frankly your posts are so hinged with some fact and a lot of...

frankly your posts are so hinged with some fact and a lot of arrogance, I don't see why I should reply - throw it back over 2 years ago to your initial posts and statement of the impossibility of renewables to replace coal

I have given you factual responses on multiple occasions to rebut your "experience in the industry" claims... this quote: your original one is where this all stems from
https://hotcopper.com.au/posts/63960226/single
"No matter what loy yang is replaced with , 2200Mw base load equivalent will take 20 play years to develop and install. It's not going to pop uplike a mushroom. In other words the closure is not going to happen in the time frame givenAnd please don't mention the ridiculous pumped hydro schemes, people have got to understand that are net consumers of energy and cannot be used to replace generation and until we have a time when renewables exceed the total system demand ( so storage is effective) they will cause an increase in greenhouse gases. we need more renewable generation BEFORE these schemes should be given any thought at all, if they are to be as effective as people (politicians) believe they are."

2.2GW of base load equivalent (by 2035 for those reading this that haven't followed the posts over time)... using my "utopic 40% capacity factor" is 5.5GW of renewable wind... or if we go to the level where the 20th highest capacity factor wind generator for April was producing - 30% = 7.33GW or renewable wind.

I did find this post of yours which I actually agree with
https://hotcopper.com.au/posts/72237593/single




Throw these stats against your post: https://hotcopper.com.au/posts/64089596/single
" Off shore wind 50% higher capacity factor than on shore, fine, on shore is around 24% (36% is exaggerated, I worked on the Victorian wind atlas project) so 50% greater results in capacity factor of 36%. ... Solar also has a capacity factor of 25% in good conditions."

and now you say
" When I first stated that we were well behind in construction of alternative energy sources the same source (renew) had that we had to build one of these turbines per DAY to reach the target."
Out of curiosity - got a link to the post? You never shared or discussed that? simple math 6mw x 365 days in a year = 2.19GW per year... if the target you are referring to is still 2035 - then that is over 17GW of renewables... excellent

I have provided plenty of posts showing installed capacity, projects in development AND planning are increasing, https://hotcopper.com.au/posts/72144340/single being just one of them. We also have had very successful renewable energy zones in NSW be bid through and also NSW finally getting green lights on projects for the first time in over 2.5 years... 1500Mw incoming soon (tm). QLD is also undertaking REZ's and has a 22gw target for renewables by 2035...

Rye Park in NSW has recently had its last blade arrive.. (396MW total) 66 x 6MW units installed since construction started in 2021. November 2021 to May 2024 is 2.5 years... or 2.2 units average installed per month over the time period... clearly this is not how the processes work - but it confirms that these wind farms can be built (and quite quickly)


Rumours are also that Brookfield has also recently engaged local representatives to explore their options for investment in Australian renewables after the failed Origin bid - looks like AGL will miss out on a rematch vs MCB.. remember - that was a 16b warchest they were offering.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/brookfield-targets-forrests-windlab-renewable-developer-after-origin-snub/

Personally, I still I cannot see why these targets will not be achieved.