The author is in the renewables business, flogging solar.
Renewables have a market based on the climate fraud, which asserts that human emissions affect climate, when there is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate.
Is there not a considerable financial risk in backing an industry based on a fraud, and selling what it calls renewables, which, of course, are not renewable in any sense of the word.
A current ad, on television, states that Australian coal is used by Japan for emission free power generation, and asks why we do not do the same.
Coal has big markets, and if the Banks are wrong, it is certainly not the first time, and when the climate fraud blows up, they will be shown to be wrong again.

Bazz and Leo, good to see the thinking caps are on. The greens are going to have to just disappear because so long as we have questionable and conflicting facts and reports we will not get investors for these fairy tale 'renewables'. We need reliable power NOW. The mongrels in Canberra sold our public utilities off to their mates, which has caused all this distress and extortion. We must put the blame squarely on the greens and as I said before that buffoon of a joke Di-Natale is killing us for his own political and financial gain. I apologise but when I heard of a 'greens' party, I thought, what on earth would some tree hugger know about running a country. Their policies are narrow at best and do not have any credible flow on effect to enhance the economy. If you listen to that idiot talk he actually says nothing, spewing out the same stuff he said on the campaign trail. Turn him off and turn him away before we are unable to turn things around.

Altrav, yes there is no reality in the words that some issue on the
subject. The greens seem to be the worst on that as their highest
priority is reduce emissions at all costs.
For a really interesting article see The Weekend Australian article
by Lomberg. A real "Reality ON" article by a warmist.

I saw on the weekend Queensland electricity was selling on the market
for $249 a Megawatt/hr. It is usually around $85 Mw/hr.
The difference is due, I believe, to having to stoke up the coal fired
stations to produce a peak load supply.
The wind & solar get first go at any load and then when they cannot
supply the fossil fuel stations are called on.
So it is either pay up ot cut off the customers.
The stations have to pay for their fuel and pay wages so they have to
take every chance they get to make a quid.
It is just not an efficient way to run an electricity system.

The gas fired station are promoted as an alternative as they are
at least "quickstart". ie I believe they can be on line in 15 minutes.
Quite good if you know the wind will drop in 15 minutes time.
The real catch with wind is the expotential wind speed/output ratio.
A fifty percent drop in windspeed means a 75% drop in output.
If you watch Sth Aus the wind output can fall very suddenly.
The battery will help that for its wind farm so long as the drop is
for less than an hour.
Then catch 23, it has to be recharged. From the grid ?

Hugh is not alone. My own 50 years in energy - plant and systems planning, operation, research and regulation, in Australia and overseas - leads me to scepticism of individuals who regard themselves as "expert". So many of the social media comments in this broad space are "uni-dimensional" expressions of their authors' ideological biases.

On the contrary, an interconnected/distributed energy industry is but part of a larger-scale, massively-interacting, multi-party "complex" socio-technical system. Such systems are dynamic; their performance - both overall and at particular times and places - results from the behaviours of many stakeholders and influencers; their planning has always defied simplistic approaches based on thinking of them as "machines" (a point that even economists are now recognising).

In practice, each new investment will be shaped by projections of the new and existing, demands they are to meet, technology and other resources that will be available, economics, and politics, and equally opportunities - both identified and unforeseen. The result will almost always be a continually changing "messy" mix always in transition.

Policies that unnecessarily constrain or fail to accommodate such dynamics - e.g. by imposing static, arbitrary targets - will assuredly fail or at the least result indirectly in huge additional costs - whether by stranding otherwise productive assets, or discouraging economic investment and operation.

Australia's special contribution to the world has been to provide an exquisite example of such failure. The way out of the hole now, is not to keep on digging.