC isn’t a hoax as long as it’s purely about weather observations. The rest of it is a hoax.

Even easier Axon, I quoted the (your) EA figures back to you. Coal 61%, solar wind 13%. Perhaps you’ve redefined “fossil rocks” 🤣

And sorry to have to join the dots for you but if the USA has declining fossil fuels, how is it their fuel exports are rising ? Very confusing. 🤔

Human-forced climate change is accepted by at least 99% of climate scientists, but not by people wishing to hoax others.

To consider Penfold’s irrationality, first take the similarly unquestioned fact that humans have been getting taller over history, especially in the last 200 years. Penfold is claiming, “if you measure any individual that is not a hoax but if you say there is a trend in height, that is a hoax.”

Yet the trend in human height is a fact, whatever the height of a random individual you measure. Human forced climate change is a fact, whatever the weather happens to be today.

Penfold has trouble dealing with facts, as demonstrated in this thread and most others.

Btw franky, any idea what this “zero sum game” means ?

Getting taller ? Well i certainly agree with that Axon. As i do with “Human forced climate change is a fact”. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it has warming properties. Science is even kind enough to help us understand why – CO2 emissions have increased because of burning fossil fuels. No problems there.

But here’s where we start running into uncertainty. What’s the relationship between CO2 and global temperates you ask ? Well science can tell us it means warming, but after that it can’t help much. Science can’t tell us how much CO2 means how much warming, that’s a fact. Don’t ask me though, ask the “experts”. The IPCC has to come up with five “scenarios” because it hasn’t much of a clue.

So here’s where engineering, economics and risk managment should take over and tell us:

* What are the solutions and options ?
* What are their costs ?
* What is the risk profile ?
* What is the costs / benefits ?
* Should we smash our standard of living to reduce CO2 when the rest of the world isn’t ?

But rather than having those questions answered, religion takes over. Nothing else matters.

Our government and climate evangalism won’t tell us the costs, the benefits, the risks. there’s no profiling of the scenarios against these. We can’t even discuss real options like nuclear. Even the so-called experts “homogenise” the historic temperature readings to make things seem worse. The UN even scare the kiddies with their overblown rhetoric.

So guess what – beyond accepting that the planet is warming (and part of this is natural), the rest of the whole thing is a hoax. It’s religion, it’s fearmongering, it’s greed and it’s all coming apart. Wind power is an expensive, dirty joke. Solar makes China rich.

If that makes some of us “deniers”, then knock yourself out. The only deniers i’m seeing are the ones who can’t form an opinion outside the indoctrinated climate zeitgeist.

False, Penfold, you did not quote my IEA (you said EA) figures back at me but whatever else you were on at the time. My reference points to “Changes in primary energy demand by fuel and region in the Stated Policies Scenario, 2019-2030” where for China there is an increase of 204 Mtoe in renewables, 144 Mtoe in gas, and 55 Mtoe in oil, but a reduction of 60 Mtoe in coal.

That is for energy, while as I also said about electricity, “China’s current and planned renewable investments massively exceed those in fossil rocks. They are already producing more electricity (production, not merely capacity) from renewables than from fossil rocks.”

What is so hard to understand?

I said about the US that production, not reserves, in Texas was plateauing or declining. I said also they are not drilling as presumed would happen, on an economic basis. It may be too subtle for you but do try to work out that none of the above is inconsistent with greater current shipments by those companies, something I did not discuss.

You are unable to rebut that the majority of new investment world wide, in both developed and developing nations, is toward renewables, for energy generally and with considerable progress already for electricity.

So Penfold has suddenly switched from saying climate change is a hoax to it is not.
” CC isn’t a hoax as long as it’s purely about weather observations. The rest of it is a hoax.”
“i [agree] with “Human forced climate change is a fact”.

Glad we got that sorted. Now, I can answer all of your supposed questions:

Fact: Industry in Australia and the world is overwhelmingly installing renewables with firming ahead of nuclear and coal power.

Q. Why?

A. Because it is effective and both cheaper and cleaner than the available alternatives. If something better should come along we can do that instead, but nuclear fission and burning coal are not it.

You may prefer to live in the past asking mostly meaningless questions while pretending that dogmatic belief belongs to those who are ahead of you rather than to yourself. Label it as you please, all data and practice demonstrates you are wrong and will continue to move in that direction.

Axon, what’s just happened – hopefully – is that you’ve learned that an issue you think is black and white is nothing of the sort.

If you really want to go out on a limb, maybe go and read a new report by climate scientists commissioned by the US Department of Energy titled A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the US Climate. It’s fascinating reading.

“Factcheck: Trump’s climate report includes more than 100 false or misleading claims”

https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/doe-factcheck/index.html

“Fascinating”…more like laughable. lol

That is a complete non-response to a simple set of facts, Penfold. I could reply that – hopefully – you’ve learned to understand a little about how the world is actually working, but evidently not.

Trump’s report? You mean the article by a group picked by a climate change denier to provide cover for Trump’s own denialism?

You mean the one with no peer review?

You mean the one already fact-checked to contain about 100 false or misleading claims?

Of course you are fascinated by the shiny distractions.

You opened this section of the thread by claiming “the planet is becoming more sceptical of net-zero” whereon I have demonstrated that is simply a falsehood. The world as a whole, including developing countries, is moving flat out to renewables which will support net-zero. Industry makes those decisions after considering the costs and benefits in long term investments, things they need to get right to stay in business.

Reality seems hard for you. Have a rest.

Unsurprising that Pengold references a thoroughly debunked report, with cherry picked authors and evidence deliberately presented and paid for to present an inherently biased report.

They were too scared to even put it out for open peer review.

😂😂😂👨‍🦯👨‍🦯👨‍🦯

“Trump’s climate report” seano ? Trump wasn’t mentioned in the report. But perhaps you could apply your own climate expertise to address some of the findings by the five climate scientists. These include issues like:

* the inability of science to know, in any detail, the relationship between CO2 and warming
* the mechanics of radiative forcing
* the lack of scientific evidence supporting IPCC claims about rain, heat, sea levels, polar ice, cyclones
* the impact of planetary albedo (since 2015)

And unlike your response to the GenCost report, it would help your case if you come up with something more substantive than “i don’t like them”.

As you clearly haven’t read it, here’s a link. You’re welcome.

https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/DOE_Critical_Review_of_Impacts_of_GHG_Emissions_on_the_US_Climate_July_2025.pdf

The IPCC must be rattled. How do you think they’ll respond ?

Axon, our electricity bill last quarter was $3,500. And we get a gas bill too. Thanks for your concern but reality set in a while back.

But it’s nice to hear that you speak for “the planet”. Last time i checked the planet prefers lower power prices. Economies do too.

““Trump’s climate report” seano ? Trump wasn’t mentioned in the report.”

Another bad faith comment by Penfold who clearly didn’t even read the first paragraph of the report provided, which is well reference, detailed article by experts debunking the Trump climate report. But I’ll post it here for you:

“A “critical assessment” report commissioned by the Trump administration to justify a rollback of US climate regulations contains at least 100 false or misleading statements, according to a Carbon Brief factcheck involving dozens of leading climate scientists.”

“Commissioned by Trump”….oops.

There rest of Penfold’s bad faith commentary is the usual cut & paste pseudoscience which he himself clearly hasn’t looked into because it all has been thoroughly debunked.

https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/debunking-eight-common-myths-about-climate-change

https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

https://theconversation.com/the-five-corrupt-pillars-of-climate-change-denial-122893

Penfold seeks to waste people’s time debunking well debunked nonsense with the pretence that he knows what he is talking about.

Cutting & pasting nonsense he has neither read nor understood seems to be a theme after being caught cutting & pasting talking points straight from the Liberal Party website the other day.

It’s comical that Penfold seems to believe these are winning tactics. Penfold expects to be taken seriously lol. No.

“Last time i checked the planet prefers lower power prices. Economies do too.”

The majority of the grid is still gas & coal. lol You don’t have to beclown yourself, it’s not a requirement.

Perhaps you should read the report seano. And you don’t have to go very far. Third paragraph of the Foreward. It was commissioned by U.S. Energy Secretary Christopher Wright.

That’s the problem with TDS, it impedes cognitive processes.

Oh of course we now see that the thoroughly debunked report Penzero linked was highlighted in an article in The Australian yesterday.

The Groupthink talking points, blindly repeated as usual.

“The majority of the grid is still gas & coal”

seano, congratulations. That’s the most factual comment I’ve ever seen you make. And be thankful, without them you wouldn’t get to furnish us with your daily entertainment 🤣

You talk about TDS as if that’s rational but who does “U.S. Energy Secretary Christopher Wright.” work for? Who appointed him? Whose administration is it Penfold?

And at no stage have you posted a response to any of the issues raised by actual experts in debunking the Trump administrations nonsensical climate report.

Meanwhile you smugly post more nonsense when you’re caught out once again complaining about power prices whilst ignoring the fact that the majority of our power still comes from coal & gas which is still more expensive than renewables. Comically clueless.

It’s always amusing how in any conversation Penfold, your level of smugness increases as your level of credibility declines.

“But it’s nice to hear that you speak for “the planet”. Last time i checked the planet prefers lower power prices. Economies do too.”

Exactly why I have repeatedly pointed out that “the planet” as a whole is moving to cheaper renewables. There is still plenty of work to do there, so power companies and households are getting on with it. Penfold has been completely unable to deal with this so is trying to change the subject to something else already debunked.

Simple question Axon – if renewables are in fact cheaper, why do they still need to be subsidised some 20 years down the track ?

Penfold wrote: “our electricity bill last quarter was $3,500.”
Seano wrote: “coal & gas … is still more expensive than renewables”

While I am not interested in Penfold’s ability or lack thereof to manage his electricity bills, just a random data point on an unknown demand, I can show from bills that Seano is correct. This involves proportions so anyone with a primary school education can follow it.

If Penfold were correct about relative costs then over a few years the cost per kWh of daytime bills, when solar is dominant in the grid, would increase faster than nighttime, when coal is dominant, because coal is supposed to stay cheaper.

I checked my TOU billing rates for the last period compared with the same period five years ago, from the same supplier.

Daytime* price per kWh rose 8.8%
Nighttime* price per kWh rose 15.1%
* weighted averages 12 hours each

Dominantly solar-powered prices rose less, are cheaper, as a simple fact in the unit costs of electricity, every kWh for which you pay. Supply cost rose 13.6% over the same period, by the way.

Further, rebates for household solar energy sold to the grid dropped by nearly 40%, because more, cheaper solar means lower prices offered.

Renewables are cheaper. This is widely understood though there will always be a few who can’t keep up.

Axon – so are you claiming that because your day time bill didn’t go up as much as your night time one, “renewables are cheaper” ? But Chris Bowen told us that the sun doesn’t send an invoice, so why would they go up at all ?

Also feel free to tell us why renewables still need to be subsidised given how cheaper they are.

And while you’re at it, why does the CSIRO AEMO GenCost report disagree with you ? Have they got it wrong ? 🫣

I accept that accuracy of Gencost which shows, as I found, that renewables are cheaper per kWh. Read the tables. Or read the current and projected cost charts for new builds. Or look at where industry is actually investing here, with a similar trend world wide.

Also feel free to tell us why oil, gas and coal still need to be subsidised given how cheaper [you fantasise] they are, especially given they are century-old technologies.

Penfold cannot answer my modelling of cost rises (he probably quit at the word “proportions”) so he tries switching to a political attack on a politician to distract from the topic.

Renewables are cheaper. Most of the world knows this. A minority like Penfold, Hanson, Joyce, do not.

“A minority like Penfold, Hanson, Joyce, do not.”

I would argue Axon that they do know, even the fact adverse Penfold is aware of the data. They just don’t care because it’s not about debating the economics of energy for them it’s about scoring points in the culture wars.

Well sadly Axon, that’s not what GenCost reported. Perhaps though, you could highlight one of these supposed “oil, gas and coal subsidies”. (hint: the answer is zero, none)

Oh well, just sit back and watch over the coming years how more renewables will continue to mean higher prices, as they have for 20 years. No doubt the head will be stuck in the sand still parrotting Bowen …. “renewables are cheaper”, “renewables are cheaper” ….

Btw did you see his zinger today claiming “coal is intermittent” ? And he’s the energy minister of Australia. Wow.

“Well sadly Axon, that’s not what GenCost reported.” It is actually your bad faith refusal to engage with the report and what it’s actually saying doesn’t change what the report says. The Energy Generators & Retailers are not making economic decisions to suit your culture wars narrative Penfold. Sorry to let some sunlight in from the real world but facts are facts.

” Perhaps though, you could highlight one of these supposed “oil, gas and coal subsidies”. (hint: the answer is zero, none)”

Speaking of not letting facts intrude, the fuel tax credit scheme is another example of Penfold either cluelessly reposting talking points or knowingly telling porkies.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/capping-australias-biggest-fossil-subsidy-is-the-productivity-reform-we-cant-afford-to-ignore/

“coal is intermittent” actually coal is interment. It breaks down constantly and requires constant shut downs for maintenance…hardly surprising since the technology originated in the 18th century.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/riddled-with-breakdowns-why-intermittent-coal-power-is-a-major-threat-to-grid-reliability/

Unfortunately Penfold here in the real world, energy generated by burning fossil fuels or nuclear fission doesn’t happen via magic without issues or costs.

This is good Penfold, all I have to do is reiterate some of the many points where you fail.

For example, “I accept that accuracy of Gencost which shows, as I found, that renewables are cheaper per kWh. Read the tables. Or read the current and projected cost charts for new builds. Or look at where industry is actually investing here, with a similar trend world wide.”
I even referred you there to the charts and tables. All you do is pretend the report means other than it does. Happily, real investors read more effectively than you.

Penfold, hint: wrong again.
Tax breaks including fuel tax credits, infrastructure funding, tax incentives, State-owned power stations, port upgrades, etc. You will pretend these are not financial benefits but of course you demonstrate repeatedly you know nothing of finance anyway.

If you did then you would recognise the pattern of investment world-wide in renewables which I have also demonstrated to be lower cost from direct per kWh data, which you could not even try to rebut.

I truly have no idea what Mr Bowen has said. Why would I read such stuff? I am more interested in realities of investment than in what some politician says or some wannabe culture warrior such as yourself might fulminate over. Does pointless self-created outrage give you a thrill?

If your report is accurate though then he has a point; coal-fired power stations are unreliable. Last Summer they broke down far more often that predicted by AEMO, over 100 times apparently, dropping effective capacity. They have been getting worse for years, and no investors anywhere have the slightest interest in building more. Governments are having to subsidise their retention against a commercial wish to close them. Oops, another subsidy to coal power.

seano – thanks for that treasure. Those who call the diesel fuel rebate a “fossil fuel subsidy” can only be described as the true ideological believers.

Clearly you’re unaware how this works. It’s no subsidy, it’s a refund for the diesel tax some people pay which they shouldn’t. Doctors, farmers, nurses, accountants. Anyone who drives a diesel powered car on roads that they shouldn’t pay tax on. This has been explained to climate champs for years but it obviously hasn’t resonated.

Education is a challenge for some. Here’s the ATO explanation. Please read it slowly.

https://www.ato.gov.au/businesses-and-organisations/income-deductions-and-concessions/incentives-and-concessions/fuel-schemes/fuel-tax-credits-business/rates-business/from-1-july-2025-to-30-june-2026

As for “intermittent coal”, your ability to post 24 x 7 is “self-owned” by coal. A simple thank you will suffice 🙂