The issue about renewable energy discussed in the other thread has taken a fascinating turn.
In this article of 17 Feb 2013, previously provided by Clive on the other thread, we see Bloomberg Energy Finance telling us that renewables are so much cheaper than conventional power, that they can survive without subsidies.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/rene...ustralia-62268
But in this Sydney Morning Herald Article of 16 July 2014, we see Bloomberg Energy Finance making comments, and statements made that the viability of future
and existing renewable energy projects are threatened if the Abbott Government tinkers with the Renewable Energy Targets (though I can't tell if Bloomberg or someone else is making some of those statements). And that investment in the entire industry has nearly totally dried up at the mere thought of the Government altering those targets.
http://m.smh.com.au/environment/clim...716-ztio2.html
As I see it, the two positions are mutually exclusive - there has to be a porky being told in one of them.
If renewables are so cheap, how can it be that tampering with the targets results in
"
That would potentially affect the viability of even existing investments."???
Am I being too harsh?
Cheers,
Renato