Diddy,
1.
Why not start today? - Of course they should and maybe this is a push for AGL to actually start ramping up investments
Do you still need the old power plant to do that? - Yes. It gives better leverage for equity and a big company (AGL) can continue to pull revenue whilst constructing.
2.
Note: There is a typo in my original post. "Competitive" should have been "
Uncompetitive"
More expensive power to be competitive - Yes, because fossil fuel prices (coal, oil gas) are increasing and therefore the power prices from stations generating 'dirty' power need to rise to cover costs.
Green is not maintenance free - Nothing is maintenance free... but renewables (solar + wind) have a lot less than 'traditional' power sources. Solar has the lowest maintenance fees with the biggest cost being cleaning panels - which this tech guru might be able to automate with robots....*wow*
3. Your arguments here are invalid as they don't apply to a company like AGL.
If AGL was the owner and operator of the Old Parliament House, they would have built the new one and sold off or completely decommissioned the old one. The fact it is heritage listed means that the costs for upkeep are being paid by a different government department, in AGLs case this would be a different company or full decommission.
4.
"Practical" = as soon as it is economically viable to do so... which yes is now. But it wont happen overnight, heck it wont happen over the next decade. He (and AGL) will ramp up renewables as they offer better ongoing returns but will be rate limited for how much they can afford along with how quickly they can build them. The existing 'dirty' plants fill the gap until 100% renewable is
practically possible. If he wants to make AGL green by 2030 (his latest shower thought),
I imagine he will immediately start to will ramp up renewables, later invest in energy storage, throughout this whole time let the 'dirty' plants become run down and then in 2030 sell them for a cheap but quick buck to payback the borrowings for renewable investment.
Next lot:
1. I agree that board members are simply rubber stamps. The real expertise should in embedded within the company as thats where the money is made. Board members just need to be good at high level management and investing / economics.
2. Agree with you here that coal will be dead, but as stated above, it wont be overnight.
(Side note: 'not your ethics' =/= 'no ethics')
3. Totally agree on this one. And I guess the thing that will effect the company most is whether he or the yes man are good at their job.
(20min delay)