On the article itself, depsite being pro-renewables I do agree Abe. I can't see why it is so hard for someone to calculate how much infrastructure is required to meet their targets and then seek cost estimates based on that information, and then calculate payback and reduction in carbon footprint.
They refuse to release the costings because of the political massacre that would take place on election day if they did.
As much as everyone wants to look after the environment, no one will do so at the expense of the economy, their jobs, or the significant hit their wallets will likely take as a result of these policies.
And the next inevitable question would be: How much will we reduce the temperature by, if we implement these expensive and unreliable energy policies?
They can't answer that question either.
\
@Cultured Bogan said:
As I've already said, a good interim high yield alternative is nuclear, for some reason we're staunchly anti-nuclear because the Soviets were incompetent 30 years ago and the Japanese built a power plant on a patch of dirt prone to earthquakes and tsunami.
Happy to build nuclear plants if they can produce a reliable source of power.
In the interim however, we have such abundant gas and coal reserves in this country, that we should have the cheapest power bills in the world. Quite literally.
The fact we don't take advantage of it the same way that other countries do, is a scandal in itself.
