Should we pay polluters to shut down

The recent drama in SA and the discussion on here has prompted me to pose the question . I'm sure some will get a bit excited about it but here goes .

I think we can all agree that we are heading to a renewable future sooner or later whether we like it or not .

Even though I don't believe that renewable energy caused the SA issue last week , there is the possibility that it contributed to the slow restart with regard to no spinning reserve as previously posted .

Considering that renewable projects continue to get approval should we be getting more involved in how they will connect and therefore affect the grid ?

This means that money will need to be spent to make the grid more flexible and maybe new rules need to apply for these projects . Because grid sized storage that could replace the spinning reserve isn't available just yet we may need to keep our conventional power stations running longer , at least in part .
For example , there is talk of shutting down Hazelwood power station as it appears to be struggling financially . Companies are not going to invest in these stations if they think they are going to have a short life . Should we shut down units in these power stations progressively instead of in one hit ?

Should the public pay for them to keep going so that we can transition to renewables more smoothly ?

We subsidise all sorts of industries . Would it make sense to subsidise some of these power stations considering the long term goal of zero emissions which will benefit all of us ?

Instead of driving these companies out of business , as has happened in SA , should we manage it better ?

I have been reading about the new Hinckley Nuclear power station that is to be built in the UK . It has a guaranteed feed in tariff that is very high and the cost of the station is continuing to spiral up . From the outside it looks like it's going to be a massive white elephant .

Interested in people's views on this one .