"This direct transition should be a fundamental feature of our COVID recovery strategy".

He also said: "there is no evidence to support the expansion of gas-fired generation in today's world, where renewables are decidedly cheaper, and with negligible emissions".

Dr Hewson is entitled to his views, but they seem to contradict the opinions expressed by Australia's Chief Scientist Alan Finkel on the ABC's Q&A program in May this year.

The program discussed our post-COVID recovery and how Australia could harness its natural advantages of wind and solar and export energy to the world in the form of hydrogen.

However, Dr Finkel did caution the discussion by saying that "gas is the perfect complement to solar and wind power".

He said that the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine and it will take another 30 years before battery storage is advanced to a point so that Australia can rely on battery storage as a backup for renewables.

Dr Hewson may well be right by claiming that renewables are cheaper to build.

But Dr Finkel would have based his comments on 'scientific' facts about wind, solar and battery storage.

He probably knows that our biggest battery storage system is 100 Megawatts in South Australia. And he would probably be aware that every night Australia consumes 250,000 Megawatts of electricity.

So on a windless night we would need 250,000 Megawatts of storage.

So Dr Finkel is suggesting it will be 30 years before such a huge amount of storage capacity is available.

Further, Dr Finkel is probably aware that since 2000 Australia has invested $20 billion in the construction of wind and solar farms.

Also he is probably be aware that the Department of the Environment and Energy's 2019 Australian Energy Update report says that only 10 per cent our electricity comes from wind and solar, while our ageing coal and new gas fired power stations generate 83 per cent of our electricity.

Who is right?

The economist Dr Hewson or the scientist Dr Finkel?