solid, proven' approach in comparison to renewables and CCS. In any case, the broader point is that we should be spreading our bets, not betting the farm on one horse (or at best one stable, if you want to count solar thermal, wind and geothermal as separate horses). All I'm advocating is a level playing field, and may the best technology win. over 1 year ago Felix MacNeill Felix MacNeill (logged in via email @grapevine.com.au) Mark, I think it's unfair to suggest that we should consider nuclear 'irrespective of how it was financed' but require that renewables be able to prove their comparative cost-effectiveness. It's clear that technologies like solar thermal with molten salt heat storage are proven to be effective, as is wind. If the same kind of subsidy was provided to their development as Derek reminds us is routinely provided for very expensive nuclear reactors, I'd love to see how well they'd stack up against nuclear... Mark, I think it's unfair to suggest that we should consider nuclear 'irrespective of how it was financed' but require that renewables be able to prove their comparative cost-effectiveness. It's clear that technologies like solar thermal with molten salt heat storage are proven to be effective, as is wind. If the same kind of subsidy was provided to their development as Derek reminds us is routinely provided for very expensive nuclear reactors, I'd love to see how well they'd stack up against nuclear in cost effectiveness terms. I've never yet heard of