Leaderboard

We are nearing the point of moving back to Aus.. at the moment, Melbourne looks the goods for us (because I am from there, have family, and know it better than anywhere, although there are more jobs in Sydney). Wasn't planning on getting a car - the tram and train network are very good and can get you to where you want to be.. Yeah may have to walk a bit, but that is good for one's health, anyway. Hopefully home shopping is the rage in Aus as it is here. If we need a car, we can borow a brothers, and worked out to hire a car for the odd trip is much cheaper on all accounts. Happy to train/fly between capital cities, and as RandomX says, the trains in Vic are very cheap each way within the state (of course, there will be lots of bussing in between apparently). But, son has decided he wants to do marine biology, and guess where the best marine biology course is in the world? Townsville! So, if we end up there, I will need both a car and a light plane (and an IFR) to get me to Sydney or Melbourne on the odd occasion.; But not to worry @nomadpete and @Marty_d - the second best marine biology course in the world is in Hobart, and my son has a penchant for the place. We may be neighbours, yet. Who knows, I can get a job down there as a sign writer 😉

The reality is continual investment in obsolete infrastructure will further result in underutilisation costs, because a lot of it is manifactured/fabrcated by global companies and Australia won't have the economic size to warrant whole production facilities and global supply chains to maintain them. Of you can absolutely pay through the nose and then some to maintain the ability to replace and increase capacity using the obsolete infrastructure. One of my nuclear clients had to do just that and ended up paying virtually all it would have made in profits by retaining old technology. They eventually bit the bullet and upgraded their infrastructure. At some stage, you have to run down the use of obsolete infrastructure. If that means you are decommissioning plant and infrastrcuture before the end of its useful life, that is your bad planning and management and mothing else. This is done by winding down the investment in obsolete infrastructure while investing on the new, far more efficient infrastructure. Indeed, even maintaining the existing infrastructure eventually moves to minimum to keep what is needed going while comissioning the new infrastructure, and keeping some of the obsolete stuff going in parallel to mitigate teething problems. This is called transitioning and is not a new concept. The problem is, the LNP government from Howard on were sponsored by the fossil fuel industry right at the time it was right to start the transition, both ecologically and economically. However, they fought against it and, with the help of the Murdoch and to a lesser extent, then Fairfax press, were able to maintain power and further delay the inevtiable, resulting in the cost of underutilised and increasingly obsolete infrastructure to increase, rather than transition to superseding infrastructire while optimising the life of what would have remained. The other side of it is finding the finance to fund the operations of fossil plants. Do you not remember the Morrison/Dutton government pressuring the Aussie banks to lend for new fossil fuel generation when they weren't prepared to? Banks will generallly lend to lawful etnerprises as long as the risk adjusted return on their capital meets their desired threshold. Even arms dealers can get funding, albeit with more stringent checks before that funsing is provided. Yet reputable banks are unwilling to lend to new fossil fuel electricity generation projects. Even with government pressure to try and get them to lend, why do you think that would be? I can tell you first hand. When we lend for project finance (the model commonly used), we have to work out the economic viability of the plant over the time horizon the finance is sought. We are often talking billions of USD (sorry, @randomx - USD is still the global currency) and usually over multiple decades - sometimes the expected life of the plant (ex. extestions). And, with the global electricity generation industry in its advanced state of transition, the risks are too high that we will lose on the deal. This is happening all over the world.. yes, there are developing economies where you can still get finance for new builds, but ultimately, they will fall away, as well. And we are now seeing, thanks to modelling other climate risks into the equation, operational funding on the decrease in these industries, as this compounds the risk of the probability of default in these sectors (and some others). We see plant of all different types (not just electricity generation, but manufacturing, processing, distillation, etc) being mothballed aand those costs have to be borne. But to continually invest in ne but obsolete capacity and try and be the last man standing and carry the costy of all of that is,well, quite nuts both at a micro and macro economic level.