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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.