> I'd also note that this report was done in 2017, and the LCOE for solar has decreased more rapidly than expected. This Lazard report done only a year later puts large scale solar at US$36-43/MWh (= A$51-63/MWh).
If it started to make commercial sense to build solar in 2017 then it really doesn't make sense to change anything we're doing after these bushfires since any problem will will resolve itself. The underlining point is that this crisis isn't a catalyst to rethink our energy policy. The two things just aren't realistically linked. We don't emit enough carbon for it to be relevant for global pollution.
Which is why you start transitioning now, so we get a resilient energy system.
it really doesn't make sense to change anything we're doing after these bushfires since any problem will will resolve itself
No, because the current government actually wants to build new coal fired power stations and open new coal mines.
The underlining point is that this crisis isn't a catalyst to rethink our energy policy.
Yes you keep parroting this line. But I noticed you ignored the tourism industry costs above as well as the arguments about how successful the German transition had been.
A future where (according to exactly the same reference!) solar will be cheaper than coal by 2030 (~61 $/MWh vs ~76 $/MWh supercritical coal).
I'd also note that this report was done in 2017, and the LCOE for solar has decreased more rapidly than expected. This Lazard report done only a year later puts large scale solar at US$36-43/MWh (= A$51-63/MWh).