> I am a pro-renewables & storage investor... doesn't mean that...

> I am a pro-renewables & storage investor... doesn't mean that I cannot voice doubts about how / if we will get there...
> The ratio was comparing coal to grid scale solar plant. Sometimes helps to pause and look at what we have to replace.

You most certainly can voice those doubts. And when those doubts are based on your failed understanding of whether or not the land area used to generate the replace energy is a problem in Australia or not. Then you would rightly expect that people who know otherwise will point it out.

This is not a team sport (discussing science and engineering) there is no... I said good things in the past that makes whatever i say now Ok.

So I dont care or know whats on your record.
> I am on the record in many shares on HC for being pro hydro, wind and to a lesser degree solar.

I do care whether your statements about land area being a problem when repacing coal plants is real or not.

And each of Solar WInd (and seasonal storage hydro: AKA Snowy I et al) which we have little or no capacity to expand without damaging further the stuff(ecosystems) that we are trying to save. All of those generation sources have various mathematical/statistical properties which make each a clear winner over the others, BUT only for doing the part of the job that they do best.
Solar is great because its damn cheap, and the long low wind periods we get (in Apr may jun) are less prevalent in solar, but it does unfortunately produce seasonally less in winter and that overlaps the long low Wind period in Apr may Jun. (A SE Aus phenomena) (FNQ has a different pattern, and a different low wind period)
As a basis for a standalone microgrid someone outback its(solar) probably unbeatable as it would require so much less storage. Adding it to a mainly wind Grid also TBMk lowers storage requirements a bit.

Distinguishing between PHS (storage) and seasonal hydro (more akin to generation) then PHS is in no sense belonging in this list
> for being pro hydro, wind and to a lesser degree solar.
There is no either-or between PHS and Solar/Wind. The latter requires the presence of the former or oodles of batteries

And it's when we as a nation get serious about transitioning to RE that projects like Kidston become not just valuable but mandatory.

IMO: Our only real risks are regulatory ones, and how much political parties are willing to burn investors who got in early as we are.
Historically, TBK DYOR they just don't, as they want for political purposes the ability to go on making public-private partnerships by always acting in good faith to such investors.
if nothing else the long-term hard in commitment by NAIF, encourage me personally that future regulatory and policy risk is low enough for me to be in.