"audacious" .... "a willingness to take surprising bold...

"audacious" .... "a willingness to take surprising bold risks"...... yes it bold alright. and certainly very risky.

its not coal per se that has been "vilified", but the consequences associated with FFs, the emissions.

according to the IEA and CSIRO solar and onshore wind energy are not as expensive as coal, gas or nuclear. its relatively cheap to manufacture, install and ruin. but most importantly of all there are no GHG emissions, on the measures applied to coal and gas. and once there is sufficient renewable energy production, there'll be no emissions for production of panels and turbines etc.

all the old coal plants were built with commonwealth and state money, owned and operated by states originally and privatised for the benefit of the windfall revenue and reduction in ongoing running costs. so too should renewable energy and nuclear. but we don't live in a govt owned nation anymore. the socialising of energy production costs is anathema to current economic and political understanding.

so did you think we should abandon the free market economy? or is it only for energy that such social ownership should,ld be allowed?

any such investment that is govt owned will be privatised by the next Lib govt.