“Sadly, Labor and the Greens have failed to disclose to the public the cost, both in economic, and in environmental terms, of their utopian vision of a cleaner and greener Australia powered by variable renewable energy.”

That's because they don't know. If it's 'nice’ they want it. Someone else will pay. They are just like kids who want something that the adults know they can't afford.

Does anybody know what Labor's Climate Change policy is ?

One might well ask Morrison et al the same question and get the same answer.
David

I was apprehensive of a labor win, and greatly relieved on the result.
The community is so rotten that a majority voted to give perverts and their supporters the means to destroy the institution of marriage, so They are rotten enough to vote labor, but, fortunately, did not.

That is a very "Christian" attitude to take.
David

.

As a simple citizen, it makes sense to me to anticipate the phasing out of fossil fuels and the diversification of our energy sources.

I understand that our existing electricity grid spans over 5,000 kilometers and is one of the largest interconnected power systems in the world. That is a given which, for obvious reasons, should probably be largely preserved.

However, the existing power stations are usually located near energy sources such as coal mines, natural gas production plants, or hydro-electric plants – much of which would probably not be preserved in the new configuration. The new power sources may require relocation of production.

Strategic planning should take into account this and many other factors relating, not only to the means of generating electricity, but also whether we want a centralised or decentralised system for political, economic, security and environmental reasons.

If we want to preserve reasonably good living conditions, it seems we don't have much choice but to favour renewable energy in the long term, probably complemented and completed by small to medium nuclear power reactors in a largely decentralised network.

Alain B’s suggestion of thorium-based (instead of uranium-based) nuclear power reactors is worth investigating. I understand they are still in the development stage at present and, like everything else, have advantages and disadvantages. Provided the disadvantages are not prohibitive, thorium would seem to be a more viable long-term solution than uranium.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), there are 4.2 million deaths every year as a result of exposure to ambient (outdoor) air pollution. Land, air and sea motorised vehicles running on fossil fuels are major polluters. They also produce greenhouse gas emissions responsible for global warming.

There’s no simple solution to the problem, no easy substitute for fossil fuels. According to the experts, large scale production and disposal of lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles would also pose a major pollution problem as would all other known alternative fuels.

I guess we’ll just have to manage the problem as best we can, adapting our lifestyles and developing new, improved and more efficient technology.

.