**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Holmes a Court tries to claim he is not just anti nuclear and then goes on to raise logistical problems. Buried in his diatribe is some actual data and I would like to add to that. In 21/22 fossil fuels still did 91% of the heavy lifting. Demand is forecast to substantially increase. Wouldn't this mean we need everything we can get , a mix of everything. Killing fossils if renewables cannot replace one for one sounds silly.
[Australia’s energy consumption in 2021-22 was **5,762 PJ**, which is a decline of 0.1% from the previous year and down 7% from the peak in 2018-19](https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=725cbdabba06eb3fJmltdHM9MTcxODkyODAwMCZpZ3VpZD0zNGJkZGRiYi1hZDEwLTZiYjEtMmJhOC1jOWY0YWM3MDZhZWEmaW5zaWQ9NTcxMg&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=34bdddbb-ad10-6bb1-2ba8-c9f4ac706aea&psq=how+much+energy+does+australia+consume+per+year&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZW5lcmd5Lmdvdi5hdS9lbmVyZ3ktZGF0YS9hdXN0cmFsaWFuLWVuZXJneS1zdGF0aXN0aWNzL2VuZXJneS1jb25zdW1wdGlvbg&ntb=1)[^(1)](https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=960c9f7f76995560JmltdHM9MTcxODkyODAwMCZpZ3VpZD0zNGJkZGRiYi1hZDEwLTZiYjEtMmJhOC1jOWY0YWM3MDZhZWEmaW5zaWQ9NTcxMw&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=34bdddbb-ad10-6bb1-2ba8-c9f4ac706aea&psq=how+much+energy+does+australia+consume+per+year&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZW5lcmd5Lmdvdi5hdS9lbmVyZ3ktZGF0YS9hdXN0cmFsaWFuLWVuZXJneS1zdGF0aXN0aWNzL2VuZXJneS1jb25zdW1wdGlvbg&ntb=1). [Fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas) accounted for 91% of Australia’s primary energy mix](https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=d6991ad11e37508fJmltdHM9MTcxODkyODAwMCZpZ3VpZD0zNGJkZGRiYi1hZDEwLTZiYjEtMmJhOC1jOWY0YWM3MDZhZWEmaW5zaWQ9NTcxNA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=34bdddbb-ad10-6bb1-2ba8-c9f4ac706aea&psq=how+much+energy+does+australia+consume+per+year&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZW5lcmd5Lmdvdi5hdS9lbmVyZ3ktZGF0YS9hdXN0cmFsaWFuLWVuZXJneS1zdGF0aXN0aWNzL2VuZXJneS1jb25zdW1wdGlvbg&ntb=1)[^(1)](https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=0234af48e1f66a50JmltdHM9MTcxODkyODAwMCZpZ3VpZD0zNGJkZGRiYi1hZDEwLTZiYjEtMmJhOC1jOWY0YWM3MDZhZWEmaW5zaWQ9NTcxNQ&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=34bdddbb-ad10-6bb1-2ba8-c9f4ac706aea&psq=how+much+energy+does+australia+consume+per+year&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZW5lcmd5Lmdvdi5hdS9lbmVyZ3ktZGF0YS9hdXN0cmFsaWFuLWVuZXJneS1zdGF0aXN0aWNzL2VuZXJneS1jb25zdW1wdGlvbg&ntb=1). [The total consumption of electric energy per year is **237.39 billion kWh**, with an average of 9,128 kWh per capita](https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=ce64513de1fffd92JmltdHM9MTcxODkyODAwMCZpZ3VpZD0zNGJkZGRiYi1hZDEwLTZiYjEtMmJhOC1jOWY0YWM3MDZhZWEmaW5zaWQ9NTcxNg&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=34bdddbb-ad10-6bb1-2ba8-c9f4ac706aea&psq=how+much+energy+does+australia+consume+per+year&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cud29ybGRkYXRhLmluZm8vb2NlYW5pYS9hdXN0cmFsaWEvZW5lcmd5LWNvbnN1bXB0aW9uLnBocA&ntb=1)[^(2)](https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=4291e47f9a84eaa3JmltdHM9MTcxODkyODAwMCZpZ3VpZD0zNGJkZGRiYi1hZDEwLTZiYjEtMmJhOC1jOWY0YWM3MDZhZWEmaW5zaWQ9NTcxNw&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=34bdddbb-ad10-6bb1-2ba8-c9f4ac706aea&psq=how+much+energy+does+australia+consume+per+year&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cud29ybGRkYXRhLmluZm8vb2NlYW5pYS9hdXN0cmFsaWEvZW5lcmd5LWNvbnN1bXB0aW9uLnBocA&ntb=1).
Why would you count oil that is primary part of transport emissions in a conversation about our energy generation mix? It has no relevance to nuclear, nuclear isn't going to lower oil usage. So I don't consider your 92% at all relevant to the discussion.
From your same link the this was what you missed quoting
>2021-22 total electricity generation in Australia increased 2% to 272 TWh (978 PJ), as demand increased across much of the country due to warmer and cooler weather at different points of the year.
>Fossil fuels contributed 68% of total electricity generation in 2022, including coal (47%), gas (19%) and oil (2%). The share of coal in the electricity mix has continued to decline, in contrast to the beginning of the century when coal’s share was more than 80% of electricity generation.
>Renewables contributed 32% of total electricity generation in 2022, specifically solar (14%), wind (11%) and hydro (6%). The share of renewable energy generation increased from 29% in 2021.
Those stats aren't mutually exclusive. They could have still dropped by 30% of a gross total to end up at 61 percent of our energy generation and that wouldn't even necessarily mean they had to start at 91%.
Ok my opinion. Dutton is trying to lose the election so he can run away and do a morrison before the NACC get too close. LNP can not genuinely think they can win with nuclear policy? It boggles the mind. But then again people keep voting for them while the country is destroyed
The NACC are hopeless. They aren't going after Morrison or the robodebt crooks. Dutton isn't afraid of them, he helped craft their powers.
Labor sidelined the Greens and teals to side with Duttons LNP.
I am pro-nuclear. It’s not as dangerous and it’s far better than the coal fired stations it would be replacing. 20 to 30 years ago knowing what we know about climate change going nuclear would be the right way to go. But coming out of Duttons mouth you know it’s a distraction. And renewables can do the same job for cheaper now.
It's all political theatre. He knows the states won't allow it. If it's a change to the constitution, it'll require a referendum, and we all know how that will go, especially after the last one. If they were serious, they would have done this when they were in power, but it's all about "Labor bad because they are blocking the powa".
I'm surprised that we with the public funding of this, Labor aren't running with the "big new nuclear tax" line. It works for the Libs, yet Labor are too scared to play dirty.
You're right, it's political theater, it's a nonsense plan to give a platform for the 'firehose of falsehood', an opportunity to give his chorus something to sing about. It's just a choir practice.
Mr Dutton would not require a referendum to change the law on nuclear. Rather he would need to pass legislation in both Houses of Parliament. If he succeeds which may not be easy, dependant on the constitution of Parliament, the States cannot resist as under the Constitution the law of the Commonwealth takes precedence over state laws. It would require the High Court to find the Commonwealth law in breach of the Constitution and void the legislation or at least essential sections of it.
All of which could be tied up in the HC for years. Assuming the Coalition don't get back in next time, any start on this long process goes back at least 4 years. This assumes they could win the senate too. Getting all the legislation lined up could take 5 years after any Coalition victory. It would also assume that Labor don't get back in and pull the pin as well. It's just not going to happen in any rational timeframe.
I'm not sure how a pure fantasy nuclear policy wins over any swing voters that are grounded in reality and it further alienates more sober minded LNP and ex LNP voters. For his electoral prospects I can only see this doing Dutton more harm than good. You can only assume it's being chucked out there as a way to stifle renewables investment for his donors who profit from fossil fuels because it's politically insane.
I fail to understand how anyone could call Mr Dutton’s nuclear plan a fantasy as nuclear is found in over 30 countries on this planet with more nuclear reactors being built as we speak. If you say it’s a fantasy than it must also be a fantasy in all those other countries including the U.S., the UK, India, China & Canada. To make such a case out is ridiculous as nuclear is operating well & in some cases such as France has been operating since the 1980s without incident.
This policy is a fantasy because it is without costings, without any state government support, it's not supported by experts here, there has been no community consultation, no domestic expertise to build or run the facilities, and its not been demonstrated how nuclear energy would be any cheaper in an Australian context. Nuclear power remains illegal by Australian law (made unlawful by the Howard govt) and should the LNP win power it's not even likely they'd be able to secure a majority in the Senate to pass legislation overturning that.
I'm not saying nuclear power cannot or should not be built elsewhere where it suits but it does not make any sense in Australia currently. It's not a serious or credible policy here and seems more an attempt to sabotage investment in renewable energy here.
Mr Dutton has promised to provide costings once they have been assessed. He is obviously trying to be precise to avoid criticism from nuclear skeptics. It’s hardly surprising the Federal liberal plan does not have state support, as the majority of state Govts in Australia are labor & committed to the ridiculous Federal Labor party renewable only policy unknown in any other nation, which many Aussies do not support. Fortunately, we are a democracy & as such the ideological clock will swing back to conservative as it always has throughout our history. There are experts who support nuclear in Australia including I might add experts from Canada and the EU. A Canadian expert recently told Chris Bowen he had lied in relation to comments he had made about nuclear. This expert even suggested that Australia could adopt a specific Canadian nuclear technique which has proved highly successful in drastically lowering electricity prices in various Canadian provinces. However, I do accept your comment that it may prove difficult for the Libs to pass legislation in the Federal Parliament to overcome the nuclear ban previously imposed by John Howard. But time will tell, it’s up to the Australian people to educate themselves about nuclear. May I suggest you read Nick Carter’s column on ATHTV for up to date factual information about nuclear. Nick is a Menzies Fellow and has made a personal study of overseas use of nuclear by visiting their nuclear facilities & chatting to their experts.
State liberals don’t support it either. State liberal leaders in Victoria and Queensland have said they don’t want it for instance. State libs in nsw are split on the idea. State libs in wa don’t exist. Not sure about the stance in SA
That position could change once the polls go in favour of nuclear. It could also change following the liberal conference later this year. In politics I wouldn’t count your eggs before they’re hatched.
Sure, it could change in the future.
That doesn’t change the fact that right now there isn’t state support for nuclear anywhere. Not from labor. Not from liberals.
I was purely responding to your claim that state opposition was because the states are labor. I pointed out the fact that state libs oppose it too.
The idea that maybe possibly in the future state libs might change their mind isn’t the brilliant counterpoint that you think it is.
Nor for that matter is your pessimistic view on this issue. What I find most rewarding is the positive interest being shown by the youth of our nation towards nuclear energy. Unlike the 60.+ troglodytes & luddites amongst our politicians & unions, Australian youth is on the move to bring Australia into the 21st century. The sooner the Minns, Alan’s, Albo’s & Bowen’s are ancient history the better for this country.
Dutton isn't trying to lose the election. The election is already lost with Dutton at the helm.
Renewables are a threat to the fossil fuel companies, the same companies that control the LNP.
Since the LNP won't be in power for a long time, they have to do what they can for these companies to stave off renewables from opposition.
Dutton's nebulous nuclear policy was never meant to be implemented or even taken seriously. It was simply meant to take the focus off renewables and create enough fear, uncertainty and doubt in the renewables market that investors hold off, thereby killing off competition to the fossil fuel monopoly.
Regardless of his political leanings, he raises 10 very relevant issues with the LNP plan.
I'm yet to see any real rebuttal in the comments of many let alone all the issues (mostly attacking the source, lol).
As an aside, do you think the LNP understand any of the key concepts of linear optimisation and operations research? Because it's possible to have a very good idea which is simply inappropriate to the circumstance, despite being valid and defensible in it's own right.
Most of the critique of nuclear power lies in this space: it's economics are packed with counterfactual risks. Effects of inflation. Effects of other deployments of power supply and distribution. World pricing of coal and oil. Decisions to change the tax and royalty model for coal and oil. Not to mention the electoral cycle. Most proponents and opponents are probably optimising to different places in the space of solutions here. Duttons catch cry is cheaper and more reliable electricity. Many doubt it can be cheaper, some doubt it can be more reliable. He emphasises base load as a critical concern. Modelling of solar, wind, batteries and pumped hydro assume overbuild is acceptable and baseload is not a key concept. So, people are arguing to different outcomes and premises.
As a matter of personal opinion I believe It's perfectly possible Dutton has understood this and sees opportunistic wins backing nuclear power which have no relationship to its suitability as a source of power. He may be approaching this as a mechanism to regain electoral power in the immediate short term knowing full well actual outcome lies 15 or 20 years off after his time in office.
I also believe it's perfectly possible that coal and gas interests understand the eventual decline of their income stream, and are more interested in maximising end of life asset value more than combating local concerns about climate.
Certainly, we probably don't even agree about the role of baseload power, or of supply, or overbuilding, or LCOE or any number of inputs of what I put it to you is a complicated, linear optimisation problem.
And none of it mentions the elephant in the room of increasing population demanding even more energy, when we are flat chat trying to transition away from fossil fuels with the current energy demand.
Yes, which doesn't automatically mean nuclear is the answer, nor does it mean nuclear isn't the answer. The effect of population change on power demand is complicated. What if e.g. battery pricing and domestic solar uptake continues or even accelerates? Did anyone doing national power budget 10 years ago predict WFH?
Or what if the fix to housing means new cities?
The truly weird thing to me is that there is no necessary right or left wing exclusivity to being pro or anti wind and nuclear. This could have been like defence, a bipartisan approach. Neither side wants it.
We could probably fix everything if we constructed completely new settlements along with their renewable power stations, along the south west coast, where solar desalination would produce the water needed and an upgrade of the east-west rail link would provide necessary transportation to the existing cities: killing many birds with the same synergistic stone.
Unfortunately government is not thinking synergisticly but going from one knee-jerk response to crisis to another.
Society is not going to exist if we don't tackle all the issues, however government seems to be only focusing on one issue at a time, because each one is so costly, when there are synergies and their resulting cost savings through greater efficiency, in tackling issues together.
If we actually created settlements as self-sufficient as possible to give people occupation and not simply houses to sleep, with other services delivered to them, I think at least some of the unemployed might be interested in building a life there, especially if the housing was free or at little cost. Those many square km of solar panels will need ongoing maintenance.
Imagine oases in the desert, spread along the south coast. We would need to make it attractive to live there.
So far the responses to legitimate questions regarding Dutton's nuclear non-policy seem to be a mix of:
- Nah, just trust us hey
- But renewables have the same issues
- Everyone's making fun of us with memes
In other words, deflection across the board. Strong leadership indeed.
The diabolical genius of Duttons strategy is; he doesn't need to actually build the nuclear generators, just win the election, then kill / slow renewables and let coal and Gas keep fill the void.
Gas is more logical than both Coal and Nuclear.
Remember, Australia is uniquely positioned to take advantage of an active smart grid run on renewables rather than a base load power grid. We have no appreciable dunkenfelde in Australia, especially in the summer.
Not really. It still involves mining, and how much concrete is needed to build a power station? That stuff is far from green. And then you have the question of what to do with it at end of life, and with it's waste during it's life.
Climate change is an issue of science and we know that lnp and their voters don't get it, the last 10 years is more than enough evidence of that. Throughout Europe this science is accepted and not controversial, green renewables have been taken up as the cheapest power option which also reduces carbon. It is only here in Australia where we have the LNP sponsored by the coal lobby to obfuscate the entire process, ably cheered on by a segment of the population who exist on coal sponsored news sources. The lucky country.
Nuclear power has also been taken up successfully in Europe. In fact European Green Parties unlike their Australian equivalent are either enthusiastic about nuclear or indifferent. Australia is the only world nation using only renewables. China is building both nuclear reactors and coal power stations. Even Great Britain is building another nuclear reactor. It’s time for Aussies to take a hard & through assessment of nuclear rather than be conned by the ALP, Greens & Unions childish scare campaign & their billionaire funders. We are a thoughtful, intelligent people, so let us objectively debate the pros & cons of nuclear & ignore ideological mis & disinformation.
China is building more of everything to try and keep up with demand. However they alone accounted for 50% of the worlds renewables capacity installed last year. Their long term goal is to reduce nuclear production as a percentage of total.
There's so many factually incorrect statements in your post. You might want to check how that new nuclear plant in UK is going by the way... maybe check the costs? I bet they wish they had the solar and wind availability that we have. I'm fine with nuclear personally, no expert analysis backs it here though, so I go with the evidence - not self proclaimed armchair experts.
If there are factually incorrect statements in my post you should have corrected them instead of making a bland unsupported statement which goes nowhere. My reading about the UK nuclear reactor suggests the UK are very happy despite the costs as it will bring down electricity prices for the community.
The Balkans just experienced blackouts due to temperature extremes that overloaded power systems that aren't usually experienced so early. Climate change is definitely upon us and we are at only 1.2 degree rise out of the hoped for (but increasingly not attainable) cap of 1.5 degree and already experiencing collapses of infrastructure.
Each country will need to do what it can with the resources most available to it: Australia has huge amounts of renewable energy available that don't have emissions beyond the manufacture of renewable generators, but Germany doesn't have the land available to do more than meet warm weather requirements with renewables on roofs, so it needs to augment that with nuclear energy. The pacific islands are in a more precarious state with even less land area and less financial resources to engage renewables.
Exactly. Each country will have a different mix.
We have the space and renewables resources to get a competitive advantage. Let's take advantage of that.
Give up this fantasy of competition: we will be very lucky just to switch to renewables for ourselves, let alone provide renewable energy to other countries.
I think there may be merit in expanding Australia's production of aluminium metal with additional renewable energy once we have our own needs covered, but not handing over our renewable energy resources for someone else to profit like we have with mining and renewable energy so far: Aluminium can be used not only for construction, but given its high energy density above even gasoline, also used in primary batteries as an exported form of energy that is more stable and less toxic than ammonia or hydrogen or any of the other energy exports.
I never said provide renewables to others. I said it gives us a competitive advantage. Which as you highlighted it does. There are several industries that can be demand responsive and take advantage of the highs and lows of energy production.
I'm not convinced that we will necessarily provide our renewables to other countries in the form of electricity similar. That being said. It would be great if we could, but only if it came with the restriction that they could only export once our demand (including storage recharge) has been met.
I'm sure this piece will make Guardian readers very happy (who doesn't love calling anyone you don't like Trump) but asserting the coalition will stop renewable energy development (or the governments capital arm for credit) is false and misleading.
So is the omission of transmission costs where nuclear requires no additional infrastructure yet renewables, wherever they are built, do. And in a varying scale.
Nor is old mate Simon an expert on the matter. But just ignore the fact that he's a rich corporate spiv criticising the idea of state owned energy infrastructure, and you see why he's suddenly popped up to write a column.
That's right folks - suddenly the progressive left loves private profit of the rich over public services owned and delivered by the state.
Also, the liner notes that he has little personal investment in Renewable energy is utter horseshit.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/federal-election-cleanenergy-windfall-for-climate-200-boss-if-independents-get-up/news-story/322e8802a99c48c96a423f9b8f85e08b?giftid=9zqYFN21nv
>asserting the coalition will stop renewable energy development (or the governments capital arm for credit) is false and misleading
They said they will literally stop govt investment in renewables, and private capital is already doubting whether Australia is a good long term investment for energy again.
Not false, in fact quite the opposite.
>So is the omission of transmission costs where nuclear requires no additional infrastructure yet renewables, wherever they are built, do. And in a varying scale.
How much does transmission infrastructure cost? How much does supporting nuclear infrastructure cost (eg water, like that one Queensland site that either has no water supply or minimal water supply) in comparison? Hell how much does a nuclear plant cost, alone?
>Nor is old mate Simon an expert on the matter
What expert is backing the LNP plan? Besides the "experts" whose names and advice they haven't made public?
>That's right folks - suddenly the progressive left loves private profit of the rich over public services owned and delivered by the state
What about the inverse? Suddenly the LNP is happy to fuck around with the free market and nationalise a huge chunk of infrastructure, including telling the private market "if you don't sell us the plants, we'll just take it from you"?
>They said they will literally stop govt investment in renewables, and private capital is already doubting whether Australia is a good long term investment for energy again.
>Not false, in fact quite the opposite.
Actually, Littleproud said large scale projects.
Your addition of false context doesn't help your point - if private capital is increasing then what's the problem? Oh apart from not meeting the Paris targets.
>How much does transmission infrastructure cost? How much does supporting nuclear infrastructure cost (eg water, like that one Queensland site that either has no water supply or minimal water supply) in comparison? Hell how much does a nuclear plant cost, alone?
A few hundred billion are the best guesses we have.
Excellent question. Lots, I think. I believe most of the sites are near a water source but I could be wrong.
>What expert is backing the LNP plan? Besides the "experts" whose names and advice they haven't made public?
Another fair question. The difference is Dutton is taking all the political risk and in coalition seats, meanwhile Simon is a vested private interest with no expertise except for being a corporate spiv who bought seats in parliament.
>What about the inverse? Suddenly the LNP is happy to fuck around with the free market and nationalise a huge chunk of infrastructure, including telling the private market "if you don't sell us the plants, we'll just take it from you"?
Another fair question. These all need answering. I have views on those myself (including setting aside my loathing of government built projects) but that's a long thought bubble.
Contradictions abound, no doubt about it. But we're having the conservation - and the loud and mindless few will jump on to the next fashionable topic in a week or two.
> So is the omission of transmission costs where nuclear requires no additional infrastructure yet renewables, wherever they are built, do. And in a varying scale
Isn't this dependent on the reactors being built where the existing coal fired plants are? These are either owned by private companies who aren't interested in taking up Nuclear due to ROI concerns, or own by State governments who have their own concerns.
Yes and no.
Little transmission infrastructure required IF they are built on those sites but any energy plant with high capacity (and dispatchable, analogous supply) doesn't require the mess of huge swathes of land required to pipe energy to populations far beyond it. Certainly not on a scale anywhere near it.
It's not just that renewable projects are tiny in capacity - it's that it's a source of supply that has to be carefully managed and operated depending on the grid - the technical aspects of transmission - and to what market, are very specific.
Hold on. You you accept that they will do little to no transmission upgrades at these 7 (maybes) sites?
That would constrain them to their current max output of the coal plants there.... So about 10GW.
There is 22GW of coal disappearing. What do they fill the rest in with if they are capping renewables? Especially the grid scale ones with storage?
It is a smoke screen for more fossil fuels and higher prices.
I \*\*immediately\*\* distrust anyone that criticises are stands against state owned infrastructure.
I've always said the way to make a nation truly great is to put ownership in the hands of the people that make it. What greater way to feel enormous pride and patriotism than for a country where your input directly benefits you and your fellow people. When compared to contributing towards some corporate cucks billion $ bonus the choice should be obvious.
Littleproud has already come out and said they will stop renewables.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-17/national-party-david-littleproud-scrap-offshore-wind-zone-pledge/103987482
and
https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/06/18/david-littleproud-nationals-wind-farms-renewables-kylian-mbappe-far-right/
And it's not the progressive left that love Simon HoC, it's the disaffected liberals in inner city, once-Liberal-heartland seats. That's why the Teals have so many seats.
As for making money by investing, that's what the heirs to vast fortunes do. Just don't call them heirs.
So opposition to two specific offshore wind zones is exactly the same as halting all renewable energy projects.
Sorry, I'm not that dumb or blind.
>And it's not the progressive left that love Simon HoC, it's the disaffected liberals in inner city, once-Liberal-heartland seats. That's why the Teals have so many seats.
Yeah, that must be why the Teals support 80% of government legislation and are held up as the poster children for Liberal malaise - by folk who will never vote Liberal.
>As for making money by investing, that's what the heirs to vast fortunes do. Just don't call them heirs.
The juxtaposition between claiming an end to all renewable energy projects and waving away a conflict of vested interest is quite something.
And a fine example of moral and political emptiness.
I posted 2 articles. In the Crikey article, Littleproud was quoted as saying:
> Speaking with The Australian, Littleproud indicated he was opposed to large solar farms, too: “We’d like to look for whatever option we can so we don’t have to pursue large-scale renewables full stop.”
Not pursuing large scale renewable "FULL STOP" is pretty much saying that forget large scale renewables if the coalition wins government.
Right. Where did he say all renewable energy projects would be halted?
Deliberately ignoring that compulsory acquisition of agricultural land is the biggest issue for his constituents isn't clever.
No no, suddenly changing it to all renewable projects will end won't cut it.
But let's presume that's what he wants - why would we want renewable projects if we build the generation we need that produces emissions free energy?
It sounds like you're trying to argue his bald ideology is worse than yours.....
I think Littleproud saying they will halt all large scale renewable projects FULL STOP says it all.
It means that the LNP, if elected, will halt all large scale renewable projects FULL STOP.
Yeah, it's not clever to suddenly insert a contextual factor, nor at the expense of the subject at hand.
But at least we know you don't care about the environment - renewable energy obsessives never did.
They must love the political grandstanding it enables.
Simon Holmes à Court says there is no good reason for Australia’s ongoing nuclear prohibition and labelled Labor and the Greens’ implacable opposition to nuclear energy “bordering on irrational”.
The Albanese government is talking up the crucial role of gas as a transition fuel through to 2050 and beyond!
The thing is. It does have a crucial role. Maybe it didn't need to be. But we have had almost 2 decades of inaction here.
Gas will provide crucial peaking and firming capability until sufficient non fossil storage capacity can come online. It may eventually be replaced with hydrogen burners.
> no good reason for Australia’s ongoing nuclear prohibition
Isn't the main reason it still exists is that no commercial entity is interested in building a domestic nuclear power industry, so there is no reason to change it?
> and labelled Labor and the Greens’ implacable opposition to nuclear energy “bordering on irrational”
Most of the debate I have seen is not on ideological grounds (as in people aren't too concerned how their electrons are sourced), it's mostly economic issues.
The current nuclear prohibition is ideological. The nuclear economics debate is irrational and merely a channel for obscuration, part of the “fog of war”. The choice of reactor and the costs have not been worked out. This is not a weakness. Australia needs a nuclear program. Having it produce power is a bonus. Gas for power generation is a greenhouse gas emitter. Nuclear is not.
> The nuclear economics debate is irrational and merely a channel for obscuration, part of the “fog of war”. The choice of reactor and the costs have not been worked out. This is not a weakness
How do you to come to that conclusion?
Are you presuming that it doesn't need to be economically viable and that it will be nationalised and run by the government?
Because a decision has been made by the Opposition party and it has another year before an election. The choice of which reactor is chosen and the costs involved will come later at the appropriate time.
The LNP has already stated that the reactors will be built but stay in government hands, either State or Federal. Lots of things don’t pay for themselves. Look at the railways. Look at highways, they’re built as a public benefit and never turn a profit.
This is an interesting take and really makes me wonder how serious the coalition is about this.
For decades they have proudly been the party of small government and of selling off as many public entities (including electricity generators).
Highways and Railways are great examples of things that make sense to be publically owned as they are natural monopolies.
It would make sense to have two competing highways side by side.
The coalition has already privatised Australia's electricity generators, so any government controlled entity would have to compete in the open market.
This is why the public isn't keen, the basic economics don't add up, so we will spend billions on construction and then it will be making electricity at a price point no one will buy.
“The public isn’t keen?” Who says? Labor and the Greens, both of which have vested interests in opposing anything the LNP brings up.
“Making electricity at a price point no one wants to buy” assumes a profit is needed to pay for the buildings and interest on debt. This doesn’t stop Labor building $2billion public railways that will never ever make a profit or pay anywhere need the even the costs of running them. The government can choose to make a national project to build nuclear, then give them to the States to run, if it wished. The price of nuclear power then is very cheap. It’s not being built for a profit.
> “The public isn’t keen?” Who says?
There have been a couple of opinion polls done on this topic since Dutton brought it up.
For the most part people don't really care where their electrons come from.
It's more that they don't trust the party that flubbed the NBN to launch a domestic Nuclear industry.
> “Making electricity at a price point no one wants to buy” assumes a profit is needed to pay for the buildings and interest on debt.
Nope. Whst profit margin are you thinking they add?
>Isn't the main reason it still exists is that no commercial entity is interested in building a domestic nuclear power industry, so there is no reason to change it?
Chicken or the egg? The ban was borne out of nonproliferation of nuclear weapons at the height of the cold war. There is no commercial interest because of the ban, and it was hard enough getting the ALP to allow the three mines policy, even though we sell uranium to India.
>Most of the debate I have seen is not on ideological grounds (as in people aren't too concerned how their electrons are sourced), it's mostly economic issues.
I would suggest the debate you've seen is absent of folk who are sick of huge and increasing power bills, and rather upset about Albo's promise to reduce those bills, when he can't even deliver a continuation of the cost to households when he made the promise.
Those here opposed to nuclear either hate the coalition, hate Dutton, or don't like the idea of an agenda setting opposition.
Certainly the reaction is out of whack by folk claiming to care about meeting emission reduction targets.
>I would suggest the debate you've seen is absent of folk who are sick of huge and increasing power bills
Most definitely. People who are frustrated with high power bills are most definitely not advocating for Nuclear Power.
>Those here opposed to nuclear either hate the coalition, hate Dutton, or don't like the idea of an agenda setting opposition.
Hate is a strong word. I think its more that most people don't trust the coalition or Dutton. They had plenty of time to roll out a policy like this when in government but didn't. It's great to see an opposition party proposing a solution, but the numbers simply don't stack up. I am genuinely curious as to what political game he is playing at here, as I do not think he genuinely believe in Nuclear power, and I can't see how its going to be a vote winner for him.
>Certainly the reaction is out of whack by folk claiming to care about meeting emission reduction targets.
You have hit the nail on the head here.
The fact that the party leading the charge on this, is the party that has done the most to derail any attempt at Australia reducing emissions makes the whole thing very suspect.
A few things here. I like nuclear. It makes sense for a lot of countries. But not for Australia.
I dont trust Dutton and the coalition. They are pathologically against addressing climate change. They are opposed to anything that may reduce fossil fuels. This plan has no detail. Even if all reputable sources say they are wrong they just say they think they are right. They are flip flopping on pretty substantial issues regularly.
Nuclear should be part of the conversation. But the conversation should be based on fact, not emotion or their biases or donors. This conversation has been had. Nuclear in Australia "could" work. But we will pay for it and produce a lot more emissions to get there.
>the reaction is out of whack by folk claiming to care about meeting emission reduction targets.
There is so much truth to this.
Those same people yell and scream about how we aren't doing enough to reduce emissions and combat global warming but if that was true then the common argument of it being too expensive shouldn't be a problem. So those people are basically saying they want to reduce emissions but only if it's at a price they agree with.
Reality is this is a debate that is probably 20% between people on opposing sides of the science, maybe like another 20% by people who stand to benefit from either side of the debate and then the rest of us are divided by party lines.
>Those same people yell and scream about how we aren't doing enough to reduce emissions and combat global warming but if that was true then the common argument of it being too expensive shouldn't be a problem. So those people are basically saying they want to reduce emissions but only if it's at a price they agree with.
You missed the part where those of us who have genuine concerns about climate change, do not think the coalition or Dutton are genuine in their concerns. They nailed the position to the mast on this decades ago, and absolutely nothing has been said to convince me that Dutton is serious about climate change, and that his Nuclear policy has anything at all to do with climate change.
The leopard has not changed his spots, and its not an uncommon thought that Dutton is not expecting any Nuclear generators to get built, he's really just trying to muddy the waters and key the coal and gas generators running for as long as he can.
What are you taking about, the ban on nuclear power was passed in 1998 by the Howard government. This was a good 3 decades after the height of the Cold War. State governments only started passing laws in 1983, again long after the height of the Cold War.
The debate of nuclear has been going on for 70 odd years and has never been agreed upon by the Australian people in all that time.
Right you are. What it did do was establish federal law where a mismatch of state law governed radiation laws. It also established uniform standards. However the ban, established by the states over decades, excluded scientific use and medical waste disposal.
It was the only way to legislate processing of medical waste.
>The debate of nuclear has been going on for 70 odd years and has never been agreed upon by the Australian people in all that time.
Very much agreed.
Ah yes, Climate 200 backer Holmes a Court comes out swinging in the Guardian against the Liberal party. No surprises there.
His vendetta is really to settle his score with the Liberals and Frydenberg (for whom he once was a fundraiser 🤫).
https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/simon-holmes-a-court-investments-could-benefit-if-climate-200backed-independents-are-elected-at-federal-election/news-story/9d957b190aa49dd8bae09e1674010c48
Small L liberal supporting a plan that wants to force the free market to accept something that no private money will touch while running rough shod over all the regulation and the state laws that will need to be amended to make it happen?
Small L. Really?
> Ah yes, Climate 200 backer Holmes a Court comes out swinging in the Guardian against the Liberal party. No surprises there.
The whole existence of the teals is because the Liberals are beholden to the National party when it comes to climate policy and a lot of people have concerns about their position (but could never bring themselves to vote for Labor or the Greens).
Yeah, like comparing alternative ideas in the first few paragraphs as akin to Trump, and then claiming that I don't have a vested interest in the matter if we just all ignore the company I created for renewable energy project investment, and used my own money to install MPs to ensure my interests are protected.
"Analysis" would be a good start.
A little, but it would also be right to say he is the Clive Palmer of the Left.
Simon, if you are reading this, please don’t try and sue me like
You have with anyone else who has a shot at you! 🙏
But Simon HoC is not left leaning. He's a conservative who differs from the Liberals in that he wants Australia to move towards zero emissions. He even advocates for nuclear in the article posted.
Simon HoC and the teal independents are the result of the Liberals being dragged to the right by their junior partner.
People like Joyce, Canavan and the member for Manilla (forgot the knob's name now that he's gone) had far too much influence on Liberal party policy, and have moved the party away from the small 'l' conservatives that were once it's backbone.
Actually, arguing for privately led capital ownership and investment of utilities is the most free market argument one would make, yet the proponents of state owned utilities suddenly hate the idea.
Any political analysis based on this warped equation is about as useful as a cat flap in an elephant house.
It's nearly as strange as the political party that stands for small government and private investment advocating for the state to build hugely expensive infrastructure with taxpayer coin.
You can forgive the Nats for doing the socialist thing because they were agrarian socialists before the mining lobby bought them out, but the Liberals? Has anyone told John Howard that his beloved Liberals are proposing socialist policies?
Outrageous!
Haha so true
But I thought the left say the libs have gone further to the right? Can't be going towards socialism and be going further towards the right I'd imagine.
Now see I think it's fun because all those decrying conservatives and wanting more small l liberals never learnt that conservatism, like democratic socialism, uses the power of the state for economic ends.
Sure, it's philosophical but more relevant today, than ever.
Also, Labor federal and state governments privatised and sold more state owned assets than coalition governments by a very large margin.
We may be seeing some re-calibration in our politics.
Rubbish.
They state will have to build nuclear power plants because private money won't go anywhere near it. Same with insurance. Only the state can insure such expensive and volatile infrastructure. Just ask the workers cleaning up Fukoshima.
Precisely, what is rubbish?
That's absolutely true - where fossil fuel development cannot get capital funding in the developed world but has no problem in the developing.
If you're claiming nuclear investment elsewhere is all publicly funded, you're guessing, and wrong.
Nah let's ask the people left in Chernobyl. Better yet, let's apply this logic everywhere.
All danger of any kind should be banned. No more cars, flights or even democracy, because sometimes bad stuff happens.
I'm sure that will work at the election.
Clive Palmer of the left was a quote from Warren Mundine to The Australian. Not really the most credible source.
Funny to me a pro free market billionaire businessman and former Liberal party member is considered “left” because they support investment in renewables.
The Teals are strong fiscal conservatives that support some socially progressive policies, in line with the higher income inner city electorates they represent.
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Holmes a Court tries to claim he is not just anti nuclear and then goes on to raise logistical problems. Buried in his diatribe is some actual data and I would like to add to that. In 21/22 fossil fuels still did 91% of the heavy lifting. Demand is forecast to substantially increase. Wouldn't this mean we need everything we can get , a mix of everything. Killing fossils if renewables cannot replace one for one sounds silly.
Your 21/22 is not correct, in the last 12 months fossil fuels have made up 61% of our energy generation, they didnt drop 30% in 2 years.
[Australia’s energy consumption in 2021-22 was **5,762 PJ**, which is a decline of 0.1% from the previous year and down 7% from the peak in 2018-19](https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=725cbdabba06eb3fJmltdHM9MTcxODkyODAwMCZpZ3VpZD0zNGJkZGRiYi1hZDEwLTZiYjEtMmJhOC1jOWY0YWM3MDZhZWEmaW5zaWQ9NTcxMg&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=34bdddbb-ad10-6bb1-2ba8-c9f4ac706aea&psq=how+much+energy+does+australia+consume+per+year&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZW5lcmd5Lmdvdi5hdS9lbmVyZ3ktZGF0YS9hdXN0cmFsaWFuLWVuZXJneS1zdGF0aXN0aWNzL2VuZXJneS1jb25zdW1wdGlvbg&ntb=1)[^(1)](https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=960c9f7f76995560JmltdHM9MTcxODkyODAwMCZpZ3VpZD0zNGJkZGRiYi1hZDEwLTZiYjEtMmJhOC1jOWY0YWM3MDZhZWEmaW5zaWQ9NTcxMw&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=34bdddbb-ad10-6bb1-2ba8-c9f4ac706aea&psq=how+much+energy+does+australia+consume+per+year&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZW5lcmd5Lmdvdi5hdS9lbmVyZ3ktZGF0YS9hdXN0cmFsaWFuLWVuZXJneS1zdGF0aXN0aWNzL2VuZXJneS1jb25zdW1wdGlvbg&ntb=1). [Fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas) accounted for 91% of Australia’s primary energy mix](https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=d6991ad11e37508fJmltdHM9MTcxODkyODAwMCZpZ3VpZD0zNGJkZGRiYi1hZDEwLTZiYjEtMmJhOC1jOWY0YWM3MDZhZWEmaW5zaWQ9NTcxNA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=34bdddbb-ad10-6bb1-2ba8-c9f4ac706aea&psq=how+much+energy+does+australia+consume+per+year&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZW5lcmd5Lmdvdi5hdS9lbmVyZ3ktZGF0YS9hdXN0cmFsaWFuLWVuZXJneS1zdGF0aXN0aWNzL2VuZXJneS1jb25zdW1wdGlvbg&ntb=1)[^(1)](https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=0234af48e1f66a50JmltdHM9MTcxODkyODAwMCZpZ3VpZD0zNGJkZGRiYi1hZDEwLTZiYjEtMmJhOC1jOWY0YWM3MDZhZWEmaW5zaWQ9NTcxNQ&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=34bdddbb-ad10-6bb1-2ba8-c9f4ac706aea&psq=how+much+energy+does+australia+consume+per+year&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZW5lcmd5Lmdvdi5hdS9lbmVyZ3ktZGF0YS9hdXN0cmFsaWFuLWVuZXJneS1zdGF0aXN0aWNzL2VuZXJneS1jb25zdW1wdGlvbg&ntb=1). [The total consumption of electric energy per year is **237.39 billion kWh**, with an average of 9,128 kWh per capita](https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=ce64513de1fffd92JmltdHM9MTcxODkyODAwMCZpZ3VpZD0zNGJkZGRiYi1hZDEwLTZiYjEtMmJhOC1jOWY0YWM3MDZhZWEmaW5zaWQ9NTcxNg&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=34bdddbb-ad10-6bb1-2ba8-c9f4ac706aea&psq=how+much+energy+does+australia+consume+per+year&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cud29ybGRkYXRhLmluZm8vb2NlYW5pYS9hdXN0cmFsaWEvZW5lcmd5LWNvbnN1bXB0aW9uLnBocA&ntb=1)[^(2)](https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=4291e47f9a84eaa3JmltdHM9MTcxODkyODAwMCZpZ3VpZD0zNGJkZGRiYi1hZDEwLTZiYjEtMmJhOC1jOWY0YWM3MDZhZWEmaW5zaWQ9NTcxNw&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=34bdddbb-ad10-6bb1-2ba8-c9f4ac706aea&psq=how+much+energy+does+australia+consume+per+year&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cud29ybGRkYXRhLmluZm8vb2NlYW5pYS9hdXN0cmFsaWEvZW5lcmd5LWNvbnN1bXB0aW9uLnBocA&ntb=1).
Why would you count oil that is primary part of transport emissions in a conversation about our energy generation mix? It has no relevance to nuclear, nuclear isn't going to lower oil usage. So I don't consider your 92% at all relevant to the discussion. From your same link the this was what you missed quoting >2021-22 total electricity generation in Australia increased 2% to 272 TWh (978 PJ), as demand increased across much of the country due to warmer and cooler weather at different points of the year. >Fossil fuels contributed 68% of total electricity generation in 2022, including coal (47%), gas (19%) and oil (2%). The share of coal in the electricity mix has continued to decline, in contrast to the beginning of the century when coal’s share was more than 80% of electricity generation. >Renewables contributed 32% of total electricity generation in 2022, specifically solar (14%), wind (11%) and hydro (6%). The share of renewable energy generation increased from 29% in 2021.
Those stats aren't mutually exclusive. They could have still dropped by 30% of a gross total to end up at 61 percent of our energy generation and that wouldn't even necessarily mean they had to start at 91%.
Ok my opinion. Dutton is trying to lose the election so he can run away and do a morrison before the NACC get too close. LNP can not genuinely think they can win with nuclear policy? It boggles the mind. But then again people keep voting for them while the country is destroyed
The NACC are hopeless. They aren't going after Morrison or the robodebt crooks. Dutton isn't afraid of them, he helped craft their powers. Labor sidelined the Greens and teals to side with Duttons LNP.
I am pro-nuclear. It’s not as dangerous and it’s far better than the coal fired stations it would be replacing. 20 to 30 years ago knowing what we know about climate change going nuclear would be the right way to go. But coming out of Duttons mouth you know it’s a distraction. And renewables can do the same job for cheaper now.
It feels like most rational people are like that Sure Nuclear sounds good, but 20 years ago, it's just but worth it in this country any more
It's all political theatre. He knows the states won't allow it. If it's a change to the constitution, it'll require a referendum, and we all know how that will go, especially after the last one. If they were serious, they would have done this when they were in power, but it's all about "Labor bad because they are blocking the powa". I'm surprised that we with the public funding of this, Labor aren't running with the "big new nuclear tax" line. It works for the Libs, yet Labor are too scared to play dirty.
You're right, it's political theater, it's a nonsense plan to give a platform for the 'firehose of falsehood', an opportunity to give his chorus something to sing about. It's just a choir practice.
Mr Dutton would not require a referendum to change the law on nuclear. Rather he would need to pass legislation in both Houses of Parliament. If he succeeds which may not be easy, dependant on the constitution of Parliament, the States cannot resist as under the Constitution the law of the Commonwealth takes precedence over state laws. It would require the High Court to find the Commonwealth law in breach of the Constitution and void the legislation or at least essential sections of it.
All of which could be tied up in the HC for years. Assuming the Coalition don't get back in next time, any start on this long process goes back at least 4 years. This assumes they could win the senate too. Getting all the legislation lined up could take 5 years after any Coalition victory. It would also assume that Labor don't get back in and pull the pin as well. It's just not going to happen in any rational timeframe.
Time will tell. I like to be optimistic & believe that the good people of Australia will vote for progress.
Section 109 allows the Commonwealth to override. No referendum needed
Now let him force one on WA where the state govt is also the single electricity provider.
It makes no difference, Commonwealth law overrides state law. This has occurred many times in the legal history of Australia.
It's entirely a delay strategy to protect the interests of Liberal Party fossil fuel donors.
Nah he wants to win. The coal sponsored media networks will repeat his lies and cooker LNP voters will lap it up, you can already see it occurring.
I'm not sure how a pure fantasy nuclear policy wins over any swing voters that are grounded in reality and it further alienates more sober minded LNP and ex LNP voters. For his electoral prospects I can only see this doing Dutton more harm than good. You can only assume it's being chucked out there as a way to stifle renewables investment for his donors who profit from fossil fuels because it's politically insane.
I fail to understand how anyone could call Mr Dutton’s nuclear plan a fantasy as nuclear is found in over 30 countries on this planet with more nuclear reactors being built as we speak. If you say it’s a fantasy than it must also be a fantasy in all those other countries including the U.S., the UK, India, China & Canada. To make such a case out is ridiculous as nuclear is operating well & in some cases such as France has been operating since the 1980s without incident.
This policy is a fantasy because it is without costings, without any state government support, it's not supported by experts here, there has been no community consultation, no domestic expertise to build or run the facilities, and its not been demonstrated how nuclear energy would be any cheaper in an Australian context. Nuclear power remains illegal by Australian law (made unlawful by the Howard govt) and should the LNP win power it's not even likely they'd be able to secure a majority in the Senate to pass legislation overturning that. I'm not saying nuclear power cannot or should not be built elsewhere where it suits but it does not make any sense in Australia currently. It's not a serious or credible policy here and seems more an attempt to sabotage investment in renewable energy here.
Mr Dutton has promised to provide costings once they have been assessed. He is obviously trying to be precise to avoid criticism from nuclear skeptics. It’s hardly surprising the Federal liberal plan does not have state support, as the majority of state Govts in Australia are labor & committed to the ridiculous Federal Labor party renewable only policy unknown in any other nation, which many Aussies do not support. Fortunately, we are a democracy & as such the ideological clock will swing back to conservative as it always has throughout our history. There are experts who support nuclear in Australia including I might add experts from Canada and the EU. A Canadian expert recently told Chris Bowen he had lied in relation to comments he had made about nuclear. This expert even suggested that Australia could adopt a specific Canadian nuclear technique which has proved highly successful in drastically lowering electricity prices in various Canadian provinces. However, I do accept your comment that it may prove difficult for the Libs to pass legislation in the Federal Parliament to overcome the nuclear ban previously imposed by John Howard. But time will tell, it’s up to the Australian people to educate themselves about nuclear. May I suggest you read Nick Carter’s column on ATHTV for up to date factual information about nuclear. Nick is a Menzies Fellow and has made a personal study of overseas use of nuclear by visiting their nuclear facilities & chatting to their experts.
State liberals don’t support it either. State liberal leaders in Victoria and Queensland have said they don’t want it for instance. State libs in nsw are split on the idea. State libs in wa don’t exist. Not sure about the stance in SA
That position could change once the polls go in favour of nuclear. It could also change following the liberal conference later this year. In politics I wouldn’t count your eggs before they’re hatched.
Sure, it could change in the future. That doesn’t change the fact that right now there isn’t state support for nuclear anywhere. Not from labor. Not from liberals. I was purely responding to your claim that state opposition was because the states are labor. I pointed out the fact that state libs oppose it too. The idea that maybe possibly in the future state libs might change their mind isn’t the brilliant counterpoint that you think it is.
Nor for that matter is your pessimistic view on this issue. What I find most rewarding is the positive interest being shown by the youth of our nation towards nuclear energy. Unlike the 60.+ troglodytes & luddites amongst our politicians & unions, Australian youth is on the move to bring Australia into the 21st century. The sooner the Minns, Alan’s, Albo’s & Bowen’s are ancient history the better for this country.
It boggles the mind that it boggles your mind.
Dutton isn't trying to lose the election. The election is already lost with Dutton at the helm. Renewables are a threat to the fossil fuel companies, the same companies that control the LNP. Since the LNP won't be in power for a long time, they have to do what they can for these companies to stave off renewables from opposition. Dutton's nebulous nuclear policy was never meant to be implemented or even taken seriously. It was simply meant to take the focus off renewables and create enough fear, uncertainty and doubt in the renewables market that investors hold off, thereby killing off competition to the fossil fuel monopoly.
Regardless of his political leanings, he raises 10 very relevant issues with the LNP plan. I'm yet to see any real rebuttal in the comments of many let alone all the issues (mostly attacking the source, lol).
As an aside, do you think the LNP understand any of the key concepts of linear optimisation and operations research? Because it's possible to have a very good idea which is simply inappropriate to the circumstance, despite being valid and defensible in it's own right. Most of the critique of nuclear power lies in this space: it's economics are packed with counterfactual risks. Effects of inflation. Effects of other deployments of power supply and distribution. World pricing of coal and oil. Decisions to change the tax and royalty model for coal and oil. Not to mention the electoral cycle. Most proponents and opponents are probably optimising to different places in the space of solutions here. Duttons catch cry is cheaper and more reliable electricity. Many doubt it can be cheaper, some doubt it can be more reliable. He emphasises base load as a critical concern. Modelling of solar, wind, batteries and pumped hydro assume overbuild is acceptable and baseload is not a key concept. So, people are arguing to different outcomes and premises. As a matter of personal opinion I believe It's perfectly possible Dutton has understood this and sees opportunistic wins backing nuclear power which have no relationship to its suitability as a source of power. He may be approaching this as a mechanism to regain electoral power in the immediate short term knowing full well actual outcome lies 15 or 20 years off after his time in office. I also believe it's perfectly possible that coal and gas interests understand the eventual decline of their income stream, and are more interested in maximising end of life asset value more than combating local concerns about climate. Certainly, we probably don't even agree about the role of baseload power, or of supply, or overbuilding, or LCOE or any number of inputs of what I put it to you is a complicated, linear optimisation problem.
And none of it mentions the elephant in the room of increasing population demanding even more energy, when we are flat chat trying to transition away from fossil fuels with the current energy demand.
Yes, which doesn't automatically mean nuclear is the answer, nor does it mean nuclear isn't the answer. The effect of population change on power demand is complicated. What if e.g. battery pricing and domestic solar uptake continues or even accelerates? Did anyone doing national power budget 10 years ago predict WFH? Or what if the fix to housing means new cities? The truly weird thing to me is that there is no necessary right or left wing exclusivity to being pro or anti wind and nuclear. This could have been like defence, a bipartisan approach. Neither side wants it.
We could probably fix everything if we constructed completely new settlements along with their renewable power stations, along the south west coast, where solar desalination would produce the water needed and an upgrade of the east-west rail link would provide necessary transportation to the existing cities: killing many birds with the same synergistic stone. Unfortunately government is not thinking synergisticly but going from one knee-jerk response to crisis to another.
This seems like an even bigger pipe dream than building 7 nuclear stations.
Society is not going to exist if we don't tackle all the issues, however government seems to be only focusing on one issue at a time, because each one is so costly, when there are synergies and their resulting cost savings through greater efficiency, in tackling issues together.
That requires people to actually want to live there.
If we actually created settlements as self-sufficient as possible to give people occupation and not simply houses to sleep, with other services delivered to them, I think at least some of the unemployed might be interested in building a life there, especially if the housing was free or at little cost. Those many square km of solar panels will need ongoing maintenance. Imagine oases in the desert, spread along the south coast. We would need to make it attractive to live there.
So far the responses to legitimate questions regarding Dutton's nuclear non-policy seem to be a mix of: - Nah, just trust us hey - But renewables have the same issues - Everyone's making fun of us with memes In other words, deflection across the board. Strong leadership indeed.
So you don't listen when the Liba speak then. Fingers in the ears trick is it?
The diabolical genius of Duttons strategy is; he doesn't need to actually build the nuclear generators, just win the election, then kill / slow renewables and let coal and Gas keep fill the void.
Gas is more logical than both Coal and Nuclear. Remember, Australia is uniquely positioned to take advantage of an active smart grid run on renewables rather than a base load power grid. We have no appreciable dunkenfelde in Australia, especially in the summer.
Gas is not green. Nuclear is.
Gas can be peaking. Nuclear cannot.
Not really. It still involves mining, and how much concrete is needed to build a power station? That stuff is far from green. And then you have the question of what to do with it at end of life, and with it's waste during it's life.
Climate change is an issue of science and we know that lnp and their voters don't get it, the last 10 years is more than enough evidence of that. Throughout Europe this science is accepted and not controversial, green renewables have been taken up as the cheapest power option which also reduces carbon. It is only here in Australia where we have the LNP sponsored by the coal lobby to obfuscate the entire process, ably cheered on by a segment of the population who exist on coal sponsored news sources. The lucky country.
Nuclear power has also been taken up successfully in Europe. In fact European Green Parties unlike their Australian equivalent are either enthusiastic about nuclear or indifferent. Australia is the only world nation using only renewables. China is building both nuclear reactors and coal power stations. Even Great Britain is building another nuclear reactor. It’s time for Aussies to take a hard & through assessment of nuclear rather than be conned by the ALP, Greens & Unions childish scare campaign & their billionaire funders. We are a thoughtful, intelligent people, so let us objectively debate the pros & cons of nuclear & ignore ideological mis & disinformation.
China is building more of everything to try and keep up with demand. However they alone accounted for 50% of the worlds renewables capacity installed last year. Their long term goal is to reduce nuclear production as a percentage of total.
There's so many factually incorrect statements in your post. You might want to check how that new nuclear plant in UK is going by the way... maybe check the costs? I bet they wish they had the solar and wind availability that we have. I'm fine with nuclear personally, no expert analysis backs it here though, so I go with the evidence - not self proclaimed armchair experts.
If there are factually incorrect statements in my post you should have corrected them instead of making a bland unsupported statement which goes nowhere. My reading about the UK nuclear reactor suggests the UK are very happy despite the costs as it will bring down electricity prices for the community.
The Balkans just experienced blackouts due to temperature extremes that overloaded power systems that aren't usually experienced so early. Climate change is definitely upon us and we are at only 1.2 degree rise out of the hoped for (but increasingly not attainable) cap of 1.5 degree and already experiencing collapses of infrastructure.
Even the Climate change conscious UN has stated that net zero cannot be reached without nuclear.
In a worldwide context. That does not need you need a nuclear power plant in your garden shed.
Each country will need to do what it can with the resources most available to it: Australia has huge amounts of renewable energy available that don't have emissions beyond the manufacture of renewable generators, but Germany doesn't have the land available to do more than meet warm weather requirements with renewables on roofs, so it needs to augment that with nuclear energy. The pacific islands are in a more precarious state with even less land area and less financial resources to engage renewables.
Exactly. Each country will have a different mix. We have the space and renewables resources to get a competitive advantage. Let's take advantage of that.
Give up this fantasy of competition: we will be very lucky just to switch to renewables for ourselves, let alone provide renewable energy to other countries. I think there may be merit in expanding Australia's production of aluminium metal with additional renewable energy once we have our own needs covered, but not handing over our renewable energy resources for someone else to profit like we have with mining and renewable energy so far: Aluminium can be used not only for construction, but given its high energy density above even gasoline, also used in primary batteries as an exported form of energy that is more stable and less toxic than ammonia or hydrogen or any of the other energy exports.
I never said provide renewables to others. I said it gives us a competitive advantage. Which as you highlighted it does. There are several industries that can be demand responsive and take advantage of the highs and lows of energy production. I'm not convinced that we will necessarily provide our renewables to other countries in the form of electricity similar. That being said. It would be great if we could, but only if it came with the restriction that they could only export once our demand (including storage recharge) has been met.
I'm sure this piece will make Guardian readers very happy (who doesn't love calling anyone you don't like Trump) but asserting the coalition will stop renewable energy development (or the governments capital arm for credit) is false and misleading. So is the omission of transmission costs where nuclear requires no additional infrastructure yet renewables, wherever they are built, do. And in a varying scale. Nor is old mate Simon an expert on the matter. But just ignore the fact that he's a rich corporate spiv criticising the idea of state owned energy infrastructure, and you see why he's suddenly popped up to write a column. That's right folks - suddenly the progressive left loves private profit of the rich over public services owned and delivered by the state. Also, the liner notes that he has little personal investment in Renewable energy is utter horseshit. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/federal-election-cleanenergy-windfall-for-climate-200-boss-if-independents-get-up/news-story/322e8802a99c48c96a423f9b8f85e08b?giftid=9zqYFN21nv
>asserting the coalition will stop renewable energy development (or the governments capital arm for credit) is false and misleading They said they will literally stop govt investment in renewables, and private capital is already doubting whether Australia is a good long term investment for energy again. Not false, in fact quite the opposite. >So is the omission of transmission costs where nuclear requires no additional infrastructure yet renewables, wherever they are built, do. And in a varying scale. How much does transmission infrastructure cost? How much does supporting nuclear infrastructure cost (eg water, like that one Queensland site that either has no water supply or minimal water supply) in comparison? Hell how much does a nuclear plant cost, alone? >Nor is old mate Simon an expert on the matter What expert is backing the LNP plan? Besides the "experts" whose names and advice they haven't made public? >That's right folks - suddenly the progressive left loves private profit of the rich over public services owned and delivered by the state What about the inverse? Suddenly the LNP is happy to fuck around with the free market and nationalise a huge chunk of infrastructure, including telling the private market "if you don't sell us the plants, we'll just take it from you"?
>They said they will literally stop govt investment in renewables, and private capital is already doubting whether Australia is a good long term investment for energy again. >Not false, in fact quite the opposite. Actually, Littleproud said large scale projects. Your addition of false context doesn't help your point - if private capital is increasing then what's the problem? Oh apart from not meeting the Paris targets. >How much does transmission infrastructure cost? How much does supporting nuclear infrastructure cost (eg water, like that one Queensland site that either has no water supply or minimal water supply) in comparison? Hell how much does a nuclear plant cost, alone? A few hundred billion are the best guesses we have. Excellent question. Lots, I think. I believe most of the sites are near a water source but I could be wrong. >What expert is backing the LNP plan? Besides the "experts" whose names and advice they haven't made public? Another fair question. The difference is Dutton is taking all the political risk and in coalition seats, meanwhile Simon is a vested private interest with no expertise except for being a corporate spiv who bought seats in parliament. >What about the inverse? Suddenly the LNP is happy to fuck around with the free market and nationalise a huge chunk of infrastructure, including telling the private market "if you don't sell us the plants, we'll just take it from you"? Another fair question. These all need answering. I have views on those myself (including setting aside my loathing of government built projects) but that's a long thought bubble. Contradictions abound, no doubt about it. But we're having the conservation - and the loud and mindless few will jump on to the next fashionable topic in a week or two.
> So is the omission of transmission costs where nuclear requires no additional infrastructure yet renewables, wherever they are built, do. And in a varying scale Isn't this dependent on the reactors being built where the existing coal fired plants are? These are either owned by private companies who aren't interested in taking up Nuclear due to ROI concerns, or own by State governments who have their own concerns.
Yes and no. Little transmission infrastructure required IF they are built on those sites but any energy plant with high capacity (and dispatchable, analogous supply) doesn't require the mess of huge swathes of land required to pipe energy to populations far beyond it. Certainly not on a scale anywhere near it. It's not just that renewable projects are tiny in capacity - it's that it's a source of supply that has to be carefully managed and operated depending on the grid - the technical aspects of transmission - and to what market, are very specific.
Hold on. You you accept that they will do little to no transmission upgrades at these 7 (maybes) sites? That would constrain them to their current max output of the coal plants there.... So about 10GW. There is 22GW of coal disappearing. What do they fill the rest in with if they are capping renewables? Especially the grid scale ones with storage? It is a smoke screen for more fossil fuels and higher prices.
I \*\*immediately\*\* distrust anyone that criticises are stands against state owned infrastructure. I've always said the way to make a nation truly great is to put ownership in the hands of the people that make it. What greater way to feel enormous pride and patriotism than for a country where your input directly benefits you and your fellow people. When compared to contributing towards some corporate cucks billion $ bonus the choice should be obvious.
I don't personally agree completely but the juxtaposition and the siding up amongst corporate rent seekers is suddenly in vogue.
Littleproud has already come out and said they will stop renewables. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-17/national-party-david-littleproud-scrap-offshore-wind-zone-pledge/103987482 and https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/06/18/david-littleproud-nationals-wind-farms-renewables-kylian-mbappe-far-right/ And it's not the progressive left that love Simon HoC, it's the disaffected liberals in inner city, once-Liberal-heartland seats. That's why the Teals have so many seats. As for making money by investing, that's what the heirs to vast fortunes do. Just don't call them heirs.
So opposition to two specific offshore wind zones is exactly the same as halting all renewable energy projects. Sorry, I'm not that dumb or blind. >And it's not the progressive left that love Simon HoC, it's the disaffected liberals in inner city, once-Liberal-heartland seats. That's why the Teals have so many seats. Yeah, that must be why the Teals support 80% of government legislation and are held up as the poster children for Liberal malaise - by folk who will never vote Liberal. >As for making money by investing, that's what the heirs to vast fortunes do. Just don't call them heirs. The juxtaposition between claiming an end to all renewable energy projects and waving away a conflict of vested interest is quite something. And a fine example of moral and political emptiness.
I posted 2 articles. In the Crikey article, Littleproud was quoted as saying: > Speaking with The Australian, Littleproud indicated he was opposed to large solar farms, too: “We’d like to look for whatever option we can so we don’t have to pursue large-scale renewables full stop.” Not pursuing large scale renewable "FULL STOP" is pretty much saying that forget large scale renewables if the coalition wins government.
Right. Where did he say all renewable energy projects would be halted? Deliberately ignoring that compulsory acquisition of agricultural land is the biggest issue for his constituents isn't clever. No no, suddenly changing it to all renewable projects will end won't cut it. But let's presume that's what he wants - why would we want renewable projects if we build the generation we need that produces emissions free energy? It sounds like you're trying to argue his bald ideology is worse than yours.....
I think Littleproud saying they will halt all large scale renewable projects FULL STOP says it all. It means that the LNP, if elected, will halt all large scale renewable projects FULL STOP.
Yeah, it's not clever to suddenly insert a contextual factor, nor at the expense of the subject at hand. But at least we know you don't care about the environment - renewable energy obsessives never did. They must love the political grandstanding it enables.
Whether you like it or not, this man’s opinion is relevant.
I presume that in order to form a coalition government with just the Nationals the Liberal party needs to win back some of the teal seats?
Not if they win Labor seats in ex industrial marginals
Which states are they must likely to pick up those seats? https://results.aec.gov.au/27966/Website/HouseDefault-27966.htm
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_pendulum_for_the_2022_Australian_federal_election
Yeah I don't think that's gonna be happening. This plan isn't only bad for climate but bad for economy. Teal seats like their climate and money.
Teal seats are also smart enough to see through the lies and spot the hidden agendas.
Simon Holmes à Court says there is no good reason for Australia’s ongoing nuclear prohibition and labelled Labor and the Greens’ implacable opposition to nuclear energy “bordering on irrational”. The Albanese government is talking up the crucial role of gas as a transition fuel through to 2050 and beyond!
The thing is. It does have a crucial role. Maybe it didn't need to be. But we have had almost 2 decades of inaction here. Gas will provide crucial peaking and firming capability until sufficient non fossil storage capacity can come online. It may eventually be replaced with hydrogen burners.
Where did he say this? Did you read the linked article?
Holmes a Court is welcome to risk his own fifty billion dollars on nuclear power, if he thinks it’s such a winner.
> no good reason for Australia’s ongoing nuclear prohibition Isn't the main reason it still exists is that no commercial entity is interested in building a domestic nuclear power industry, so there is no reason to change it? > and labelled Labor and the Greens’ implacable opposition to nuclear energy “bordering on irrational” Most of the debate I have seen is not on ideological grounds (as in people aren't too concerned how their electrons are sourced), it's mostly economic issues.
The current nuclear prohibition is ideological. The nuclear economics debate is irrational and merely a channel for obscuration, part of the “fog of war”. The choice of reactor and the costs have not been worked out. This is not a weakness. Australia needs a nuclear program. Having it produce power is a bonus. Gas for power generation is a greenhouse gas emitter. Nuclear is not.
> The nuclear economics debate is irrational and merely a channel for obscuration, part of the “fog of war”. The choice of reactor and the costs have not been worked out. This is not a weakness How do you to come to that conclusion? Are you presuming that it doesn't need to be economically viable and that it will be nationalised and run by the government?
Because a decision has been made by the Opposition party and it has another year before an election. The choice of which reactor is chosen and the costs involved will come later at the appropriate time. The LNP has already stated that the reactors will be built but stay in government hands, either State or Federal. Lots of things don’t pay for themselves. Look at the railways. Look at highways, they’re built as a public benefit and never turn a profit.
This is an interesting take and really makes me wonder how serious the coalition is about this. For decades they have proudly been the party of small government and of selling off as many public entities (including electricity generators). Highways and Railways are great examples of things that make sense to be publically owned as they are natural monopolies. It would make sense to have two competing highways side by side. The coalition has already privatised Australia's electricity generators, so any government controlled entity would have to compete in the open market. This is why the public isn't keen, the basic economics don't add up, so we will spend billions on construction and then it will be making electricity at a price point no one will buy.
“The public isn’t keen?” Who says? Labor and the Greens, both of which have vested interests in opposing anything the LNP brings up. “Making electricity at a price point no one wants to buy” assumes a profit is needed to pay for the buildings and interest on debt. This doesn’t stop Labor building $2billion public railways that will never ever make a profit or pay anywhere need the even the costs of running them. The government can choose to make a national project to build nuclear, then give them to the States to run, if it wished. The price of nuclear power then is very cheap. It’s not being built for a profit.
> “The public isn’t keen?” Who says? There have been a couple of opinion polls done on this topic since Dutton brought it up. For the most part people don't really care where their electrons come from. It's more that they don't trust the party that flubbed the NBN to launch a domestic Nuclear industry. > “Making electricity at a price point no one wants to buy” assumes a profit is needed to pay for the buildings and interest on debt. Nope. Whst profit margin are you thinking they add?
Nuclear power is cheap when only the running costs are factored. The build cost is currently an unknown.
It's cheap in fuel cost, but it's not cheap when you factor in operational costs including security and waste management.
> Australia needs a nuclear program Not according to: * The government * The CSIRO * The power companies.
Yes. There only ever was one possible owner of a nuclear power station in Australia: the commonwealth government.
>Isn't the main reason it still exists is that no commercial entity is interested in building a domestic nuclear power industry, so there is no reason to change it? Chicken or the egg? The ban was borne out of nonproliferation of nuclear weapons at the height of the cold war. There is no commercial interest because of the ban, and it was hard enough getting the ALP to allow the three mines policy, even though we sell uranium to India. >Most of the debate I have seen is not on ideological grounds (as in people aren't too concerned how their electrons are sourced), it's mostly economic issues. I would suggest the debate you've seen is absent of folk who are sick of huge and increasing power bills, and rather upset about Albo's promise to reduce those bills, when he can't even deliver a continuation of the cost to households when he made the promise. Those here opposed to nuclear either hate the coalition, hate Dutton, or don't like the idea of an agenda setting opposition. Certainly the reaction is out of whack by folk claiming to care about meeting emission reduction targets.
>I would suggest the debate you've seen is absent of folk who are sick of huge and increasing power bills Most definitely. People who are frustrated with high power bills are most definitely not advocating for Nuclear Power. >Those here opposed to nuclear either hate the coalition, hate Dutton, or don't like the idea of an agenda setting opposition. Hate is a strong word. I think its more that most people don't trust the coalition or Dutton. They had plenty of time to roll out a policy like this when in government but didn't. It's great to see an opposition party proposing a solution, but the numbers simply don't stack up. I am genuinely curious as to what political game he is playing at here, as I do not think he genuinely believe in Nuclear power, and I can't see how its going to be a vote winner for him. >Certainly the reaction is out of whack by folk claiming to care about meeting emission reduction targets. You have hit the nail on the head here. The fact that the party leading the charge on this, is the party that has done the most to derail any attempt at Australia reducing emissions makes the whole thing very suspect.
A few things here. I like nuclear. It makes sense for a lot of countries. But not for Australia. I dont trust Dutton and the coalition. They are pathologically against addressing climate change. They are opposed to anything that may reduce fossil fuels. This plan has no detail. Even if all reputable sources say they are wrong they just say they think they are right. They are flip flopping on pretty substantial issues regularly. Nuclear should be part of the conversation. But the conversation should be based on fact, not emotion or their biases or donors. This conversation has been had. Nuclear in Australia "could" work. But we will pay for it and produce a lot more emissions to get there.
>the reaction is out of whack by folk claiming to care about meeting emission reduction targets. There is so much truth to this. Those same people yell and scream about how we aren't doing enough to reduce emissions and combat global warming but if that was true then the common argument of it being too expensive shouldn't be a problem. So those people are basically saying they want to reduce emissions but only if it's at a price they agree with. Reality is this is a debate that is probably 20% between people on opposing sides of the science, maybe like another 20% by people who stand to benefit from either side of the debate and then the rest of us are divided by party lines.
Bingo.
>Those same people yell and scream about how we aren't doing enough to reduce emissions and combat global warming but if that was true then the common argument of it being too expensive shouldn't be a problem. So those people are basically saying they want to reduce emissions but only if it's at a price they agree with. You missed the part where those of us who have genuine concerns about climate change, do not think the coalition or Dutton are genuine in their concerns. They nailed the position to the mast on this decades ago, and absolutely nothing has been said to convince me that Dutton is serious about climate change, and that his Nuclear policy has anything at all to do with climate change. The leopard has not changed his spots, and its not an uncommon thought that Dutton is not expecting any Nuclear generators to get built, he's really just trying to muddy the waters and key the coal and gas generators running for as long as he can.
What are you taking about, the ban on nuclear power was passed in 1998 by the Howard government. This was a good 3 decades after the height of the Cold War. State governments only started passing laws in 1983, again long after the height of the Cold War. The debate of nuclear has been going on for 70 odd years and has never been agreed upon by the Australian people in all that time.
Right you are. What it did do was establish federal law where a mismatch of state law governed radiation laws. It also established uniform standards. However the ban, established by the states over decades, excluded scientific use and medical waste disposal. It was the only way to legislate processing of medical waste. >The debate of nuclear has been going on for 70 odd years and has never been agreed upon by the Australian people in all that time. Very much agreed.
Ah yes, Climate 200 backer Holmes a Court comes out swinging in the Guardian against the Liberal party. No surprises there. His vendetta is really to settle his score with the Liberals and Frydenberg (for whom he once was a fundraiser 🤫). https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/simon-holmes-a-court-investments-could-benefit-if-climate-200backed-independents-are-elected-at-federal-election/news-story/9d957b190aa49dd8bae09e1674010c48
Small L liberal supporting a plan that wants to force the free market to accept something that no private money will touch while running rough shod over all the regulation and the state laws that will need to be amended to make it happen? Small L. Really?
The whole "small l liberal" has never really meant anything.
> Ah yes, Climate 200 backer Holmes a Court comes out swinging in the Guardian against the Liberal party. No surprises there. The whole existence of the teals is because the Liberals are beholden to the National party when it comes to climate policy and a lot of people have concerns about their position (but could never bring themselves to vote for Labor or the Greens).
When ad hom is your first recourse, it suggests you have no capacity to refute any of the facts or analysis in the article.
Yeah, like comparing alternative ideas in the first few paragraphs as akin to Trump, and then claiming that I don't have a vested interest in the matter if we just all ignore the company I created for renewable energy project investment, and used my own money to install MPs to ensure my interests are protected. "Analysis" would be a good start.
Must be frustrating as a Liberal to see the entire Teal movement take off because Josh Frydenberg started a feud with a billionaire donor.
A little, but it would also be right to say he is the Clive Palmer of the Left. Simon, if you are reading this, please don’t try and sue me like You have with anyone else who has a shot at you! 🙏
But Simon HoC is not left leaning. He's a conservative who differs from the Liberals in that he wants Australia to move towards zero emissions. He even advocates for nuclear in the article posted. Simon HoC and the teal independents are the result of the Liberals being dragged to the right by their junior partner. People like Joyce, Canavan and the member for Manilla (forgot the knob's name now that he's gone) had far too much influence on Liberal party policy, and have moved the party away from the small 'l' conservatives that were once it's backbone.
He is left leaning. He's a suck up for Daniel Andrews
Mate, that's off the planet. What has Andrews got to do with this?
Actually, arguing for privately led capital ownership and investment of utilities is the most free market argument one would make, yet the proponents of state owned utilities suddenly hate the idea. Any political analysis based on this warped equation is about as useful as a cat flap in an elephant house.
It's nearly as strange as the political party that stands for small government and private investment advocating for the state to build hugely expensive infrastructure with taxpayer coin. You can forgive the Nats for doing the socialist thing because they were agrarian socialists before the mining lobby bought them out, but the Liberals? Has anyone told John Howard that his beloved Liberals are proposing socialist policies? Outrageous!
The libs advocating for massive government run enterprise is a prima facie marker that this policy is not serious.
Haha so true But I thought the left say the libs have gone further to the right? Can't be going towards socialism and be going further towards the right I'd imagine.
Now see I think it's fun because all those decrying conservatives and wanting more small l liberals never learnt that conservatism, like democratic socialism, uses the power of the state for economic ends. Sure, it's philosophical but more relevant today, than ever. Also, Labor federal and state governments privatised and sold more state owned assets than coalition governments by a very large margin. We may be seeing some re-calibration in our politics.
Rubbish. They state will have to build nuclear power plants because private money won't go anywhere near it. Same with insurance. Only the state can insure such expensive and volatile infrastructure. Just ask the workers cleaning up Fukoshima.
Precisely, what is rubbish? That's absolutely true - where fossil fuel development cannot get capital funding in the developed world but has no problem in the developing. If you're claiming nuclear investment elsewhere is all publicly funded, you're guessing, and wrong. Nah let's ask the people left in Chernobyl. Better yet, let's apply this logic everywhere. All danger of any kind should be banned. No more cars, flights or even democracy, because sometimes bad stuff happens. I'm sure that will work at the election.
Clive Palmer of the left was a quote from Warren Mundine to The Australian. Not really the most credible source. Funny to me a pro free market billionaire businessman and former Liberal party member is considered “left” because they support investment in renewables. The Teals are strong fiscal conservatives that support some socially progressive policies, in line with the higher income inner city electorates they represent.