Roger Cook - All in on Green Steel. Even though the fundamentals don't stack up.

Green energy is too expensive due to intermittency. It would require multiple expensive batteries.

Nothing a politician likes more is GREEN. Money, energy... ;)

Captain Zog.
;D

lee wrote on Nov 13^th, 2025 at 10:42am:

Green energy is too expensive due to intermittency. It would require multiple expensive batteries.

The batteries are currently available; the grid needs to be upgraded.

Naturally the filthy fossil industry doesn't want to invest in the green economy - and private investors won't do so without government guidelines - because filthy fossils (including for smelting iron) are very lucrative (unlike free sunshine and wind).


Quote:

Nothing a politician likes more is GREEN. Money, energy... ;)

Susan Ley is on stronger ground today, by pointing to the cost of the transition which - as she correctly says - is pushing up electricity prices.

Solution: the government opens a special  account at treasury,  named 'green financing', and funds it with free treasury-issued money.

Then Oz can buy all the batteries and new grid it needs, for free....

Please tell us why or how this would cause inflation, given private investors could spend the same amount of money - but won't without being assured the fossil industry must be radically reduced by (say) 2040...sorry for the suggestion, Susan. 

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 13^th, 2025 at 4:43pm:

The batteries are currently available; the grid needs to be upgraded.

Really. How many watt-hours at what cost? Or do you think that the government should pay for the privilege of Business?


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 13^th, 2025 at 4:43pm:

Naturally the filthy fossil industry doesn't want to invest in the green economy - and private investors won't do so without government guidelines - because filthy fossils (including for smelting iron) are very lucrative (unlike free sunshine and wind).

Fossil fuels are free too. Until you mine them. Like Solar panels they are free too, until you buy them. ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 13^th, 2025 at 4:43pm:

Susan Ley is on stronger ground today, by pointing to the cost of the transition which - as she correctly says - is pushing up electricity prices.

More specifically it is the cost of renewables pushing up the prices. The Fossil fuelled can only generate part time, because Renewables get first dibs, But they have to run to be ready for when they fail to deliver. So we have to pay for both Renewables and the cost of the fossil fuelled generators that have to run as backup. ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 13^th, 2025 at 4:43pm:

Solution: the government opens a special  account at treasury,  named 'green financing', and funds it with free treasury-issued money. Then Oz can buy all the batteries and new grid it needs, for free....

So you want the private companies to be given the free means of production. Why not the steel too? ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 13^th, 2025 at 4:43pm:

Please tell us why or how this would cause inflation, given private investors could spend the same amount of money - but won't without being assured the fossil industry must be radically reduced by (say) 2040..

It is the Government stupid. They couldn't handle a candy raffle. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Government spending leads to inflation, especially on the Never Never. ;)

lee wrote on Nov 13^th, 2025 at 5:43pm:

Really. How many watt-hours at what cost? Or do you think that the government should pay for the privilege of Business?

Isn't that exactly what the libs proposed with their nuclear policy? :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Nov 13^th, 2025 at 6:17pm:

Isn't that exactly what the libs proposed with their nuclear policy?

What? Batteries? Are you batshit crazy? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Nov 13^th, 2025 at 5:43pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 13th, 2025 at 4:43pm: The batteries are currently available; the grid needs to be upgraded. Really. How many watt-hours at what cost?

See the big batteries already rolled out in Oz; China can meet the supply needs. 
As for cost, I have explained government doesn't need taxpayer money.   


Quote:

Or do you think that the government should pay for the privilege of Business?

No , government should decree allocation of resources when the private sector won't implement agreed policy (eg net zero).


Quote:

Fossil fuels are free too. Until you mine them. Like Solar panels they are free too, until you buy them. ;)

You confusion (driven by blind market ideology) abounds: fossils are owned by the exploiting companies; indeed in 1953 the CIA overthrew Iran's popularly elected PM (Mossadegh)  in Iran when he tried to  nationalize Iran's oil owned by British and American oil companies.

And every gallon of fossil fuels used by consumers must be paid for, by consumers. 

Whereas after the consumer puchases a PV panel, the electricity produced is free to the consumer   - hence the rapid uptake of PVs and batteries in Oz.



Quote:

More specifically it is the cost of renewables pushing up the prices. The Fossil fuelled can only generate part time, because Renewables get first dibs, But they have to run to be ready for when they fail to deliver. So we have to pay for both Renewables and the cost of the fossil fuelled generators that have to run as backup. ;)

Not renewables themselves (which are cheapest form of new energy) , but the grid needed to accomodate renewables' intermittency, a grid which is incompatable with the old fossil-ready grid. 



Quote:

So you want the private companies to be given the free means of production. Why not the steel too?

Your market  ideology crippling your analysis as always.

Private companies are free to invest and produce, to make a profit.

But the transition to green won't incentivize private companies unless government regulates the transition. 

[quote]Please
It is the Government stupid. They couldn't handle a candy raffle.[/quote]

Silly assertion from a blind market ideologue.


Quote:

Government spending leads to inflation especially on the Never Never

Mere assertion; government funding for grid upgrade and batteries, when the necessary resources are available for purchase by the government,  is not the 'Never Never', nor will it lead to inflation, because the proposed public resource use of resources is an alternative to private sector use of (fossil fuel) resources, not in competition with the private sector.

.......

The Libs today are saying the cost of net zero is their concern - proving they are AGW/GHG deniers.

But of course neither Lib nor Lab - both blinded by the Thatcherite 'taxpayer money' delusion -  will say how much their respective polices will cost, and when prices will begin to fall.

It's time to end the 'taxpayer money' delusion: 

https://publicmoneypublicgood.net/

..allowing 'taxpayers' to save the planet, even if they can't bear the 'cost' of saving it.

lee wrote on Nov 13^th, 2025 at 9:16pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 13th, 2025 at 6:17pm: Isn't that exactly what the libs proposed with their nuclear policy? What? Batteries?

No dumbarse, that  government should pay for the privilege of Business.

Or are you going to keep pretending you didn't understand the question so that that you don't have to admit you're a moron?

John Smith wrote on Nov 14^th, 2025 at 12:36pm:

Or are you going to keep pretending you didn't understand the question so that that you don't have to admit you're a moron?

Ah you switched from batteries to nuclear and I was supposed to understand. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Now about nuclear batteries. ;) ;)

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14^th, 2025 at 11:48am:

See the big batteries already rolled out in Oz;

You mean those huge ones that can provide power for 1 hour? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14^th, 2025 at 11:48am:

China can meet the supply needs

They are about the sole supplier, and like to control their product, which means controlling the market. The CCP are the main backers of the battery makers. We have seen what they do to Australian products when miffed.  ::)

But you being so beholden to them, it is not strange seeing you boosting them.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14^th, 2025 at 11:48am:

As for cost, I have explained government doesn't need taxpayer money.

Yes, but you can't back it up. It is not proven. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14^th, 2025 at 11:48am:

No , government should decree allocation of resources when the private sector won't implement agreed policy (eg net zero).

Ah Government by decree.  ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14^th, 2025 at 11:48am:

fossils are owned by the exploiting companies;

You have never heard of the Mineral Resources RENT Tax? ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14^th, 2025 at 11:48am:

Whereas after the consumer puchases a PV panel, the electricity produced is free to the consumer   - hence the rapid uptake of PVs and batteries in Oz.

Only until they fail. Then they need to pay for removal, handling, and burying... and then buy more. Renewables eh?  ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14^th, 2025 at 11:48am:

And every gallon of fossil fuels used by consumers must be paid for, by consumers.

Ah you believe that the extractors should pay for it? So China makes PV's and they should pay for the removal et al? ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14^th, 2025 at 11:48am:

Not renewables themselves (which are cheapest form of new energy) , but the grid needed to accomodate renewables' intermittency, a grid which is incompatable with the old fossil-ready grid.

Renewables SHOULD include the cost of the necessary batteries as they are KNOWN to be intermittent. And then the batteries must last at least 5-7 days, due to solar and wind drought. ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14^th, 2025 at 11:48am:

Your market  ideology crippling your analysis as always.

As always you won't answer the hard questions. Just where does the largesse stop? ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14^th, 2025 at 11:48am:

Private companies are free to invest and produce, to make a profit.

And where they don't see a profit, they won't. Just like companies backing away from Hydrogen. So renewables should have to guarantee supply or pay other utilities to supply.  ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14^th, 2025 at 11:48am:

But the transition to green won't incentivize private companies unless government regulates the transition.

Ah regulates, a euphemism for subsidises. So much for private companies making a profit. ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14^th, 2025 at 11:48am:

Silly assertion from a blind market ideologue.

So telll when was the last time the government did something on budget, which they themselves budgeted? ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14^th, 2025 at 11:48am:

government funding for grid upgrade and batteries, when the necessary resources are available for purchase by the government,  is not the 'Never Never', nor will it lead to inflation, because the proposed public resource use of resources is an alternative to private sector use of (fossil fuel) resources, not in competition with the private sector.

If the debt is not repaid it is by definition on the Never Never. Never getting paid. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14^th, 2025 at 11:48am:

The Libs today are saying the cost of net zero is their concern - proving they are AGW/GHG deniers.

You haven't provided proof of any AGW. There are many who believe that it is there, but that it is benign and not a climate crisis. More peoiple die of cold, in Australia as elsewhere, than heat.  Less people are dying of cold, and you seem to indicate that is a bad thing. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14^th, 2025 at 11:48am:

But of course neither Lib nor Lab - both blinded by the Thatcherite 'taxpayer money' delusion -  will say how much their respective polices will cost, and when prices will begin to fall.

But Labor were the lataest ones saying they had the policies that would reduce the cost. Subsidies don't reduce the cost, they mask the true cost. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14^th, 2025 at 11:48am:

.allowing 'taxpayers' to save the planet, even if they can't bear the 'cost' of saving it.

So that's where your quote about taxpayers going bankrupt came from. ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Nov 14^th, 2025 at 8:42pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 14th, 2025 at 12:36pm: Or are you going to keep pretending you didn't understand the question so that that you don't have to admit you're a moron? Ah you switched from batteries to nuclear and I was supposed to understand. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

so you didn't understand what the word 'nuclear' meant? You read the word 'nuclear' and think people are discussing duracells? :D :D :D :D

lee wrote on Nov 14^th, 2025 at 9:18pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 14th, 2025 at 11:48am: See the big batteries already rolled out in Oz; You mean those huge ones that can provide power for 1 hour? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

That's right, we need hundreds of them; but also combined with  millions of small batteries connected to PVs on all suitable  household roofs, subsidized by (....free)  government money.

Now we are talking  GWs of storage equivalent to the entire Oz  energy output and usage. 


Quote:

They are about the sole supplier, and like to control their product, which means controlling the market. The CCP are the main backers of the battery makers. We have seen what they do to Australian products when miffed.  ::)

Heard of transfer of technology, and manufacturing under licence?

The resulting  global boom in battery manufacturing could  enrich the whole world.


Quote:

Yes, but you can't back it up. It is not proven. ::)

Logic - admittedly not available for the terminally deluded like you.

Note : money is created ex nihilo, by the legal issuer; what's your  problem? 


Quote:

Ah Government by decree.  ;D ;D ;D

Crippled Conservative  brain: 'by decree',  when the private market results in market failure - and worse...

......

Address the above, before I examine the rest of your garbage;   eg "never heard of the MRRT? " , as if that's a defence of your absurd  argument re ownership of fossils in the ground, cf 'ownership' of sunshine and wind.

Note: fossils in the ground belong to the Commonwealth.....sunshine and wind belong to the world; 'ownership' is moot.... 

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2025 at 11:20am:

That's right, we need hundreds of them; but also combined with  millions of small batteries connected to PVs on all suitable  household roofs, subsidized by (....free)  government money. Now we are talking  GWs of storage equivalent to the entire Oz  energy output and usage.

Storage is measured in GigaWatt Hours not gigawatts. And since you don't know that you don't know the cost. Except for you ideology wher it is "freeeee". ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2025 at 11:20am:

Heard of transfer of technology, and manufacturing under licence?

Yes. Have you heard of China doing that or have you heard of them stealing technology and selling at a discount? ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2025 at 11:20am:

The resulting  global boom in battery manufacturing could  enrich the whole world.

Under your scenario it is only China that can get rich. Manufacturing under licence means ongoing paymwents to China. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2025 at 11:20am:

Logic - admittedly not available for the terminally deluded like you.

Ah logic, as espoused by you. Goit it. You don't know squat about energy, science or the economy but you can spout schit, and pretend. ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2025 at 11:20am:

'by decree',  when the private market results in market failure - and worse...

As decided by the government with no input from anyone, except those benefiting from the sub sisies. ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2025 at 11:20am:

"never heard of the MRRT? " , as if that's a defence of your absurd  argument re ownership of fossils in the ground, cf 'ownership' of sunshine and wind.

So a rental tax is not a rental tax. ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2025 at 11:20am:

fossils in the ground belong to the Commonwealth..

Exactly,  What don't you understand about taxation? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2025 at 11:20am:

sunshine and wind belong to the world;

Nope. They belong to wherever it b lows at that time. Austraia's wind doesn't move wind generatore in Europe. Besides a part of CO2 theory is that a warming world will have "stilling", that is winds don't blow as hard. That means they don't produce as much energy. Then of course there is the wind shadow, which means they must be spaced away from each other. Another part of engineering you know nothing about. ::)

John Smith wrote on Nov 15^th, 2025 at 6:52am:

so you didn't understand what the word 'nuclear' meant?

You were the one changed it from being about batteries to nuclear. So just what about those nuclear batteries you must have thought you meant? ;)

lee wrote on Nov 15^th, 2025 at 2:38pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 15th, 2025 at 6:52am: so you didn't understand what the word 'nuclear' meant? You were the one changed it from being about batteries to nuclear. So just what about those nuclear batteries you must have thought you meant? ;)

So i was right, you see the word 'nuclear' and you think people are discussing duracells ... you really that stupid ;D ;D

John Smith wrote on Nov 15^th, 2025 at 7:08pm:

So i was right, you see the word 'nuclear' and you think people are discussing duracells ..

You were the one mentioned nuclear on a post about batteries. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Nov 15^th, 2025 at 7:41pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 15th, 2025 at 7:08pm: So i was right, you see the word 'nuclear' and you think people are discussing duracells .. You were the one mentioned nuclear on a post about batteries. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

yes, thats how conversations work in the real world. Tell me, Is that why you supported the libs nuclear policy? You thought they were talking about Duracells? :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Nov 15^th, 2025 at 7:43pm:

how conversations work in the real world

You go off topic? hilarious. ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Nov 15^th, 2025 at 7:55pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 15th, 2025 at 7:43pm: how conversations work in the real world You go off topic? hilarious. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Nothing off topic about it. Nuclear is the oppositions answer to renewables and part of the conversation.  Do you still support the libs policy now that you've realized that they weren't discussing duracells?

lee wrote on Nov 15^th, 2025 at 2:37pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15th, 2025 at 11:20am: That's right, we need hundreds of them; but also combined with  millions of small batteries connected to PVs on all suitable  household roofs, subsidized by (....free)  government money. Now we are talking  GWs of storage equivalent to the entire Oz  energy output and usage.  Storage is measured in GigaWatt Hours not gigawatts. And since you don't know that you don't know the cost. Except for you ideology wher it is "freeeee". ;D ;D ;D ;D

At least you acknowledged  the "cost" of the millions of household batteries and hundreds of large grid-scale batteries required to ensure supply (regardless of variable local sun and wind accordng to time) is the issue, not the unit of measurement of storage.

As for "freeeee" being an ideology, that's funny, coming from you.


Quote:

Yes. Have you heard of China doing that or have you heard of them stealing technology and selling at a discount? ::)

China IS discussing co-operation with  Global South nations, because China believes in the global green economy, unlike you, Trump and the Coalition.


Quote:

Under your scenario it is only China that can get rich. Manufacturing under licence means ongoing paymwents to China. ::)

See above. Currency swaps to replace debt are practicable.


Quote:

Ah logic, as espoused by you.

Notice you didn't dare answer: what's your problem with free money created by the legal currency-issuer?


Quote:

As decided by the government with no input from anyone, except those benefiting from the sub sisies.

Says the blind free-market ideologue: note -  market failures are caused by ....the market, not government which always has to clean up the private sector's mess. 


Quote:

So a rental tax is not a rental tax.

It's a tax on private companies exploiting the Commonwealth's resources, for private profit. 


Quote:

Nope. They belong to wherever it b lows at that time.

Your absurd conclusion: sun and wind "belong" only to those where  sun and wind is available at the time - which is everyone,  depending on the time.

Unlike fossils which don't "belong" to everyone, except in a nationalized system -  which is indeed what the global energy system needs in the AGW/CO2 filthy-fossil emergency.    


So .... can you explain - logically - your problem with free treasury-issued money, to fund storage?

 

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 16^th, 2025 at 11:23am:

At least you acknowledged  the "cost" of the millions of household batteries and hundreds of large grid-scale batteries required to ensure supply (regardless of variable local sun and wind accordng to time) is the issue

Something that you have steadfastly refused to deal with. What is the cost? ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 16^th, 2025 at 11:23am:

not the unit of measurement of storage.

The measurement of storage is defined.  You keep showing youre cluelessness. ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 16^th, 2025 at 11:23am:

As for "freeeee" being an ideology, that's funny, coming from you.

I pay for what I want. You? ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 16^th, 2025 at 11:23am:

China IS discussing co-operation with  Global South nations, because China believes in the global green economy,

Ah discussing. What are the terms? You will only buy from us? We will have a defence base on your land?  They love green so muct that after putting in 21GW of coal power last year they have already approved 26 GW of coal power in the first 6 months of this year. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 16^th, 2025 at 11:23am:

Currency swaps to replace debt are practicable.

Currency swaps? The new age version of paying for it. BTW- "we don't deal in doillars you will have to pay in Yuan, at our exchange rate". ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 16^th, 2025 at 11:23am:

what's your problem with free money created by the legal currency-issuer?

Because free ain't free. What is hiding in the fine print. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 16^th, 2025 at 11:23am:

market failures are caused by ....the market, not government which always has to clean up the private sector's mess.

So the government  is always right, and that gives them the right to pick winners and losers. But the Government should not pick up other peoples messes. The old "too big to fail" mantra. ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 16^th, 2025 at 11:23am:

It's a tax on private companies exploiting the Commonwealth's resources, for private

Yes it is. So they are paying for it, plus royalties - for something you say "they own". ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 16^th, 2025 at 11:23am:

sun and wind "belong" only to those where  sun and wind is available at the time - which is everyone,  depending on the time.

Not every one equally. It depends on is it day or night? At night not "everyone" is entitled. Same with wind, which is not time-dependent. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 16^th, 2025 at 11:23am:

which is indeed what the global energy system needs in the AGW/CO2 filthy-fossil emergency.

So what is this supposed emergency? Be specific. Quote the IPCC. Do you want me to post the table from AR6 the climate CID's again? ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 16^th, 2025 at 11:23am:

ogically - your problem with free treasury-issued money, to fund storage?

It is your conclusion that the money is free, forever, never having to be repaid. Not mine. ::)

John Smith wrote on Nov 15^th, 2025 at 8:00pm:

Nothing off topic about it. Nuclear is the oppositions answer to renewables and part of the conversation.

The topic was batteries, not nuclear. So off-topic.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 13^th, 2025 at 4:43pm:

The batteries are currently available; the grid needs to be upgraded.

John Smith wrote on Nov 13^th, 2025 at 6:17pm:

lee wrote on Nov 13th, 2025 at 3:43pm: Really. How many watt-hours at what cost? Or do you think that the government should pay for the privilege of Business?

lee wrote on Nov 16^th, 2025 at 1:18pm:

The topic was batteries, not nuclear. So off-topic.

no, the topic is green energy. It's even YOUR OP you dumb carnt ;D ;D

John Smith wrote on Nov 16^th, 2025 at 1:24pm:

no, the topic is green energy.

so now nuclear is Green energy? That should make the Greens happy. ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Nov 16^th, 2025 at 4:32pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 16th, 2025 at 1:24pm: no, the topic is green energy. so now nuclear is Green energy? That should make the Greens happy. ;D ;D ;D ;D

no one said nuclear is green energy dumbarse :D :D :D :D

has life always been a struggle for you?

John Smith wrote on Nov 16^th, 2025 at 9:40pm:

lee wrote on Nov 16th, 2025 at 4:32pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 16th, 2025 at 1:24pm: no, the topic is green energy. so now nuclear is Green energy? That should make the Greens happy. ;D ;D ;D ;D no one said nuclear is green energy dumbarse :D :D :D :D has life always been a struggle for you?

So then, if the topic is green energy, then you are by definition, OFF TOPIC. ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Nov 17^th, 2025 at 11:21am:

John Smith wrote on Nov 16th, 2025 at 9:40pm: lee wrote on Nov 16th, 2025 at 4:32pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 16th, 2025 at 1:24pm: no, the topic is green energy. so now nuclear is Green energy? That should make the Greens happy. ;D ;D ;D ;D no one said nuclear is green energy dumbarse :D :D :D :D has life always been a struggle for you? So then, if the topic is green energy, then you are by definition, OFF TOPIC. ;D ;D ;D

It is better for you to say nothing and have people think you might be a fool, then say something and prove to people that you are a fool.  ::)

lee wrote on Nov 16^th, 2025 at 1:10pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 16th, 2025 at 11:23am: At least you acknowledged  the "cost" of the millions of household batteries and hundreds of large grid-scale batteries required to ensure supply (regardless of variable local sun and wind accordng to time) is the issue Something that you have steadfastly refused to deal with. What is the cost? ;)

On the contrary I have always said what the climate council today said: all sides of politics need to be honest and tell the electorate that electricity prices are going to increase over the next decade at least, regardless of Labor's 'net zero by 2050', or the Coal-ition's  'technology agnostic' policy, because the entire current Oz coal fleet must be replaced over the next decade. 

And they noted gas prices will also keep rising because the cheap gas reserves in Oz have already been exploited (which is why the fossil companies want to flog the stuff overseas where they can command higher prices).


Quote:

The measurement of storage is defined.  You keep showing youre cluelessnes

But the quantum and types  of  storage infrastructure needed to firm renewables  over the entire gtid isn't yet known, and can't be known at this point in time  because technology is changing all the time; whereas the storage capacity of an individual battery can be measured in terms of GW/h units. ; no one knows yet the actual quantum of total storage we will need in Oz on the path to net zero.

Which answers your next question: no one know the cost, except that it will be huge  - and possibly beyond the capacity of taxpayers, meaning we will have to utilize the capacity of currency-issuing governments to create money ex nihilo....   

Quote:

I pay for what I want. You? ;)

So do I - whereas the currency-issuing government has a neat trick up its sleave.....


Quote:

Ah discussing. What are the terms?

Let's see what comes out of COP30.


Quote:

Currency swaps?

Yes, to enable mutually advantageous development of resources without nations incurring debt.   


Quote:

Because free ain't free. What is hiding in the fine print.

See the 'neat trick' enabling c-i governement to access free money, mentioned above - not available to you and me. You keep confusing government money with taxpayer money. 


Quote:

Yes it is. So they are paying for it, plus royalties - for something you say "they own"

Private companies own the rights to develop and profit from, eg, Oz NW-shelf gas.


Quote:

Not every one equally.

The sun shines on everyone, depending on the time; and the wind blows everywhere, depending on the weather.   


Quote:

So what is this supposed emergency? Be specific. Quote the IPCC. Do you want me to post the table from AR6 the climate CID's again?

See India (and eg the filthy atmosphere in New Delhi ....an emergency) - and compare with China which is increasing its share of renewables  at the fastest rate of any any nation. 


Quote:

It is your conclusion that the money is free, forever, never having to be repaid. Not mine.

Addressed above; it's a neat trick available to legal currency issuers  (but not you and me):

https://publicmoneypublicgood.net/

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 17^th, 2025 at 11:56am:

because the entire current Oz coal fleet must be replaced over the next decade.

Yes. replaced, just not with renewables. they still can't cut it.

China gets 87% of power from fossil fuel, and they plan to reduce emissions by 7% by 2035 on the back of current emission increases.  ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 17^th, 2025 at 11:56am:

And they noted gas prices will also keep rising because the cheap gas reserves in Oz have already been exploited (which is why the fossil companies want to flog the stuff overseas where they can command higher prices).

So contracts don't exist and can't exist? BTW - Which product of any sort is actually going down in price? ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 17^th, 2025 at 11:56am:

But the quantum and types  of  storage infrastructure needed to firm renewables  over the entire gtid isn't yet known, and can't be known at this point in time  because technology is changing all the time; whereas the storage capacity of an individual battery can be measured in terms of GW/h units. ; no one knows yet the actual quantum of total storage we will need in Oz on the path to net zero.

So no costings mean renewables are the cheapest. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 17^th, 2025 at 11:56am:

Which answers your next question: no one know the cost, except that it will be huge  - and possibly beyond the capacity of taxpayers, meaning we will have to utilize the capacity of currency-issuing governments to create money ex nihilo....

Nope. We don't need the renewables at all along with their necessary costly appendages. ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 17^th, 2025 at 11:56am:

whereas the currency-issuing government has a neat trick up its sleave.....

Ah yes the Never Never. See how China is coping with that.;D ;D ;D ;D

"As the pooh-bahs of the Chinese Communist Party gathered recently to extol their vision for urban modernization, China’s paramount leader Xi Jinping offered an assessment of recent developments that appeared slightly at odds with the upbeat tone of the proceedings. The president said that “(I)n the past, GDP was used to judge heroes,” but “One beautiful thing covered a hundred ugly things. Nowadays, in many matters, one ugliness covers a hundred beautiful things.”

Yet as China’s cities, counties, and provinces confront slower economic growth and fiscal belt-tightening, the leadership didn’t mention the “one ugliness” that is weighing on local governments—trillions of dollars of debt. That is because the Chinese government already has declared victory over local government debt and seems to be moving on. A three-year debt restructuring initiative launched last November refinances ten trillion yuan ($1.39 trillion) of “hidden debt,” or bonds issued by investment companies known as local government financing vehicles (LGFVs). But LGFV bonds are only one part of a much larger problem. Local governments throughout China are also on the hook for trillions of dollars of bank loans, unpaid bills, and other obligations that remain unaddressed."

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/econographics/sinographs/beijing-extends-and-pretends-to-deal-with-its-mountain-of-local-government-debt/

Chinese Politicians climb the ladder because of gigantic Ponzi Schemes, the lower ranks need to keep the lie going. It is what caused the building bubble etc, they got approval, they got finance... from the regional governments.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 17^th, 2025 at 11:56am:

Let's see what comes out of COP30.

So you are betting on China and COP30. :D :D :D

"“Little by little, China is acting as a guarantor of the climate regime,” said one senior diplomat from an emerging economy. “They invested a lot on the green economy. If there’s any kind of involution, they will lose.“

One Brazilian diplomat said China played a key role in helping reach an agreement over the COP30 agenda before negotiations even began, whereas in previous years its diplomats would not get involved unless there was some key issue for them."

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/cop/china-finds-bigger-role-us-sidesteps-brazil-climate-summit-2025-11-15/


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 17^th, 2025 at 11:56am:

Yes, to enable mutually advantageous development of resources without nations incurring debt.

So they are just being kind, beneficent, when they have shown no such dealings before. Got it. ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 17^th, 2025 at 11:56am:

See the 'neat trick' enabling c-i governement to access free money, mentioned above - not available to you and me. You keep confusing government money with taxpayer money.

You keep confusing the ability to keep printing money with the ability to never have repay it. ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 17^th, 2025 at 11:56am:

Private companies own the rights to develop and profit from, eg, Oz NW-shelf gas.

yes they do. But they pay tax on it, after recovering the costs of development . ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 17^th, 2025 at 11:56am:

The sun shines on everyone, depending on the time; and the wind blows everywhere, depending on the weather.

And not necessarily when or when required. ::)

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 17^th, 2025 at 11:56am:

See India (and eg the filthy atmosphere in New Delhi ....an emergency)

Life expectancy of 73, 75 does not make it an emergency.  ::)

https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/life-expectancy/

John Smith wrote on Nov 17^th, 2025 at 11:39am:

It is better for you to say nothing and have people think you might be a fool, then say something and prove to people that you are a fool.

I see you are looking in the mirror again. ;D ;D

lee wrote on Nov 17^th, 2025 at 2:11pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 17th, 2025 at 11:39am: It is better for you to say nothing and have people think you might be a fool, then say something and prove to people that you are a fool.  I see you are looking in the mirror again. ;D ;D

you've already proven you're a fool. No need to keep proving it.

lee wrote on Nov 17^th, 2025 at 2:04pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 17th, 2025 at 11:56am: because the entire current Oz coal fleet must be replaced over the next decade.  Yes. replaced, just not with renewables. they still can't cut it.

The issue is the cost: whether replaced by new coal, nuclear (and CCS), gas, or renewables backed with batteries, pumped hydro, and a compatible new grid, the cost of electricity will  keep increasing for a least a decade and more, making electricity even more unaffordable for low-income consumers and many businesses including  much vital large steel and aluminium manufacturing.

Pauline Hanson gave a spirited performance this morning in a debate with the ABC's Sally Sara who showed her total ignorance of economcs when she claimed the transition to net zero in Oz is estimated by some sources to cost "c. $700 billion", compared with Hanson's sources who claim the cost to be more like $7 trillion - obviously Hanson's figure is closer to the truth.

When you say "renewables can't cut it". you are really saying renewables  are too expensive, without admitting costs are going to increase regardless of technology employed.

Of course you are an AGW/CO2 denier and filthy fossil advocate; but you will still have to deal with the consequences of unaffordable electricty on the economy and society.

Your plan: hit taxpayers, which must and will be the case because the private sector won't voluntarily invest in new coal and nuclear, CCS etc without government regulation and support which will cost taxpayers.

My plan:  government subsidization  of the green transition to net zero, funded with free public money, not taxpayer money.   


Quote:

China gets 87% of power from fossil fuel, and they plan to reduce emissions by 7% by 2035 on the back of current emission increases.  ;)

OK, China is evil...I get it - though your above stats  are 'woolly',
from where did you dredge them up?

Compared with google 

(google)

China gets c. 55-59% of its primary energy from coal, a share that has been decreasing but still dominates the country's energy mix.

and

(google)

in June 2024, renewables generated over 40% of China's electricity, and in 2023, the percentage was around 29% of total electricity generation

cf.

(google)

In 2024, renewable energy accounted for 36% of Australia's total electricity generation, up from 35% in 2023

Ouch: China's renewable usage  increased from 29-40% from  2023 to 2024.

Oz's increased from 35-36% over the same period. 

Who is transitioning the fastest?

.......

That's enough for your crippled Conservative brain to deal with: I expect you will remain incapable of understanding the difference between taxpayer money and government money - a lack of understanding which will result in the collapse of democracy as debt-burdened governments are no longer able to  fund vital social services,  long before net zero is reached.

eg,  today Albo (supposedly the "caring" PM) who is as clueless as you are about money, has told the premiers he can no longer fund their public hospitals under present federal funding arrangements; naturally the premiers and doctors are squealing like banshees...

It's the "cost",  you see.....  i

lee wrote on Nov 17^th, 2025 at 2:04pm:

(re the "Atlantic Council"'s Neoclassical assessment of China's economy): "As the pooh-bahs of the Chinese Communist Party gathered recently to extol their vision for urban modernization, China’s paramount leader Xi Jinping offered an assessment of recent developments that appeared slightly at odds with the upbeat tone of the proceedings. The president said that “(I)n the past, GDP was used to judge heroes,” but “One beautiful thing covered a hundred ugly things. Nowadays, in many matters, one ugliness covers a hundred beautiful things.”

(If Xi is saying there's more to an economy than GDP, then he's addressing an important point.)


Quote:

Yet as China’s cities, counties, and provinces confront slower economic growth and fiscal belt-tightening, the leadership didn’t mention the “one ugliness” that is weighing on local governments—trillions of dollars of debt.

(Now we see the 'Atlantic Council's ignorant Neoclassical anaylsis. 
Local government debt which has fostered increases in living standards and improved infrastructure without causing inflation can be managed by the Treasury and PBofC, the nation's currency-issuing agencies.)


Quote:

That is because the Chinese government already has declared victory over local government debt and seems to be moving on. A three-year debt restructuring initiative launched last November refinances ten trillion yuan ($1.39 trillion) of “hidden debt,” or bonds issued by investment companies known as local government financing vehicles (LGFVs). But LGFV bonds are only one part of a much larger problem. Local governments throughout China are also on the hook for trillions of dollars of bank loans, unpaid bills, and other obligations that remain unaddressed."

(Thank God they "seem to be moving on" (if indeed that is the case); China is currently suffering deflation after its private housing bubble burst in 2021 (like Japan's did in 1990, after which Japan's economy stopped growing).
And re the supposed inability of LGFVs to deal with  a "much larger debt problem": the Atlantic Council isn't aware that:

(google)

Emergence of private banks: Private banks have only been allowed to enter the market since 2015, and in 2023 their market share was still negligible.

...Private banks can't write-off debt like public banks can, ie, public banks which barely exist in the West.


Quote:

....."beijing-extends-and-pretends-to-deal-with-its-mountain-of-local-government-debt/"

....."pretends" - the erroneous Neoclassical narrative. 


Quote:

Chinese Politicians climb the ladder because of gigantic Ponzi Schemes, the lower ranks need to keep the lie going. It is what caused the building bubble etc, they got approval, they got finance... from the regional governments.

No, the private sector (but state-bank-fueled) credit boom caused the bubble, when citizens thought they would get rich quick via investing in private housing.

Xi was remorseful for the CCP's mismagement of the private housing market: "houses are for living in, not investment vehicles".   

Now - about Oz's own housing boom.....is an entire generation going to be locked out of home-ownership, forced to become renters in an unafforable private market?

Stay tuned....

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 18^th, 2025 at 1:29pm:

When you say "renewables can't cut it". you are really saying renewables  are too expensive, without admitting costs are going to increase regardless of technology employed.

No they can't do the job. Period. NO manufacturing Country is solely renewable. Germany , UK etc are sending their jobs offshore, despite renewables, not because they are somehow "cheaper". ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D



thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 18^th, 2025 at 1:29pm:

Of course you are an AGW/CO2 denier and filthy fossil advocate; but you will still have to deal with the consequences of unaffordable electricty on the economy and society.

Yes, Made worse by renewables. ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 18^th, 2025 at 1:29pm:

government subsidization  of the green transition to net zero, funded with free public money, not taxpayer money.

Yes, back to the Never, Never. Where unicorns fly over the rainbow. ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 18^th, 2025 at 1:29pm:

- though your above stats  are 'woolly', from where did you dredge them up?

Unlike you, they have a source -

"according to a recent article by The Wall Street Journa"

It points out that China remains the world’s largest coal consumer — fossil fuels supply over 87% of its primary energy. "

https://microgridmedia.com/chinas-green-energy-revolution/

Now unless you can show China has reduced coal, which on its face is impossible, given the new coal plants now online and those approved. Perhaps you can come up with an authoritative source, Google is not. ;)

Coal down by 26%? ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 18^th, 2025 at 1:29pm:

Who is transitioning the fastest?

Who cares?  China is still growing coal share. ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 18^th, 2025 at 1:29pm:

today Albo

Albo, like you is a failed puppet, not an economist. ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 18^th, 2025 at 3:18pm:

Local government debt which has fostered increases in living standards and improved infrastructure without causing inflation can be managed by the Treasury and PBofC, the nation's currency-issuing agencies.)

Another unsupported statement. ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 18^th, 2025 at 3:18pm:

(Thank God they "seem to be moving on" (if indeed that is the case); China is currently suffering deflation after its private housing bubble burst in 2021 (like Japan's did in 1990, after which Japan's economy stopped growing).

Yes, They CLAIMED victory.  So easy. Claim victory, move on. ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 18^th, 2025 at 3:18pm:

The private sector (but state-bank-fueled) credit boom caused the bubble, when citizens thought they would get rich quick via investing in private housing.

Exactly State backed, Ponzi Scheme unable to pay back. ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 18^th, 2025 at 3:18pm:

Xi was remorseful for the CCP's mismagement of the private housing market: "houses are for living in, not investment vehicles".

It is so easy to be "remorseful" after having orchestrated it. I wonder how much Xi benefited? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

BTW - I see you dropped India's "emergency". ;)

lee wrote on Nov 18^th, 2025 at 4:14pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 18th, 2025 at 1:29pm: When you say "renewables can't cut it". you are really saying renewables  are too expensive, without admitting costs are going to increase regardless of technology employed. No they can't do the job. Period. NO manufacturing Country is solely renewable;

But Oz  can do it  (even without nuclear) :  we are 27 million living  in a sunny,  windy (mainly) desert  the size of  China.   



Quote:

Germay, UK etc are sending their jobs offshore, despite renewables, not because they are somehow "cheaper".

Dummy, renewables AREN'T cheaper, which is why those countries are back- sliding  on their Paris commitments.

As for "sending jobs offshore": that's been happening under WTO Neoclassical freetrade rules for decades - hence the "1st world rust belt" - as Japan then China became the 'world's factory'. 


Quote:

Made worse by renewables.

Dummy: ALL new energy is increasing in costs which are unbearable by consumers and industry.


Quote:

Unlike you, they have a source - "according to a recent article by The Wall Street Journal" It points out that China remains the world’s largest coal consumer — fossil fuels supply over 87% of its primary energy. "

No link? What year?

Nevertheless

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/sep/07/china-fossil-fuel-us-climate-environment-energy

(Sept.  2025)

‘There is only one player’: why China is becoming a world leader in green energy

As US reneges on climate breakdown pledges, China’s response to crisis will shape geopolitics and our future.

.....In that sense, the tanks, cannon and missiles that filed past Tiananmen Square may well prove less important in reshaping the world order than the wind turbines, solar panels and electric cars that are churning out of Chinese factories on to fields and roads all over the planet. They are the reason China has already won the battle for the energy of the 21st century.
If history is any guide, the country that dominates energy usually dominates economics and politics, which is why it is not just old war allies that are cosying up to Beijing.
Narendra Modi, the president of longtime rival India, also visited China last week for the biggest ever meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation along with dozens of other regional leaders.
The European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, led a delegation to Beijing this summer to coordinate climate policy.
The Brazilian executive secretary of Cop30 will visit next week with a similar mission, knowing the success or failure of the annual climate summit now depends on China more than any other nation.



Quote:

Albo, like you is a failed puppet, not an economist. ;)

As if YOU have a clue how to fund Oz's public hospitals (funding cut by Albo today to 'save money' as per  your Neoclassical idiocy); and how to fund new coal which the private sector isn't interested in funding given competition from renewables which are desired by 2/3 of the electorate - no businessman will invest in that scenario.   


Quote:

Yes, They CLAIMED victory.  So easy. Claim victory, move on.

Dummy:  Xi rejected that proposition (of victory), can't you read? 


Quote:

Exactly State backed, Ponzi Scheme unable to pay back. ;)

Dummy: the private sector housing ponzi scheme (like the Oz housing market) was fueled by easy bank-issued credit, albeit in the nation's public banks cf the private banks in Oz.  


Quote:

It is so easy to be "remorseful" after having orchestrated it. I wonder how much Xi benefited?

Says the  blind, dumb, private sector-free enterprise ideologue:  China's experience with private markets only extends back to the 2000s; Xi  failed to forsee the comingbank-credit fueled 'housing as get rich quick' scheme typical of private sector housing booms (after Japan's in1990,  the GFC caused by the US was the next big one).


Quote:

BTW - I see you dropped India's "emergency". ;)

I dropped it? News to me....

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 18^th, 2025 at 6:13pm:

But Oz  can do it  (even without nuclear) :  we are 27 million living  in a sunny,  windy (mainly) desert  the size of  China.

That doesn't stop wind and solar droughts. Unless you have solar panels and wind turbines, everywhere. Even in the oceans. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 18^th, 2025 at 6:13pm:

renewables AREN'T cheaper, which is why those countries are back- sliding  on their Paris commitments.

You should talk to the nutters on here that insist they are. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 18^th, 2025 at 6:13pm:

As for "sending jobs offshore": that's been happening under WTO Neoclassical freetrade rules for decades - hence the "1st world rust belt" - as Japan then China became the 'world's factory'.

And it is accelerating. With your bloved China leading the way. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 18^th, 2025 at 6:13pm:

ALL new energy is increasing in costs which are unbearable by consumers and industry.

That deosn't negate the argument. When you have to pay for backup power because the wind is not blowing, or it is cloudy, you have to pay for the renewables plus thebackup power. Paying twice for the sdame power. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 18^th, 2025 at 6:13pm:

No link? What year?

https://microgridmedia.com/chinas-green-energy-revolution/

That was the link dummy. ::) Dated -  November 10, 2025

Recent enough for you? ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 18^th, 2025 at 6:13pm:

‘There is only one player’: why China is becoming a world leader in green energy

Yes pet The guardian - the protector of the worlds morals, the worlds environment.  So what was the source? ;)

"Last year, the world’s biggest carbon emitter registered a very slight decline in greenhouse gas output. "

Despite 21GW of completed coal plants in 2024 and 26GW of coal plant approved this year. That sounds really believable. /sarc. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 18^th, 2025 at 6:13pm:

how to fund new coal which the private sector isn't interested in funding given competition from renewables which are desired by 2/3 of the electorate

You really are that stupid. The private sector won't invest in coal because the various governments have been denigrating coal, warning of stranded assets.
2/3 of the electorate? Now it is good for Australia decided by a poll of people with no engineering, economics between them. That sound rather like you. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 18^th, 2025 at 6:13pm:

Xi rejected that proposition (of victory), can't you read?

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 18^th, 2025 at 3:18pm:

That is because the Chinese government already has declared victory over local government debt and seems to be moving on.

;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 18^th, 2025 at 6:13pm:

the private sector housing ponzi scheme (like the Oz housing market) was fueled by easy bank-issued credit, albeit in the nation's public banks cf the private banks in Oz.

Yes. The banks not only facilitated it they endorsed it. The State banks. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 18^th, 2025 at 6:13pm:

China's experience with private markets only extends back to the 2000s

And they don't get western news. Got it. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 18^th, 2025 at 6:13pm:

I dropped it?

Well it was your initial claim that India had a lfe expectancy problem, and when I replied you didn't back up your claim. That means you dropped it.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 13^th, 2025 at 4:43pm:

lee wrote on Nov 13th, 2025 at 10:42am: Green energy is too expensive due to intermittency. It would require multiple expensive batteries. The batteries are currently available; the grid needs to be upgraded. Naturally the filthy fossil industry doesn't want to invest in the green economy - and private investors won't do so without government guidelines - because filthy fossils (including for smelting iron) are very lucrative (unlike free sunshine and wind). Quote: Nothing a politician likes more is GREEN. Money, energy... ;) Susan Ley is on stronger ground today, by pointing to the cost of the transition which - as she correctly says - is pushing up electricity prices. Solution: the government opens a special  account at treasury,  named 'green financing', and funds it with free treasury-issued money. Then Oz can buy all the batteries and new grid it needs, for free.... Please tell us why or how this would cause inflation, given private investors could spend the same amount of money - but won't without being assured the fossil industry must be radically reduced by (say) 2040...sorry for the suggestion, Susan.

You must live under the same rock a Smith.

The fossil fuel industries have also been investing in the mad renewables drive to cash in on the subsidies.

They difference being they also know we need a balanced mix of methods of supply because renewables(so called) on their own are just a ridiculous pipe dream.

Batteries might be available but they extremely expensive & have to be huge in footprint. They are used mostly to even out supply from intermittent/fluctuating power from wind & solar. If required to supply the grid during a power outage/failure they have a very limited supply time before they are exhausted. 

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 16^th, 2025 at 11:23am:

lee wrote on Nov 15th, 2025 at 2:37pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15th, 2025 at 11:20am: That's right, we need hundreds of them; but also combined with  millions of small batteries connected to PVs on all suitable  household roofs, subsidized by (....free)  government money. Now we are talking  GWs of storage equivalent to the entire Oz  energy output and usage.  Storage is measured in GigaWatt Hours not gigawatts. And since you don't know that you don't know the cost. Except for you ideology wher it is "freeeee". ;D ;D ;D ;D At least you acknowledged  the "cost" of the millions of household batteries and hundreds of large grid-scale batteries required to ensure supply (regardless of variable local sun and wind accordng to time) is the issue, not the unit of measurement of storage. As for "freeeee" being an ideology, that's funny, coming from you. Quote: Yes. Have you heard of China doing that or have you heard of them stealing technology and selling at a discount? ::) China IS discussing co-operation with  Global South nations, because China believes in the global green economy, unlike you, Trump and the Coalition. [quote]Under your scenario it is only China that can get rich. Manufacturing under licence means ongoing paymwents to China. ::)

See above. Currency swaps to replace debt are practicable.


Quote:

Ah logic, as espoused by you.

Notice you didn't dare answer: what's your problem with free money created by the legal currency-issuer?


Quote:

As decided by the government with no input from anyone, except those benefiting from the sub sisies.

Says the blind free-market ideologue: note -  market failures are caused by ....the market, not government which always has to clean up the private sector's mess. 


Quote:

So a rental tax is not a rental tax.

It's a tax on private companies exploiting the Commonwealth's resources, for private profit. 


Quote:

Nope. They belong to wherever it b lows at that time.

Your absurd conclusion: sun and wind "belong" only to those where  sun and wind is available at the time - which is everyone,  depending on the time.

Unlike fossils which don't "belong" to everyone, except in a nationalized system -  which is indeed what the global energy system needs in the AGW/CO2 filthy-fossil emergency.    


So .... can you explain - logically - your problem with free treasury-issued money, to fund storage?

 
[/quote]

Close to the biggest BS you've ever posted.

Yet China is still the fastest builder of coal fired & nuclear power stations on the planet.

And by your own admission control the global manufacturing & market of green(renewables) wind & solar equipment.

All made from energy & resources from fossil fuels.

Hypocrisy writ large. 

John Smith wrote on Nov 17^th, 2025 at 11:39am:

lee wrote on Nov 17th, 2025 at 11:21am: John Smith wrote on Nov 16th, 2025 at 9:40pm: lee wrote on Nov 16th, 2025 at 4:32pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 16th, 2025 at 1:24pm: no, the topic is green energy. so now nuclear is Green energy? That should make the Greens happy. ;D ;D ;D ;D no one said nuclear is green energy dumbarse :D :D :D :D has life always been a struggle for you? So then, if the topic is green energy, then you are by definition, OFF TOPIC. ;D ;D ;D It is better for you to say nothing and have people think you might be a fool, then say something and prove to people that you are a fool.  ::)

You looking in a mirror mouthing that word by word as you type it?

You wanker he got you by the short & curlies yet you claim victory. ;D

Gnads wrote on Nov 19^th, 2025 at 8:23am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 13th, 2025 at 4:43pm: lee wrote on Nov 13th, 2025 at 10:42am: Green energy is too expensive due to intermittency. It would require multiple expensive batteries. The batteries are currently available; the grid needs to be upgraded. Naturally the filthy fossil industry doesn't want to invest in the green economy - and private investors won't do so without government guidelines - because filthy fossils (including for smelting iron) are very lucrative (unlike free sunshine and wind). Quote: Nothing a politician likes more is GREEN. Money, energy... ;) Susan Ley is on stronger ground today, by pointing to the cost of the transition which - as she correctly says - is pushing up electricity prices. Solution: the government opens a special  account at treasury,  named 'green financing', and funds it with free treasury-issued money. Then Oz can buy all the batteries and new grid it needs, for free.... Please tell us why or how this would cause inflation, given private investors could spend the same amount of money - but won't without being assured the fossil industry must be radically reduced by (say) 2040...sorry for the suggestion, Susan.  You must live under the same rock a Smith.

No; John - like you, Albo and most of the population  - doesn't understand money is created ex nihilo.

So today we see Albo cutting CSIRO and funding for public hospitals to save taxpayer money,  when the treasury can create the damn stuff ex nihilo, without cauing inflation.

No wonder the cynics refer to a poltical choice between'tweedle-dum and  tweedle-dee'.


Quote:

The fossil fuel industries have also been investing in the mad renewables drive to cash in on the subsidies.

Of course, they accept the world has signed up to the Paris commitments - while still wanting to exploit lucrative filthy fossils). 


Quote:

They difference being they also know we need a balanced mix of methods of supply because renewables(so called) on their own are just a ridiculous pipe dream.

Now the lee nonsense: Oz can easily power itself with renewables, given its vast sunny, windy deserts ....and Singapore as well (who doesn't have these). 


Quote:

Batteries might be available but they extremely expensive & have to be huge in footprint. They are used mostly to even out supply from intermittent/fluctuating power from wind & solar. If required to supply the grid during a power outage/failure they have a very limited supply time before they are exhausted.

The combination of large grid-scale batteries with millions of small domestic rooftop-connected batteries will provide massive storage capacity.

Nuclear has its place in the mix but it is expensive!


Love the crap about subsidies for renewables, as if fossil fuels don’t get hefty subsidies.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 19^th, 2025 at 11:35am:

Nuclear has its place in the mix but it is expensive! Love the crap about subsidies for renewables, as if fossil fuels don’t get hefty subsidies.

Spot on!

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 19^th, 2025 at 11:35am:

Love the crap about subsidies for renewables, as if fossil fuels don’t get hefty subsidies.

Please provide the comparison. Don't ise the IMF figures where every deduction is a subsidy. ;)

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 19^th, 2025 at 11:03am:

Oz can easily power itself with renewables, given its vast sunny, windy deserts

You keep saying that. 12,000 acres for up to 3GW, firmed by batteries, generators etc, out of "the largest solar farm". If 3GW of power is generated per hour that is 3GWh of power.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 19^th, 2025 at 11:03am:

.and Singapore as well

Singapore is touted by Sunacable as receiving 1.75GW out of the 3GW.

"Diversification of renewable energy supply and increased energy security through supply of 1.75GW renewable electricity"

https://www.suncable.energy/our-projects

So Australia gets to keep less than 1.25GW, because of line losses. ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 19^th, 2025 at 11:03am:

The combination of large grid-scale batteries with millions of small domestic rooftop-connected batteries will provide massive storage capacity.

And then you need to upgrade the grid cables to the houses, almost everywhere.  ::)

Just how much is "massive storage capacity"? Remember the intermittency. It can go from zero to maximum in the blink of an eye. What do you think that does to the current draw on tghe transmission lines? ::)

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 19^th, 2025 at 11:03am:

Gnads wrote on Nov 19th, 2025 at 8:23am: thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 13th, 2025 at 4:43pm: lee wrote on Nov 13th, 2025 at 10:42am: Green energy is too expensive due to intermittency. It would require multiple expensive batteries. The batteries are currently available; the grid needs to be upgraded. Naturally the filthy fossil industry doesn't want to invest in the green economy - and private investors won't do so without government guidelines - because filthy fossils (including for smelting iron) are very lucrative (unlike free sunshine and wind). Quote: Nothing a politician likes more is GREEN. Money, energy... ;) Susan Ley is on stronger ground today, by pointing to the cost of the transition which - as she correctly says - is pushing up electricity prices. Solution: the government opens a special  account at treasury,  named 'green financing', and funds it with free treasury-issued money. Then Oz can buy all the batteries and new grid it needs, for free.... Please tell us why or how this would cause inflation, given private investors could spend the same amount of money - but won't without being assured the fossil industry must be radically reduced by (say) 2040...sorry for the suggestion, Susan.  You must live under the same rock a Smith. No; John - like you, Albo and most of the population  - doesn't understand money is created ex nihilo. So today we see Albo cutting CSIRO and funding for public hospitals to save taxpayer money,  when the treasury can create the damn stuff ex nihilo, without cauing inflation. No wonder the cynics refer to a poltical choice between'tweedle-dum and  tweedle-dee'. [quote]The fossil fuel industries have also been investing in the mad renewables drive to cash in on the subsidies.

Of course, they accept the world has signed up to the Paris commitments - while still wanting to exploit lucrative filthy fossils). 


Quote:

They difference being they also know we need a balanced mix of methods of supply because renewables(so called) on their own are just a ridiculous pipe dream.

Now the lee nonsense: Oz can easily power itself with renewables, given its vast sunny, windy deserts ....and Singapore as well (who doesn't have these). 


Quote:

Batteries might be available but they extremely expensive & have to be huge in footprint. They are used mostly to even out supply from intermittent/fluctuating power from wind & solar. If required to supply the grid during a power outage/failure they have a very limited supply time before they are exhausted.

The combination of large grid-scale batteries with millions of small domestic rooftop-connected batteries will provide massive storage capacity.


[/quote]

There in lays the other pipe dream. Forcing/coercing people onto battery systems with freebies that the govt want to control..... but divest themselves of any responsibility for the supply a domestic essential service. It will be all at the expense of the resident.

Then you have the idea that was tossed up in Victoria that residential solar owners who export power to the grid will be charged for doing that instead of being paid for their input.

At any rate you numpty it's not just about powering homes/residences.

It about the capacity to power industry or are you happy that Australia loses all industrial capacity & becomes a net importer of everything?

Especially from the CCP you love so much. ::)

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 19^th, 2025 at 11:35am:

Nuclear has its place in the mix but it is expensive! Love the crap about subsidies for renewables, as if fossil fuels don’t get hefty subsidies.

It's still cheaper than renwables DH.

Gnads wrote on Nov 19^th, 2025 at 1:11pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 19th, 2025 at 11:35am: Nuclear has its place in the mix but it is expensive! Love the crap about subsidies for renewables, as if fossil fuels don’t get hefty subsidies. It's still cheaper than renwables DH.

stay stupid

John Smith wrote on Nov 19^th, 2025 at 1:13pm:

Gnads wrote on Nov 19th, 2025 at 1:11pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 19th, 2025 at 11:35am: Nuclear has its place in the mix but it is expensive! Love the crap about subsidies for renewables, as if fossil fuels don’t get hefty subsidies. It's still cheaper than renwables DH. stay stupid

Yes you should because you are.

Gnads wrote on Nov 19^th, 2025 at 1:14pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 19th, 2025 at 1:13pm: Gnads wrote on Nov 19th, 2025 at 1:11pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 19th, 2025 at 11:35am: Nuclear has its place in the mix but it is expensive! Love the crap about subsidies for renewables, as if fossil fuels don’t get hefty subsidies. It's still cheaper than renwables DH. stay stupid Yes you should because you are.

good boy!

John Smith wrote on Nov 19^th, 2025 at 1:22pm:

Gnads wrote on Nov 19th, 2025 at 1:14pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 19th, 2025 at 1:13pm: Gnads wrote on Nov 19th, 2025 at 1:11pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 19th, 2025 at 11:35am: Nuclear has its place in the mix but it is expensive! Love the crap about subsidies for renewables, as if fossil fuels don’t get hefty subsidies. It's still cheaper than renwables DH. stay stupid Yes you should because you are. good boy!

Want to relay that in logical English?

Or is that fluent leftoid speak?

It's schoolboy speak. ;D

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 18^th, 2025 at 1:29pm:

Of course you are an AGW/CO2 denier and filthy fossil advocate;

So what is this "filthy" even "evil"' fossil fuel? What exactly is filthy and what is evil about it? ;)

"Not renewables themselves (which are cheapest form of new energy) , but the grid needed to accomodate renewables' intermittency, a grid which is incompatable with the old fossil-ready grid" - Reply 6

"Dummy, renewables AREN'T cheaper" - Reply 35

;D ;D ;D ;D

Gnads wrote on Nov 19^th, 2025 at 5:29pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 19th, 2025 at 1:22pm: Gnads wrote on Nov 19th, 2025 at 1:14pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 19th, 2025 at 1:13pm: Gnads wrote on Nov 19th, 2025 at 1:11pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 19th, 2025 at 11:35am: Nuclear has its place in the mix but it is expensive! Love the crap about subsidies for renewables, as if fossil fuels don’t get hefty subsidies. It's still cheaper than renwables DH. stay stupid Yes you should because you are. good boy! Want to relay that in logical English? Or is that fluent leftoid speak?

I'm not surprised it went over your head.  :D

I instructed him to stay stupid, he did as he was told. I praised him for it

do you need it dumbed down further? ::)

See. The level of wit from Smith is pure school level twit style.
;D ;)