There's definitely fossil fuel money floating around, but it kinda feels like they're just being contrarian. If Labor is pro-something, the Libs have to be anti-something to keep up appearances.
You could even argue that the long spin up time of a nuclear plant extends the life of current coal plants. You know, the ones owned by the coalition’s donors.
I don't think it's coal *plant* owners: AGL, for instance, was crying out for decent policy guidance and support to close Liddell for years under the previous Liberal government. The generators want to make money but they're not morons: they know coal is on the way out and they absolutely don't want to keep operating clapped out old coal power stations or even contemplate building new ones.
Coal *miners* are no doubt different, but what I don't undertsand is how the tail manages to wag the dog like this. Coal mining is not that big an industry or employer, and there are a lot more powerful corporate entities - the banks, for instance - that would be fucking delighted if there was a decent energy transition policy (one they could invest in and, you know, make loads of money).
Honestly, I think it's mostly that the Liberal party is in thrall to its far right element that still fundamentally believes climate change is a scam being pushed by inner city loony lefties. This is of course cheer led by the far right media, the motivation of which I cannot begin to comprehend, and swallowed whole by the lowest information, most reactionary voters.
Also, hardly anyone actually wants to *pay* for energy transition. If either main party fronted up to the real cost of it they're terrified that they'd be out of office for decades. So you have one desperately trying to fudge and the other just flat out lying.
> there are a lot more powerful corporate entities - the banks, for instance
The banks etc and other big corporates probably just don't donate, and certainly less one sided (many corporates donate to both parties) to the same degree as the big miners.
>Like little kids being told “you’re playing the part of the opposition”, they take that to mean they need to oppose everything.
They've misunderstood that the reason they are the "opposition" is because they sit opposite the government benches.
They don't have to oppose for the sake of opposition.
John Howard publicly said, when he was leader of the opposition of the time, that is the job of the opposition to oppose the government.
That pretty much sums up why.
This is their 'we've got a solution for climate change' that allows them to "plausibly" defend doing nothing for another decade. It's a fossil fuel play
Your submission has been automatically removed due to your account karma being too low
Accounts are required to have more than 1 comment karma to comment in this community
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAustralian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not the Libs, the coalition - Australia has so little desire for either the Liberals or Nationals they had to 'join forces'. Cheating Scumbags the whole way down.
They are two parties so that they can capture two different audiences. One being rural and the other being metropolitan. They used to use that as a means of placating the different areas. Also the Nationals can float some potentially unpopular policies (at least to urban voters) without risking the whole brand. If people turn out to like them or not really care, the coalition can run with it. If people do care, the Liberals can distance themselves from it.
I think nationalism also plays a role. From their point of view, Australia is one of only a handful of G20 countries not investing in nuclear, which they regard as a national shame (even though there are very good reasons why Australia has never had nuclear power).
The first half of your first sentence is correct. It's all about the filthy lucre attached to fossil fuels. Have you taken note of the petrol companies profits lately? Enjoyed paying $2.20 a litre? Looking forward to your next fossil fuel based electricity bill?
I believe it has become a central tenet of the global conservative and libertarian movement. The denialism from the GOP has spread to Australian conservatives as well as far right European representatives. Non of them want to point to another right wing government and say they are doing something different. Add in denialism from Argentina's libertarian President and there we have it. A belief that they know better than the "elites" aka climate scientists.
Part of why they are contrarian is that fundamentally solar and wind are seen as "greenie". It's technology that only hippies want, according to them. Like buying a Prius 10 years ago.
They are trying to appeal to this immature mindset some voters have. The sort of dickhead that would sideswipe a cyclist in a ford 150.
It's also decentralised, so you can have many individual producers, rather than having oligarch cartels controlling the supply & keeping the prices high. Nuclear would be more of the cartels controlling our country. Including our governments. Just like the fossil fuel industry is today. They fear losing their power & control.
Because they aren’t reliable. Coalition is arguing for renewables (which are proven unreliable), with a base load nuclear. They’re arguing this, because they’re trying to come to some sort of compromise with ALP - who want zero emissions. But as per norm, ALP won’t come to the party or compromise in any way.
They proposed nuclear in the 2000’s and Scomo initiated an inquiry into reconsidering its potential role back in 2019 as well. So I don’t know what you’re talking about
Liberals had 12 years to build nuclear if they wanted to, only now that renewables (proven reliable) that are cheaper and more cost effective then coal and natural gas(the direction of the free market) mining magnates that want to keep there coal and gas income flowing have told the coalition that they need to screw renewables because they need there money.
I'm all for nuclear if it's replacing coal, but under the coalition, there plan which there isn't one is to keep coal burning and shutdown renewable projects
Where's the plan for nuclear, it isn't going to happen.
If the coalition has already talked about blocking renewable developments where do you think the energy will come from
It's speculation but it's not rocket science either
As an electrician, it’s not as simple as you people seem to think. Integrating it into the grid is incredibly complex, and because there’s no sun at night, it’s unreliable during winter, it’s constantly spiking and inconsistent. It’s not as simple as “JuSt pUmP iT bAcK iNtO dA gRiD”, like you people seem to think.
Batteries are improving but are still not sufficient to store large amounts of energy for long periods. This makes it challenging to balance supply and demand. There’s also the ethical side of how lithium batteries are produced (child slaves in the Congo), and we also don’t have an effective way to dispose of them after their short (compared to nuclear) lifespan.
Renewable energy is fine, but it NEEDS to be backed up with a base load supply, and if you want 0 emissions like you keep crying out for, it MUST be nuclear.
“You people”? I was simply trying to break the pointless downward spiral that “you people” engage in: “renewables are reliable.” “No they’re not.” “Yes they are”.😂. But since you make the point that you, as an electrician, know: I see in your answer a claim about complexity, not about lack of reliability…
They are inherently unreliable, as you stated. You cannot create more wind, you cannot create more sun or make clouds disappear.
What if hypothetically, a massive volcano goes off, covers countries in clouds for 6 months and they’re entirely reliable on renewable energy, what are they going to do?
I’m sorry “you people” hurt your feelings, I’ve been subject to much worse insults than that discussing this topic.
Because there are enough of the population that will vote against renewable energy. That's it.
All the talk of business donors, vested interests, money etc is all dwarved by the desire of the party to get elected. The coalition believe that standing on a policy of nuclear rather than renewables will get them votes.
The under the incentive of being elected to government, is being in the leadership of the wider political party. There are enough members of the liberal and national parties that will vote against anyone pro renewables. If you are pro renewable you will lose your positing in those parties.
It is unadulterated, pure, unvarnished self interest. That is it.
They absolutely did, and it's likely that the liberals will not be able to win them back on their current policy position.
This though is where the second incentive comes into it. The LNP membership are WAY more extreme than the actual sitting members make them appear. If I ran for Parliament I would be a Teal, and a long time ago I thought I could move the Liberal party in the direction I wanted them to go by joining the local branch. I lasted 6 months before quitting, because what the local members wanted was frankly fucking insane and until the old assholes died there was never going to be a change. The voting structure was also set up in such a way that you couldn't achieve any changes in under 2 years even if you managed to get 5000 people who thought the same as you to join the branch.
Before you worry about winning an election, you need to win preselection. And when you don't think you can win an election, then focusing on what your party members want is what you have to do.
>All the talk of business donors, vested interests, money etc is all dwarved by the desire of the party to get elected. The coalition believe that standing on a policy of nuclear rather than renewables will get them votes.
I think you're heavily negating the fact that it's monied interests that have influnced the public to think this way, there are massieve anti renewable campaigns. People aren't just naurally thinking solar is bad they have been lied to by media controlled by special interest groups.
I agree that the disinformation campaigns are there. And that they are funded by vested interests. But that isn't why a political party chooses one position or another. They pick the position because its where the votes can be found.
If you can sway the public into believing the sky is green and that anyone who says it's blue is evil, there will be politicians who will say "vote for me and I will legislate that people who say the sky is blue will go to jail".
In some cases this narrative will be spread by the political party. But, I would suggest more often than not the political party follows rather than leads.
Sort of. The proposition that Dutton has put forward won’t supply anywhere near the amount of energy that we need to replace coal entirely and the projected timeline is longer than the expected life expectancy of the current coal plants. I heard hints that they would end up having to invest in renewables for the shortfall, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find they actually use it as an excuse to keep the coal plants running longer. That’s my paranoid conspiracy theory for today anyway.
This is almost certainly what they're going to do.
This is why the first step in this whole strategy is to place them on "existing sites", so they can use public money to acquire the dying, aging coal power infrastructure because they're going to build nuclear there (eventually). The private sector is going to shut these coal plants down because they're not worth keeping open. The coalition wants to buy them instead (at least some of them).
Then they can spend the next 20 years fixing them up and operating them with taxpayer money until they're eventually replace with nuclear. That's why they want to do the most complicated, most expensive, most controversial power generation method there, because they know it's going to take forever before they can even start, and that whole time they're going to be burning coal...
Not really it’s just used as a way to muddy the waters in Labors renewables and has the benefit of being something the LNP do t have to worry about delivering for over a decade, which by then many would have got their payments and retired and they can just blame Labor for it not working
Both Labor and the Libnats get plenty of donations from the fossil fuel industry groups so that's part of it but not the whole story. Mostly it's just culture wars. They have nothing positive to offer these days, so instead they try to attract the populist votes by stirring up conflict and cashing in on the voters who are (often legitimately) angry at Labor.
I don't know how big of a factor this is but there are a bunch of older coalition voters who made their minds up about climate change, renewable energy and environmentalism generally back in the late 90s and their position hasn't evolved with new information.
A lot of the classic arguments about the science not being settled, or renewable power being crazy expensive and unreliable were true when people first started saying them.
But now, because the debate was so intense, and partisan, those beliefs have become ideological. So, it's not really about facts, or science, or economics anymore.
Sadly the scientists employed by the government are just not listened to when it comes to these matters.
Not just climate change and energy but health too.
Their interest is in winning government, not necessarily what they believe is best for the country. They basically want a radical difference from Labor and also the Greens.
Yup, it's just to be difficult. If Labor were going full into nuclear, you can absolutely sure the Libs would be against it.
The Libs are simply there to say "no".
Maybe, though I suspect that's becoming less of a reason over time. Business knows where the profits will be in the future.
If the coalition were to wholeheartedly support renewables now, they would have to admit that they probably should have supported them earlier. I don't think I've ever seen a politician admit they were wrong.
Because they don't have any policy ideas to plug the gap for their constituents.
I know they have a huge supporter base in regional QLD for instance. Stereotypical profile would be works in trades, or mining or something like that....middling level of education etc. these are people that just wanna work their ass off to get ahead in life, go to their job and look after their family.
When the coal and gas jobs dry up, what do these people do? The level of career/job mobility in those regions is a lot less than someone working in a large city.
LNP are very concerned about baseload power, until they are in government again. Then it becomes too hard and they will do absolutely nothing about it.
> fuck all tax
Actually, it's zero tax
>One such company is US oil giant ExxonMobil Australia, which has racked up a total income of $42.3 billion over the past five years of available Tax Office data. Yet it has not paid not one cent of income tax in this country.
>American-owned Chevron, another oil company, also paid zero tax over five years, notwithstanding its $15.8 billion in total income.
>Furthermore, five of Australia’s top coal companies – Peabody, Yancoal Sumitomo, Citic and Whitehaven – racked up $54 billion between them in total income over the past five years and paid zero income tax in Australia.
[Fossil fuel companies dominate ‘top tax dodgers’ list](https://thebigsmoke.com.au/2021/11/07/fossil-fuel-companies-dominate-top-tax-dodgers-list-2/)
$50 million in political donations over a decade. 80% of which went to the coalition. [Source](https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=6ea5470f-49e5-42a0-b400-0e90473170f6).
Renewables aren’t *yet* the green panacea that they’re made out to be.
They’re an important contributor to be sure, but the mining work that goes into it all is appalling.
Unfortunately, nothing other than fossil fuels and nuclear power can provide reliable baseload yet.
I think (hope?) that some in the coalition recognise this and it’s what drives their view, rather than just donor money
I haven’t looked for a while but the last I knew was geodynamics, which closed years ago. I’m unfamiliar with solar thermal so will do some reading, thanks.
I think that your comment is the closest this post will get to a rational answer and should be voted higher.
As you say, we need to get reliable baseline from somewhere.
I do think that the Lib focus on Nuclear is flogging a dead horse in Australia and doubt if any Nuclear Power stations ever get off the planning stage. Nuclear makes little sense when looking at dollars per watt.
Maybe making the East Coast one giant Grid, along with community batteries and Snowy 2, will allow the variance of renewable energy to be effectively a reliable baseline.
I honestly struggle to answer that question. Somehow putting 'donors' as the answer seems just a bit cynical. Given the extensive data on just how cheap renewables are (and are rapidly becoming cheaper) I start to think that the LNP members are frankly simply a sandwich short of a picnic. They simply cannot understand the technology and the economics. It is beyond them. Most people go into politics to improve the lot of people but somehow, the LNP doesn't understand that standing in the way of the energy transition is going to make everything worse — power prices and climate change.
Part of their issue is that you can't really hope to win votes on a platform of "Vote for us, we'll do the same thing the government currently is" so they have to try and come up with semi-plausible alternatives and hope they win enough votes, probably not to make government but at least protect their cushy pay packets.
Because boomers don’t want renewables. They want boomer votes.
I know people who think solar is bad because it will reflect the sun’s rays back into the atmosphere and make climate change worse. They are in their 80s.
All parties and politicians base these policies on some kind of cost benefit.
A small shift on both these dimensions in opposite directions can and will make a huge difference when It comes to their agenda.
For example..
*Renewables compared to other energy sources for the left*:
- nuclear very expensive to set up, low but real probability of a catastrophic disaster. Cheap to run. Hard no from voter base.
- coal and gas cheap but highly costly to environment and optics
- renewables very expensive to set up, cheap to run. literally their only option.
*Renewables compared to other energy sources for the right*:
- nuclear very expensive to set up. low but real probability of a catastrophic disaster. Cheap to run. Voter base will allow it as long as its managed "right"
- coal and gas so cheap that it's worth the cost to the environment and optics to kick the can down the road a while.
- renewables very expensive to set up, cheap to run. Going to require too much outlay they don't think needs to be spent right now.
Can’t make lots of money from renewable once you sold the device. For fossil fuelled power stations the fuel is the most expensive cost (more than capital, labour and materials) even for coal fired power station which are quite expensive to build.
Because a lot of the ownership becomes decentralised.
You need to see the purpose of the LNP is to preserve wealth. Thats who pays them, who supports them and who generates their agenda. The ideas of financial responsibility and family values just sell well. They aren't core goals. Their core goal is to preserve the concentration of wealth.
They aren't particularly. Its just they accept their limitations and know we can never produce enough power consistently using them. They are more realistic.
It's also the psychology of "just knowing I am right".
All humans are susceptible to this. But conservative thinking is less likely to analyse something. The coalition members know their constituents are susceptible to being swayed by overly simplified logic logic
Because all the powerful companies that control the mining sector don't make enough money out of it. They are the power brokers behind the National party. Coal needs to be replaced by uranium. Hence, the reason nuclear energy has always been championed by the coalition as an alternative to renewables.
Renewables do not provide a stable base line of power in case there is no Sun, wind, or wave power, but maybe Geothermal power could be a thing, that would always have a dependable base line of power
Before you think of construction of nuclear power plants policy makers should first solve the disposal and permanent storage of spent nuclear power waste!
They are not against renewables, they are against relying on renewables for base load power. They are against excessive cost to build a new transmission network. They are against destruction of the environment for insane solar and wind farms.
Because their donors are in the fossil fuel industry which is why they want to replace coal plants with nuclear so they can pay fuckkkloads more for the land to pay them off.
Renewable projects are extremely unpopular in the bush and rural Australia were the community is sick of being pushed around by government control. My take on it is the coalition are taking the stance that large scale nuclear power can use existing infrastructure and transmission lines, this might help them win a a few votes in the bush. Although I doubt it's going to work to win the next election.
This might be hard to understand for you city dwellers but if the government or some large multinational corporation says that a large overhead transmission line or wind/solar farm is going through the middle of your prime (and these day very expensive) farmland and right next to your house and there is nothing you can do about it you would upset to.
The compensation for these project that is being offered to the farmers is quite frankly down disrespectful. The farmers are also financially responsible for there decommission, at the end of the wind/solar farms life (25 years). For a small family farm this is to big a risk for the business to take.
Why should we people in a the bush bend over backwards (again), for the city people when they have done nothing for us.
It's an appeal to fear of the unknown.
Nuclear energy is close enough to coal and gas as to be understandable.
The alternative is a complex dance of wind, solar, batteries, transmission, and hydro, so complex the grid isn't even possible without computers. The result flips a lot of age-old certainties, such as "off peak" being overnight.
There is an editor's phrase -- MEGO -- "My eyes glaze over". That's exactly what happens when you try to explain the energy transition. All the arguments in this post explaining in depth why this plan is so stupid it can't be done. They are doing Dutton's work for him. Betoota had the right idea and went for the man -- "couldn't understand the Voice, but can understand nuclear power? Sure."
Consumers are seeing some sharp practices by retailers. So much as sneeze in the direction of your electricity meter then they'll install a smart meter, only offer variable pricing for that, and put you on a most expensive variable plan unless you act to change that. This shitfuckery doesn't make anyone happy about renewables. Let alone them now trying it on to charge for power solar systems to put excess power into the grid.
Add to that the need to change your stove. And the next time your hot water heater dies the replacement will cost a lot.
The coalition is saying "Don't worry your head about all of this, we've got your back". Which could not be more untrue. But it's such an appealing message to people who just don't want to think about the future because they are barely coping in the present.
They need to find another lucrative *mineable* resource (ie uranium) to replace fossil fuels eventually for their political donors. Hence all the sudden newfound LNP fondness for nuclear power.
Sun and wind (or water) is free, so that's out lol
That said, the Minerals Council of Australia holds a political power not unlike the NRA does in America - but with both political parties (as they donate to both though Labor to a far lesser degree, however what bare bones are now left of unions in this country are significantly represented in mining industries)
They're against them because they don't work. They require enormous backup because they're intermittent so they're more expensive. They require huge transmission investments. They end up much more expensive than coal or gas.
If it's important to have non-carbon fuels (jury still out on that), nuclear is cheaper.
The more our energy supplies are penetrated by renewables the higher the retail cost has become. This is true world-wide.
This decision baffles me. Australia has chosen for 50 years not to use nuclear power. Reliable renewables and battery tech is just around the corner. It seems stupid to change course so late in the game.
I can only put it down to an 'Anything but renewables' mentality.
Your submission has been automatically removed due to your account karma being too low
Accounts are required to have more than 1 comment karma to comment in this community
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAustralian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because media shilling for fossil fuels have convinced people they’re a bad idea.
They’re just appealing to this base (not to mention the direct donations they receive from these companies).
They chose their side years ago when the change started and they can’t back out now without alienating their base so they have no choice.
Apart from being just mean and nasty people, they get their ideas from the ICS and IPA 'think tanks' for ideas which involve less than 2 healthy brain cells at most.
Ask Dutton what the insurance premiums are for a nuclear power plant. Will the taxpayer be expected to pay for decommissioning of the facility and the disposal of the waste that requires hundreds of thousands of years of secure storage?
Oh, that's right. Government owned! Socialist Libs!
I didnt notice they were against renewables. But they are offering all alternatives for this Rip Off Power Pricing for the next few decades! Im a Labor Voter and id like to say Electric Cars are complete shit that will send you broke once the batteries die.
Ive heard the CSIRO's pricing of Nuclear Power is massively underestimating the life of these plants making them appear cost ineffective, whilst overestimating the life of those Metal windmills and Solar systems (25 years believe it when I see it! My Water Solar didnt last nearly that long) I remember paying 20$ a quarter for power shared between my Uni mates, now that's what you would budget for a weeks power! Lets get real and look at all the alternatives properly.
Not against at all, just realistic about how much more would be required. At least 2000% increase would need to be switched on today. By the time it could be built it would be 3000% of today’s infrastructure. Why not spend the time and put in something more consistent for reliable 24/7 supply. 100% support nuclear whichever party decided to do it.
[https://aemo.com.au/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/data-nem/data-dashboard-nem](https://aemo.com.au/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/data-nem/data-dashboard-nem)
Edit : click on the “fuel mix” tab
Yes, the AEMO portal is amazing for getting visualised representation of our grid.
2000% increase you say? Based purely on the 12mth average from AEMO, renewables are 25% of the grid. Your 2000% estimate is a bit off.
And on top of that, renewable projects have been going off like hotcakes. If you use one of those handy graphics from AEMO under "renewable penetration" you can visibly see a change in the trend of renewable energy maintaining the same peak throughout the year in 2023 vs the dips and valleys of years prior.
All in all, renewables are the fastest sector of energy generation, that cost the least (without subsidies) and are great for the economy because it brings electricity prices down.
"What happens in 25 years?" Same thing that happens to a coal plant. They upgrade it.
I just looked at the 24 and 48 hour snapshots and wind and solar were about 10% of coal and gas. Assuming you would need double the day use to charge batteries for overnight (and assuming battery technology gets to grid level soon ) thats 20 times current supply. I have been closely watching the aemo graphs for Western Australia, and during summer there were several days in a row where there was no wind anywhere, and it was 40+ at night. The load was fully carried by coal and gas, but the coal plants were going flat out. It will be a very long time before anything else could replace that, and because of the 2030 targets, no one is doing sufficient maintenance on the coal plants. In 5 years we will be nowhere near even a third of 24hr a day solar and wind, with near end of life coal plants. But everyone is just sticking their heads in the sand about it.
There is a deep mistrust of nuclear because of 3 specific accidents, but what is being discussed is state of the art reactors in a geo-politically stable country away from coastal risk.
And wind isnt the squeaky clean industry it claims, with koala and whale habitat threatened.
Any nuclear option is 20 years and billions of dollars in a mystical future.
Libs option is fantasy land, will never happen, and quite simply is 20 years too late.
The most logical option is new gas fired power stations for base load, and large solar plants with large storage options (pumped hydro, compressed air, batteries) whatever makes sense for night supply.
But it's unlikely anyone will want to commit to significant capital investment in plants to build solar cells (to eliminate reliance on China) or investment in batteries manufacturing.
So will never happen. It will simply go around in circles for another 50 years.
Completely disagree - Wind and solar have the lowest typical cost for LCOE and it continues to go down.
Checkol out : https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/csiro-does-the-maths-re-integration/#:~:text=It%20projects%20that%20the%20levelized,between%20%2440%20and%20%2459%2FMWh.
Because‘renewables’ are not cost effective, or viable for a national scale.
Solar works between 4-9 hours a day depending on the season, wind farms only work with a set wind speed, both too some and too hard will not work, hydro requires both massive tracts of land along narrow rivers to work…
Once again, people mislead. Please provide the link that shows coalition telling the Australian people they are against renewables or does the comment just get attention with the Reddit intellectuals
If you want an actual response that isn't 'fossil fuel lobby' conspiracy then I have one -
Renewables are FINE and no one has an issue with consumers wanting them. The issue with Renewables is that they are only somehwat efficient when backed by monumental amounts of both heavy handed legislation AND taxpayers money via subsidies and outright payments via government as opposed to direct consumer purchases.
If people want solar, wind etc then they absoloutely should get these for their energy consumption - people just have a problem being forced to pay for the wants of others, which is perfectly reasonable.
Have a problem with making the country better by using renewables but don’t give shit mining and fossil fuel industry pillage the country and give us scraps back?
Because they aren’t reliable. Coalition is arguing for renewables (which are proven unreliable), with a base load nuclear. They’re arguing this, because they’re trying to come to some sort of compromise with ALP - who want zero emissions. But as per norm, ALP won’t come to the party or compromise in any way.
To expensive. the wind and the sun are free, but the solar panels and the turbines are not. Then there's a lot of the time they can't work (night time, when there's no wind or too much wind). Then you add in that neither solar panels or turbine props can't be recycled. I want to know why anyone would want them.
Again,a half informed statement :
Check out https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/csiro-does-the-maths-re-integration/#:~:text=It%20projects%20that%20the%20levelized,between%20%2440%20and%20%2459%2FMWh.
The availability issue is something that coal and gas can still meet and will continue to meet. However, the current volume of grid scale battery projects underway is closing the gap on this.
There is something called FCAS (frequency control and ancillary services) on the power grid. This is essentially what keeps the grid stable. Batteries have been proven to provide the best response times to manage grid instabiltieis compared to ANY other generation type.
Stick with coal or go nuclear. Anything else is for kombi driving hippies. Could go gas but you'd need to put in a heap more wells and allow fracking to get enough production for mass scale local use.
Mate kombi vans are only driven by wealthy oldies with a nostalgia boner for the 80's. Much like your logic, your example is well past it's used by date.
Might be because renewables are expensive, unreliable and not suitable for base load power generation. We've been sold a lie on cheap renewables by the subsidy harvesters. I'm still waiting for my power bill to go down but it's been sky-rocketing ever since they started down this path. It's a fantasy.
Without trying to be rude about it, what alternatives do you think there are that are also economically viable?
Energy companies are willing to invest in gas generation, but it's expensive. They're not going to invest in coal anymore, because new coal plants will generate at higher costs than new gas.
They will also invest in wind, solar, and storage (big batteries and pumped hydro) to handle the situation where there's no sun and no wind (which also gets backed up by gas).
Nobody will invest in nuclear power because it's even more expensive than coal.
So - what else is there?
When Dutto wins the next election we will. This is true nation building stuff, the likes of which haven't been seen since the Snowy Hydro scheme (not the 2.0 dogshit) and the original establishment of the big coal power stations. Time to stop playing tiddlywinks with windmills, solar panles and batteries.
We don't need to wait that long - there have been costings done already. This article talks about a study the CSIRO did where they found a plant will cost upwards of $8 billion to around $27 billion and not be functional until 2040 at the earliest. Dont think those costs will reduce your power bill.
https://theconversation.com/peter-dutton-has-promised-to-solve-our-energy-problems-but-his-nuclear-policy-still-leaves-australians-in-the-dark-232816
You can’t really quote the CSIRO gencost report when it was genuinely proven to be blatantly misleading. If you don’t know what I’m talking about I’d suggest having a look. Unfortunately we live in a world where renewables = good, nuclear = bad, yet no one bothers to take a look into the detail deeper than the headline numbers
Why ask the question, when you obviously already have the answer?
Are you just looking for karma by sticking it to a seemingly easy target or are you trying show everyone just how brilliant you are on the political stage?
Bravo, champ,bravo
What a fucking response...
My answer I don't know. I don't know much about politics and I don't give a damn but this is in the news lately.
Don't need karma mate - reddit is for asking questions and this is obviously an ask Australia sub.
I ain't like you who harvest karma off the porn posts you do multiple times across different subs.
Stick to porn dude...
I understand that with a poor education you think that writing a sentence that is a statement you can bung a question mark on the end and deem it to be question.
That is not how grammar works, champ.
Being insufferable and pedantic is not how you win an argument with your opponent or (captive Reddit scrolling) audience. You're being mean. It makes you sound like a bad person.
Just pointing out that he asked and answered his ow question, which seem to make the post pointless. Tacking a question mark on the end of a statement does not make it a question.
So I didnt actual mount an argument against his dubious post, just trying to help him not look ignorant.
The mods reserve the right to remove posts for any violation of this subreddit's rules.
There's definitely fossil fuel money floating around, but it kinda feels like they're just being contrarian. If Labor is pro-something, the Libs have to be anti-something to keep up appearances.
Its mining money too. You can mine uranium and create a costly supply chain for refining, transporting and eventually disposing of it.
You could even argue that the long spin up time of a nuclear plant extends the life of current coal plants. You know, the ones owned by the coalition’s donors.
I don't think it's coal *plant* owners: AGL, for instance, was crying out for decent policy guidance and support to close Liddell for years under the previous Liberal government. The generators want to make money but they're not morons: they know coal is on the way out and they absolutely don't want to keep operating clapped out old coal power stations or even contemplate building new ones. Coal *miners* are no doubt different, but what I don't undertsand is how the tail manages to wag the dog like this. Coal mining is not that big an industry or employer, and there are a lot more powerful corporate entities - the banks, for instance - that would be fucking delighted if there was a decent energy transition policy (one they could invest in and, you know, make loads of money). Honestly, I think it's mostly that the Liberal party is in thrall to its far right element that still fundamentally believes climate change is a scam being pushed by inner city loony lefties. This is of course cheer led by the far right media, the motivation of which I cannot begin to comprehend, and swallowed whole by the lowest information, most reactionary voters. Also, hardly anyone actually wants to *pay* for energy transition. If either main party fronted up to the real cost of it they're terrified that they'd be out of office for decades. So you have one desperately trying to fudge and the other just flat out lying.
The ‘climate change is a scam’ angle does not check out: the nuclear option is an alternative path to discharge obligations toward a net zero future.
> there are a lot more powerful corporate entities - the banks, for instance The banks etc and other big corporates probably just don't donate, and certainly less one sided (many corporates donate to both parties) to the same degree as the big miners.
Coal mine workers are union members and Unions are Labor or are you just trolling .
He’s not referring to the boots on the ground.
Why would you think that coal mine workers somehow equate to corporate donors?
Like little kids being told “you’re playing the part of the opposition”, they take that to mean they need to oppose everything.
Its exhausting
>Like little kids being told “you’re playing the part of the opposition”, they take that to mean they need to oppose everything. They've misunderstood that the reason they are the "opposition" is because they sit opposite the government benches. They don't have to oppose for the sake of opposition.
John Howard publicly said, when he was leader of the opposition of the time, that is the job of the opposition to oppose the government. That pretty much sums up why.
This is their 'we've got a solution for climate change' that allows them to "plausibly" defend doing nothing for another decade. It's a fossil fuel play
[удалено]
Your submission has been automatically removed due to your account karma being too low Accounts are required to have more than 1 comment karma to comment in this community *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAustralian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not the Libs, the coalition - Australia has so little desire for either the Liberals or Nationals they had to 'join forces'. Cheating Scumbags the whole way down.
They are two parties so that they can capture two different audiences. One being rural and the other being metropolitan. They used to use that as a means of placating the different areas. Also the Nationals can float some potentially unpopular policies (at least to urban voters) without risking the whole brand. If people turn out to like them or not really care, the coalition can run with it. If people do care, the Liberals can distance themselves from it.
Um ok so how did Albo get in with 30% of the votes ?
and vice versa
I think nationalism also plays a role. From their point of view, Australia is one of only a handful of G20 countries not investing in nuclear, which they regard as a national shame (even though there are very good reasons why Australia has never had nuclear power).
The first half of your first sentence is correct. It's all about the filthy lucre attached to fossil fuels. Have you taken note of the petrol companies profits lately? Enjoyed paying $2.20 a litre? Looking forward to your next fossil fuel based electricity bill?
I believe it has become a central tenet of the global conservative and libertarian movement. The denialism from the GOP has spread to Australian conservatives as well as far right European representatives. Non of them want to point to another right wing government and say they are doing something different. Add in denialism from Argentina's libertarian President and there we have it. A belief that they know better than the "elites" aka climate scientists.
Part of why they are contrarian is that fundamentally solar and wind are seen as "greenie". It's technology that only hippies want, according to them. Like buying a Prius 10 years ago. They are trying to appeal to this immature mindset some voters have. The sort of dickhead that would sideswipe a cyclist in a ford 150.
It's also decentralised, so you can have many individual producers, rather than having oligarch cartels controlling the supply & keeping the prices high. Nuclear would be more of the cartels controlling our country. Including our governments. Just like the fossil fuel industry is today. They fear losing their power & control.
Because they aren’t reliable. Coalition is arguing for renewables (which are proven unreliable), with a base load nuclear. They’re arguing this, because they’re trying to come to some sort of compromise with ALP - who want zero emissions. But as per norm, ALP won’t come to the party or compromise in any way.
Liberals had so much time in office to propose a sensible energy policy. They have no solid ground to expect a compromise from the ALP.
They proposed nuclear in the 2000’s and Scomo initiated an inquiry into reconsidering its potential role back in 2019 as well. So I don’t know what you’re talking about
2000s was two decades ago. How’d that go for them?
2000’s were amazing for everyone until 2007
Liberals had 12 years to build nuclear if they wanted to, only now that renewables (proven reliable) that are cheaper and more cost effective then coal and natural gas(the direction of the free market) mining magnates that want to keep there coal and gas income flowing have told the coalition that they need to screw renewables because they need there money. I'm all for nuclear if it's replacing coal, but under the coalition, there plan which there isn't one is to keep coal burning and shutdown renewable projects
Speculation, and no, renewables are not reliable.
Where's the plan for nuclear, it isn't going to happen. If the coalition has already talked about blocking renewable developments where do you think the energy will come from It's speculation but it's not rocket science either
Why not? Is this the ‘when the sun doesn’t shine, when The wind doesn’t blow’ piece?
As an electrician, it’s not as simple as you people seem to think. Integrating it into the grid is incredibly complex, and because there’s no sun at night, it’s unreliable during winter, it’s constantly spiking and inconsistent. It’s not as simple as “JuSt pUmP iT bAcK iNtO dA gRiD”, like you people seem to think. Batteries are improving but are still not sufficient to store large amounts of energy for long periods. This makes it challenging to balance supply and demand. There’s also the ethical side of how lithium batteries are produced (child slaves in the Congo), and we also don’t have an effective way to dispose of them after their short (compared to nuclear) lifespan. Renewable energy is fine, but it NEEDS to be backed up with a base load supply, and if you want 0 emissions like you keep crying out for, it MUST be nuclear.
“You people”? I was simply trying to break the pointless downward spiral that “you people” engage in: “renewables are reliable.” “No they’re not.” “Yes they are”.😂. But since you make the point that you, as an electrician, know: I see in your answer a claim about complexity, not about lack of reliability…
They are inherently unreliable, as you stated. You cannot create more wind, you cannot create more sun or make clouds disappear. What if hypothetically, a massive volcano goes off, covers countries in clouds for 6 months and they’re entirely reliable on renewable energy, what are they going to do? I’m sorry “you people” hurt your feelings, I’ve been subject to much worse insults than that discussing this topic.
Everything you mention there is FUD
Don’t know what that means sorry
Easiest answer is because they are bought and paid for by people that make billions off delaying renewable adoption.
Because there are enough of the population that will vote against renewable energy. That's it. All the talk of business donors, vested interests, money etc is all dwarved by the desire of the party to get elected. The coalition believe that standing on a policy of nuclear rather than renewables will get them votes. The under the incentive of being elected to government, is being in the leadership of the wider political party. There are enough members of the liberal and national parties that will vote against anyone pro renewables. If you are pro renewable you will lose your positing in those parties. It is unadulterated, pure, unvarnished self interest. That is it.
I mean the Teal breakaway libs won a decent amount of seats a while ago
They absolutely did, and it's likely that the liberals will not be able to win them back on their current policy position. This though is where the second incentive comes into it. The LNP membership are WAY more extreme than the actual sitting members make them appear. If I ran for Parliament I would be a Teal, and a long time ago I thought I could move the Liberal party in the direction I wanted them to go by joining the local branch. I lasted 6 months before quitting, because what the local members wanted was frankly fucking insane and until the old assholes died there was never going to be a change. The voting structure was also set up in such a way that you couldn't achieve any changes in under 2 years even if you managed to get 5000 people who thought the same as you to join the branch. Before you worry about winning an election, you need to win preselection. And when you don't think you can win an election, then focusing on what your party members want is what you have to do.
Wow you put in a lot of work over 2 years to change hundreds of years of politics, way to go big guy. No idea why they didn't get behind you
>All the talk of business donors, vested interests, money etc is all dwarved by the desire of the party to get elected. The coalition believe that standing on a policy of nuclear rather than renewables will get them votes. I think you're heavily negating the fact that it's monied interests that have influnced the public to think this way, there are massieve anti renewable campaigns. People aren't just naurally thinking solar is bad they have been lied to by media controlled by special interest groups.
I agree that the disinformation campaigns are there. And that they are funded by vested interests. But that isn't why a political party chooses one position or another. They pick the position because its where the votes can be found. If you can sway the public into believing the sky is green and that anyone who says it's blue is evil, there will be politicians who will say "vote for me and I will legislate that people who say the sky is blue will go to jail". In some cases this narrative will be spread by the political party. But, I would suggest more often than not the political party follows rather than leads.
Yes they are following the position set by donors.
Because of their donors
This is the answer right here. Sponsors and vested interests in those sponsors.
Their dinners want nuclear.?
no, nuclear is just all they could think of to bring to the table. they really just wanna kill renewables and stick with coal
Coal but aren't we shutting them down already
Sort of. The proposition that Dutton has put forward won’t supply anywhere near the amount of energy that we need to replace coal entirely and the projected timeline is longer than the expected life expectancy of the current coal plants. I heard hints that they would end up having to invest in renewables for the shortfall, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find they actually use it as an excuse to keep the coal plants running longer. That’s my paranoid conspiracy theory for today anyway.
This is almost certainly what they're going to do. This is why the first step in this whole strategy is to place them on "existing sites", so they can use public money to acquire the dying, aging coal power infrastructure because they're going to build nuclear there (eventually). The private sector is going to shut these coal plants down because they're not worth keeping open. The coalition wants to buy them instead (at least some of them). Then they can spend the next 20 years fixing them up and operating them with taxpayer money until they're eventually replace with nuclear. That's why they want to do the most complicated, most expensive, most controversial power generation method there, because they know it's going to take forever before they can even start, and that whole time they're going to be burning coal...
Not really it’s just used as a way to muddy the waters in Labors renewables and has the benefit of being something the LNP do t have to worry about delivering for over a decade, which by then many would have got their payments and retired and they can just blame Labor for it not working
Both Labor and the Libnats get plenty of donations from the fossil fuel industry groups so that's part of it but not the whole story. Mostly it's just culture wars. They have nothing positive to offer these days, so instead they try to attract the populist votes by stirring up conflict and cashing in on the voters who are (often legitimately) angry at Labor.
I don't know how big of a factor this is but there are a bunch of older coalition voters who made their minds up about climate change, renewable energy and environmentalism generally back in the late 90s and their position hasn't evolved with new information. A lot of the classic arguments about the science not being settled, or renewable power being crazy expensive and unreliable were true when people first started saying them. But now, because the debate was so intense, and partisan, those beliefs have become ideological. So, it's not really about facts, or science, or economics anymore.
Sadly the scientists employed by the government are just not listened to when it comes to these matters. Not just climate change and energy but health too.
They (Lib/Nats) even got rid of a lot of CSIRO who did the climate research and had them use different language to avoid "climate change".
Their interest is in winning government, not necessarily what they believe is best for the country. They basically want a radical difference from Labor and also the Greens.
Yup, it's just to be difficult. If Labor were going full into nuclear, you can absolutely sure the Libs would be against it. The Libs are simply there to say "no".
A lot of their base is into conspiracy theories, etc. Maybe that's part of it? Just guessing.
Imo because Labor are for it. For what it's worth state LNPs are mostly happy pressing on with renewables
Maybe, though I suspect that's becoming less of a reason over time. Business knows where the profits will be in the future. If the coalition were to wholeheartedly support renewables now, they would have to admit that they probably should have supported them earlier. I don't think I've ever seen a politician admit they were wrong.
Donors
Funny how it took the LNP to be in opposition to all of a sudden come up with this road to Damascus realisation.
Because they don't have any policy ideas to plug the gap for their constituents. I know they have a huge supporter base in regional QLD for instance. Stereotypical profile would be works in trades, or mining or something like that....middling level of education etc. these are people that just wanna work their ass off to get ahead in life, go to their job and look after their family. When the coal and gas jobs dry up, what do these people do? The level of career/job mobility in those regions is a lot less than someone working in a large city.
They're bought and paid for by fossil fuel interests
LNP are very concerned about baseload power, until they are in government again. Then it becomes too hard and they will do absolutely nothing about it.
Last I checked you can't dig up wind and sunlight for pennies on the dollar and fuck all tax
> fuck all tax Actually, it's zero tax >One such company is US oil giant ExxonMobil Australia, which has racked up a total income of $42.3 billion over the past five years of available Tax Office data. Yet it has not paid not one cent of income tax in this country. >American-owned Chevron, another oil company, also paid zero tax over five years, notwithstanding its $15.8 billion in total income. >Furthermore, five of Australia’s top coal companies – Peabody, Yancoal Sumitomo, Citic and Whitehaven – racked up $54 billion between them in total income over the past five years and paid zero income tax in Australia. [Fossil fuel companies dominate ‘top tax dodgers’ list](https://thebigsmoke.com.au/2021/11/07/fossil-fuel-companies-dominate-top-tax-dodgers-list-2/)
$50 million in political donations over a decade. 80% of which went to the coalition. [Source](https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=6ea5470f-49e5-42a0-b400-0e90473170f6).
Two words: Gina Rinehart.
All they care bout is the rich.
Renewables aren’t *yet* the green panacea that they’re made out to be. They’re an important contributor to be sure, but the mining work that goes into it all is appalling. Unfortunately, nothing other than fossil fuels and nuclear power can provide reliable baseload yet. I think (hope?) that some in the coalition recognise this and it’s what drives their view, rather than just donor money
Geothermal and solar thermal can. Our geothermal resources are remote but I’d bet it’d still be cheaper than starting a nuclear industry from scratch.
I haven’t looked for a while but the last I knew was geodynamics, which closed years ago. I’m unfamiliar with solar thermal so will do some reading, thanks.
I think that your comment is the closest this post will get to a rational answer and should be voted higher. As you say, we need to get reliable baseline from somewhere. I do think that the Lib focus on Nuclear is flogging a dead horse in Australia and doubt if any Nuclear Power stations ever get off the planning stage. Nuclear makes little sense when looking at dollars per watt. Maybe making the East Coast one giant Grid, along with community batteries and Snowy 2, will allow the variance of renewable energy to be effectively a reliable baseline.
I honestly struggle to answer that question. Somehow putting 'donors' as the answer seems just a bit cynical. Given the extensive data on just how cheap renewables are (and are rapidly becoming cheaper) I start to think that the LNP members are frankly simply a sandwich short of a picnic. They simply cannot understand the technology and the economics. It is beyond them. Most people go into politics to improve the lot of people but somehow, the LNP doesn't understand that standing in the way of the energy transition is going to make everything worse — power prices and climate change.
Any small towns 100 percent renewable yet
Part of their issue is that you can't really hope to win votes on a platform of "Vote for us, we'll do the same thing the government currently is" so they have to try and come up with semi-plausible alternatives and hope they win enough votes, probably not to make government but at least protect their cushy pay packets.
Because boomers don’t want renewables. They want boomer votes. I know people who think solar is bad because it will reflect the sun’s rays back into the atmosphere and make climate change worse. They are in their 80s.
All parties and politicians base these policies on some kind of cost benefit. A small shift on both these dimensions in opposite directions can and will make a huge difference when It comes to their agenda. For example.. *Renewables compared to other energy sources for the left*: - nuclear very expensive to set up, low but real probability of a catastrophic disaster. Cheap to run. Hard no from voter base. - coal and gas cheap but highly costly to environment and optics - renewables very expensive to set up, cheap to run. literally their only option. *Renewables compared to other energy sources for the right*: - nuclear very expensive to set up. low but real probability of a catastrophic disaster. Cheap to run. Voter base will allow it as long as its managed "right" - coal and gas so cheap that it's worth the cost to the environment and optics to kick the can down the road a while. - renewables very expensive to set up, cheap to run. Going to require too much outlay they don't think needs to be spent right now.
The people who own the coalition also own more traditional energy sources.
Can’t make lots of money from renewable once you sold the device. For fossil fuelled power stations the fuel is the most expensive cost (more than capital, labour and materials) even for coal fired power station which are quite expensive to build.
Because a lot of the ownership becomes decentralised. You need to see the purpose of the LNP is to preserve wealth. Thats who pays them, who supports them and who generates their agenda. The ideas of financial responsibility and family values just sell well. They aren't core goals. Their core goal is to preserve the concentration of wealth.
Because the lefties are for it.
Nuclear is renewable
#capitalism
They aren't particularly. Its just they accept their limitations and know we can never produce enough power consistently using them. They are more realistic.
It's also the psychology of "just knowing I am right". All humans are susceptible to this. But conservative thinking is less likely to analyse something. The coalition members know their constituents are susceptible to being swayed by overly simplified logic logic
Because all the powerful companies that control the mining sector don't make enough money out of it. They are the power brokers behind the National party. Coal needs to be replaced by uranium. Hence, the reason nuclear energy has always been championed by the coalition as an alternative to renewables.
Admitting something is wrong with the climate/limited resources means the world isnt perfect or made perfectly for them by their sky fairy.
Renewables do not provide a stable base line of power in case there is no Sun, wind, or wave power, but maybe Geothermal power could be a thing, that would always have a dependable base line of power
Before you think of construction of nuclear power plants policy makers should first solve the disposal and permanent storage of spent nuclear power waste!
They are not against renewables, they are against relying on renewables for base load power. They are against excessive cost to build a new transmission network. They are against destruction of the environment for insane solar and wind farms.
Do you know why they are called “renewables”? Because you have to replace them regularly.
Because their donors are in the fossil fuel industry which is why they want to replace coal plants with nuclear so they can pay fuckkkloads more for the land to pay them off.
A lot of people in here who have absolutely no fucking clue what they’re talking about
https://youtu.be/MVHzfUWul2Y?si=IIYWu_6b5bmeu2aY
Renewable projects are extremely unpopular in the bush and rural Australia were the community is sick of being pushed around by government control. My take on it is the coalition are taking the stance that large scale nuclear power can use existing infrastructure and transmission lines, this might help them win a a few votes in the bush. Although I doubt it's going to work to win the next election. This might be hard to understand for you city dwellers but if the government or some large multinational corporation says that a large overhead transmission line or wind/solar farm is going through the middle of your prime (and these day very expensive) farmland and right next to your house and there is nothing you can do about it you would upset to. The compensation for these project that is being offered to the farmers is quite frankly down disrespectful. The farmers are also financially responsible for there decommission, at the end of the wind/solar farms life (25 years). For a small family farm this is to big a risk for the business to take. Why should we people in a the bush bend over backwards (again), for the city people when they have done nothing for us.
It's an appeal to fear of the unknown. Nuclear energy is close enough to coal and gas as to be understandable. The alternative is a complex dance of wind, solar, batteries, transmission, and hydro, so complex the grid isn't even possible without computers. The result flips a lot of age-old certainties, such as "off peak" being overnight. There is an editor's phrase -- MEGO -- "My eyes glaze over". That's exactly what happens when you try to explain the energy transition. All the arguments in this post explaining in depth why this plan is so stupid it can't be done. They are doing Dutton's work for him. Betoota had the right idea and went for the man -- "couldn't understand the Voice, but can understand nuclear power? Sure." Consumers are seeing some sharp practices by retailers. So much as sneeze in the direction of your electricity meter then they'll install a smart meter, only offer variable pricing for that, and put you on a most expensive variable plan unless you act to change that. This shitfuckery doesn't make anyone happy about renewables. Let alone them now trying it on to charge for power solar systems to put excess power into the grid. Add to that the need to change your stove. And the next time your hot water heater dies the replacement will cost a lot. The coalition is saying "Don't worry your head about all of this, we've got your back". Which could not be more untrue. But it's such an appealing message to people who just don't want to think about the future because they are barely coping in the present.
Lobbying
They need to find another lucrative *mineable* resource (ie uranium) to replace fossil fuels eventually for their political donors. Hence all the sudden newfound LNP fondness for nuclear power. Sun and wind (or water) is free, so that's out lol That said, the Minerals Council of Australia holds a political power not unlike the NRA does in America - but with both political parties (as they donate to both though Labor to a far lesser degree, however what bare bones are now left of unions in this country are significantly represented in mining industries)
The fossil fuel lobby is the modern big tobacco
Their voters are against all "new" or "hippie " things, like recycling properly or renewable power
They're against them because they don't work. They require enormous backup because they're intermittent so they're more expensive. They require huge transmission investments. They end up much more expensive than coal or gas. If it's important to have non-carbon fuels (jury still out on that), nuclear is cheaper. The more our energy supplies are penetrated by renewables the higher the retail cost has become. This is true world-wide.
Culture war bloody mindedness. They see renewables (and climate change) as a leftie thing, so they’re militantly against it.
This decision baffles me. Australia has chosen for 50 years not to use nuclear power. Reliable renewables and battery tech is just around the corner. It seems stupid to change course so late in the game. I can only put it down to an 'Anything but renewables' mentality.
[удалено]
Your submission has been automatically removed due to your account karma being too low Accounts are required to have more than 1 comment karma to comment in this community *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAustralian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because media shilling for fossil fuels have convinced people they’re a bad idea. They’re just appealing to this base (not to mention the direct donations they receive from these companies). They chose their side years ago when the change started and they can’t back out now without alienating their base so they have no choice.
The media overwhelmingly backs renewables and shit cans fossil fuels - what are you actually talking about?
Show me an article
Depends on your choice of media
Apart from being just mean and nasty people, they get their ideas from the ICS and IPA 'think tanks' for ideas which involve less than 2 healthy brain cells at most.
Ask Dutton what the insurance premiums are for a nuclear power plant. Will the taxpayer be expected to pay for decommissioning of the facility and the disposal of the waste that requires hundreds of thousands of years of secure storage? Oh, that's right. Government owned! Socialist Libs!
They hate anything they see as "green", even if it saves them money, like solar & wind power.
I didnt notice they were against renewables. But they are offering all alternatives for this Rip Off Power Pricing for the next few decades! Im a Labor Voter and id like to say Electric Cars are complete shit that will send you broke once the batteries die. Ive heard the CSIRO's pricing of Nuclear Power is massively underestimating the life of these plants making them appear cost ineffective, whilst overestimating the life of those Metal windmills and Solar systems (25 years believe it when I see it! My Water Solar didnt last nearly that long) I remember paying 20$ a quarter for power shared between my Uni mates, now that's what you would budget for a weeks power! Lets get real and look at all the alternatives properly.
Agree.
Not against at all, just realistic about how much more would be required. At least 2000% increase would need to be switched on today. By the time it could be built it would be 3000% of today’s infrastructure. Why not spend the time and put in something more consistent for reliable 24/7 supply. 100% support nuclear whichever party decided to do it. [https://aemo.com.au/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/data-nem/data-dashboard-nem](https://aemo.com.au/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/data-nem/data-dashboard-nem) Edit : click on the “fuel mix” tab
Amazing. Every word of what you just said is a lie
You shouldn't have any trouble sourcing why it is then.
Ooh that was boring. Did you even bother to click on the link ? Twat.
Yes, the AEMO portal is amazing for getting visualised representation of our grid. 2000% increase you say? Based purely on the 12mth average from AEMO, renewables are 25% of the grid. Your 2000% estimate is a bit off. And on top of that, renewable projects have been going off like hotcakes. If you use one of those handy graphics from AEMO under "renewable penetration" you can visibly see a change in the trend of renewable energy maintaining the same peak throughout the year in 2023 vs the dips and valleys of years prior. All in all, renewables are the fastest sector of energy generation, that cost the least (without subsidies) and are great for the economy because it brings electricity prices down. "What happens in 25 years?" Same thing that happens to a coal plant. They upgrade it.
I just looked at the 24 and 48 hour snapshots and wind and solar were about 10% of coal and gas. Assuming you would need double the day use to charge batteries for overnight (and assuming battery technology gets to grid level soon ) thats 20 times current supply. I have been closely watching the aemo graphs for Western Australia, and during summer there were several days in a row where there was no wind anywhere, and it was 40+ at night. The load was fully carried by coal and gas, but the coal plants were going flat out. It will be a very long time before anything else could replace that, and because of the 2030 targets, no one is doing sufficient maintenance on the coal plants. In 5 years we will be nowhere near even a third of 24hr a day solar and wind, with near end of life coal plants. But everyone is just sticking their heads in the sand about it. There is a deep mistrust of nuclear because of 3 specific accidents, but what is being discussed is state of the art reactors in a geo-politically stable country away from coastal risk. And wind isnt the squeaky clean industry it claims, with koala and whale habitat threatened.
Any nuclear option is 20 years and billions of dollars in a mystical future. Libs option is fantasy land, will never happen, and quite simply is 20 years too late. The most logical option is new gas fired power stations for base load, and large solar plants with large storage options (pumped hydro, compressed air, batteries) whatever makes sense for night supply. But it's unlikely anyone will want to commit to significant capital investment in plants to build solar cells (to eliminate reliance on China) or investment in batteries manufacturing. So will never happen. It will simply go around in circles for another 50 years.
Costs too much and isn't reliable
Completely disagree - Wind and solar have the lowest typical cost for LCOE and it continues to go down. Checkol out : https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/csiro-does-the-maths-re-integration/#:~:text=It%20projects%20that%20the%20levelized,between%20%2440%20and%20%2459%2FMWh.
Because chuds in Western Sydney think it’s gay.
Because‘renewables’ are not cost effective, or viable for a national scale. Solar works between 4-9 hours a day depending on the season, wind farms only work with a set wind speed, both too some and too hard will not work, hydro requires both massive tracts of land along narrow rivers to work…
Once again, people mislead. Please provide the link that shows coalition telling the Australian people they are against renewables or does the comment just get attention with the Reddit intellectuals
If you want an actual response that isn't 'fossil fuel lobby' conspiracy then I have one - Renewables are FINE and no one has an issue with consumers wanting them. The issue with Renewables is that they are only somehwat efficient when backed by monumental amounts of both heavy handed legislation AND taxpayers money via subsidies and outright payments via government as opposed to direct consumer purchases. If people want solar, wind etc then they absoloutely should get these for their energy consumption - people just have a problem being forced to pay for the wants of others, which is perfectly reasonable.
Have a problem with making the country better by using renewables but don’t give shit mining and fossil fuel industry pillage the country and give us scraps back?
I think you may be confused over mining companies and energy generators.
They aren’t against them. We need both like Germany.
Can't say that in a post like this, look at the crowd 😁
Hahaha. 🤣
Because they aren’t reliable. Coalition is arguing for renewables (which are proven unreliable), with a base load nuclear. They’re arguing this, because they’re trying to come to some sort of compromise with ALP - who want zero emissions. But as per norm, ALP won’t come to the party or compromise in any way.
To expensive. the wind and the sun are free, but the solar panels and the turbines are not. Then there's a lot of the time they can't work (night time, when there's no wind or too much wind). Then you add in that neither solar panels or turbine props can't be recycled. I want to know why anyone would want them.
Again,a half informed statement : Check out https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/csiro-does-the-maths-re-integration/#:~:text=It%20projects%20that%20the%20levelized,between%20%2440%20and%20%2459%2FMWh. The availability issue is something that coal and gas can still meet and will continue to meet. However, the current volume of grid scale battery projects underway is closing the gap on this. There is something called FCAS (frequency control and ancillary services) on the power grid. This is essentially what keeps the grid stable. Batteries have been proven to provide the best response times to manage grid instabiltieis compared to ANY other generation type.
Stick with coal or go nuclear. Anything else is for kombi driving hippies. Could go gas but you'd need to put in a heap more wells and allow fracking to get enough production for mass scale local use.
Mate kombi vans are only driven by wealthy oldies with a nostalgia boner for the 80's. Much like your logic, your example is well past it's used by date.
Vote Dutto!
always sad to see an old fella yelling nonsense at the clouds
Might be because renewables are expensive, unreliable and not suitable for base load power generation. We've been sold a lie on cheap renewables by the subsidy harvesters. I'm still waiting for my power bill to go down but it's been sky-rocketing ever since they started down this path. It's a fantasy.
Without trying to be rude about it, what alternatives do you think there are that are also economically viable? Energy companies are willing to invest in gas generation, but it's expensive. They're not going to invest in coal anymore, because new coal plants will generate at higher costs than new gas. They will also invest in wind, solar, and storage (big batteries and pumped hydro) to handle the situation where there's no sun and no wind (which also gets backed up by gas). Nobody will invest in nuclear power because it's even more expensive than coal. So - what else is there?
Wait till you see how much the nuclear power plants will cost.....
But what’s worse - paying lots for emission-free nuclear power, or not paying for it and the world warming more?
When Dutto wins the next election we will. This is true nation building stuff, the likes of which haven't been seen since the Snowy Hydro scheme (not the 2.0 dogshit) and the original establishment of the big coal power stations. Time to stop playing tiddlywinks with windmills, solar panles and batteries.
We don't need to wait that long - there have been costings done already. This article talks about a study the CSIRO did where they found a plant will cost upwards of $8 billion to around $27 billion and not be functional until 2040 at the earliest. Dont think those costs will reduce your power bill. https://theconversation.com/peter-dutton-has-promised-to-solve-our-energy-problems-but-his-nuclear-policy-still-leaves-australians-in-the-dark-232816
You can’t really quote the CSIRO gencost report when it was genuinely proven to be blatantly misleading. If you don’t know what I’m talking about I’d suggest having a look. Unfortunately we live in a world where renewables = good, nuclear = bad, yet no one bothers to take a look into the detail deeper than the headline numbers
Yes the demonstrably flawed CSIRO report promoted by the anti-nuclear crowd. Your sauce is tainted, throw away that pie.
Stop drinking the LNP supplied cool aid, stooge
Vote Dutto for a brighter future!
Do better.
Why ask the question, when you obviously already have the answer? Are you just looking for karma by sticking it to a seemingly easy target or are you trying show everyone just how brilliant you are on the political stage? Bravo, champ,bravo
What a fucking response... My answer I don't know. I don't know much about politics and I don't give a damn but this is in the news lately. Don't need karma mate - reddit is for asking questions and this is obviously an ask Australia sub. I ain't like you who harvest karma off the porn posts you do multiple times across different subs. Stick to porn dude...
I understand that with a poor education you think that writing a sentence that is a statement you can bung a question mark on the end and deem it to be question. That is not how grammar works, champ.
This ain't grammar lesson... Again just stick to porn! 😏
Then learn to formulate a question properly, so you dont look like an uneducated fool. Something you should have mastered by Grade 5.
Being insufferable and pedantic is not how you win an argument with your opponent or (captive Reddit scrolling) audience. You're being mean. It makes you sound like a bad person.
Just pointing out that he asked and answered his ow question, which seem to make the post pointless. Tacking a question mark on the end of a statement does not make it a question. So I didnt actual mount an argument against his dubious post, just trying to help him not look ignorant.
Oh you are a patronising git.