Unfortunately the Greens aren't yet prepared to teach the public** there are no purely financial constraints on the OZ treasury funding the necessary rollout of renewables infrastructure - including the transmission upgrade, ASAP.

ie fast enough to keep pace with and eventually overtake the closure of fossil plants.

After which power prices plummet.....

**because they are concerned they won't win votes from the public who know nothing about money, like you.
But it's a losing strategy in the long run, because Green policies can't be implemented under present neoclassical "dismal science" - balanced government budget dogma.

The Green's ideas are collapsing before our eyes as
coal fired power stations are blown up or closed
and there is no sufficient renewable capacity to supply our needs -
and power prices have doubled and even tripled.

Fair taxes on the privilege of making profits on our resources.

The public don't believe you; E = mc2, and the Sahara can power the globe, regardless of energy density. There's already twice as much power as the globe needs.   

The public don't like fracking which is the only remaining source of gas in the Oz east coast; hence it's time to start cancelling some of those overseas contracts, until ffs can be closed down all togeher.

Get ready for standed assets everywhere....

A PRRT which actually amounts to real money -  note:  the Qatar state earned $25 billion from its gas exports last year, Oz with a similar volume earned....  peanuts.

In the decade prior to the opening of the Gladstone LNG port when Australia’s LNG exports soared, company taxes and the petroleum resource rent tax (PRRT) paid by the industry averaged about 15% of revenue. Since then, it has averaged 6%, and was just 3.3% in 2019-20."

True, so suck it up....

Which just goes to show how the state can collect $25billion/year on gas exports alone, when you cut out the greedy ff companies.  While Oz gains peanuts. .

That's right: peanuts.

Nah...I'm riding on AGW to achieve  a better world with cheap, clean power,   regardless of its veracity.

Quote:
The public are in the main part deluded into believing the green dream.


True, so suck it up....

https://profstevekeen.substack.com/p/the-fast-track-to-net-zero?
utm_source=subst...

The Fast Track to Net Zero

No bricks, the walls and foundations made of compacted earth, cement made from clay and glass scavenged from demolition skips are just some of the construction changes needed to comply with Net Zero by 2050. The latest paper from Government-funded U.K. FIRES looks to “minimise new construction”, and notes the shape of the urban environment will change, allowing for “denser living and reduced transport needs”.

The latest U.K. FIRES paper seems to have slipped out quietly at the end of last year and has to date attracted little publicity. But the group, which comprises a number of academics led by Cambridge engineering professor Julian Allwood, made headlines around the world recently with previous work noting that all flying and shipping must stop by 2050, beef and lamb must be banned, and only 60% of energy will be available to cook food and heat homes. The group, which receives £5 million from Government sources,  is interesting because it bases its recommendations on the brutal, and many would argue honest, reality of absolute Net Zero. It does not assume that technological processes still to be perfected or even invented will somehow lead to minimal disturbance in comfortable industrialised lifestyles. It could be further argued that its continued existence and pronouncements are important, since they highlight the dishonesty and deceit that surrounds many other Net Zero promoters.

U.K. FIRES sees the future of construction based on stone, earth and timber, along with components “reused and repurposed” from demolition. Recycled steel, cement and bricks can be used, although this will be “constrained” – rationed might be a better word – by a supply of “non-emitting electricity under high demand”. Transformational construction changes will take longer to achieve, state the authors, but the U.K.’s ambitious target of a 45% reduction in emissions by 2030, “can only be achieved through reduced material demand”.

Building without bricks is an interesting suggestion and over two billion are currently produced each year. But bricks require high firing temperatures, and the enormous cost of Net Zero energy makes them uneconomic to produce. Cement also requires energy to make but it can be mixed with calcined clay. Nevertheless, calcined clay is also energy intensive and can only supplement 50% of Portland cement. “As a result, the mass low-cost consumption of concrete will no longer exist,” the authors note. Together, bricks and cement generate annual turnover of over £10 billion. Rammed earth, which can be used for foundation screeds and walls, is said to be a proven and potentially zero emission alternative, “which can utilise abundant local materials”.

Glass looks to be a complete no-no, with production requiring temperatures of 1,700°C and producing additional process emissions which cannot be avoided by electrification. Only recycled glass seems to be acceptable for the absolutist authors, so the need for complete circularity, “will somewhat constrain the supply of glass”. However, add the authors helpfully, this will “encourage direct re-use and reconditioning of glass panels from demolition sites”.

Steel is widely used in modern construction due to its large load-bearing properties. Around the world, recycled steel accounts for about a third of current production. To have zero emissions from producing steel relies on energy-intensive carbon capture and storage technology, which the authors observe, with their customary honesty, “is unlikely to be economical by 2050”. In the U.K., 85% of steel is already recycled, and it is explained that the Net Zero transition will heavily restrict its supply. Recycling of aluminium is said to be the “preferred zero emission compatible pathway”, and this will lead to “higher prices due to a restricted supply of the material”.

You mean nationalize the FF industry, close it down ASAP, and transfer all the assets?    Indeed.

Might pay for the Hobart football oval; whereas $25 billion can pay for lifting JS (though the government should be abolishing JS and offering suitable  paid training at TAFE, if actual jobs aren't available).

Did I? I thought I said "regardless of its veracity..."  Too subtle for you?

thegreatdivide wrote Yesterday at 9:23pm:
True, so suck it up....

The article isn't from some delusional neoclassical outfit in the UK...

Er....you said Qatar has a state-owned gas industry.

There are lots of jobs available but Coalition dead-heads defunded TAFE, preferring to bring in cheap overseas labor.
Note: there is always useful work to be done, govt can always act as employer of last resort.(ELR)

The highlighted: we need much more public sector engagement ie mandated activity; the profit-seeking private sector won't "uncover gaps in the business space", without public sector assurances and planning. 

Keen was the messenger for the engineers.

PS you still don't get that I'm agnostic on AGW, but pro clean (ie, non-polluting, apart from CO2 emissions), cheap global energy.