Malcolm Turnbull has become a de-facto climate denier

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Macron’s dressing down of Malcolm Turnbull on his lack of leadership on climate change underlines a disturbing point: Turnbull may not deny the science of climate change, but he does deny the need to act now, and the economic benefits of embracing renewables.

share
(AAP Image/Getty Images Pool, Jason McCawley)
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
“Revenons a nos moutons”. Les bons conseils du President Macron. (AAP Image/Getty Images Pool, Jason McCawley)

Prime minister Malcolm Turnbull has been delivered two home truths this week about his failure to act on climate change, and his refusal to tackle his party’s right-wing ideologues.

The first was a speech, more a thinly disguised lecture, from visiting France president Emmanuel Macron, who eviscerated Turnbull in front of a big audience at the Sydney Opera House on Tuesday night:

“I am fully aware of the political and economic debate surrounding this issue in your country, and I respect this,” Macron said.

“But I think that actual leaders are those that can respect those existing interests, but at the same time decide to participate to something broader, to something more strategic.”

“Actual leaders”? It seems Turnbull’s capitulation to the far right has not gone unnoticed on the international stage. And bravo to Macron for telling him so.

The second moment came the next day, at Kirribilli House, and again in the company of Macron, at the signing of a deal between Sanjeev Gupta, arguably one of the country’s leading industrialists, and the head of French renewable group Neoen.

The deal was for a solar farm to supply Gupta’s steel plant in Victoria, and so dramatically reduce its costs, and the message to Turnbull could not have been any clearer.

“The switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy is the revolution of this century, transforming our economics and our impact on the environment,” said Neoen president Xavier Barbaro.

“We believe renewable energy is a game-changer and (these) agreements reflect a shared commitment to deliver low-cost sustainable energy solutions to the market.”

Gupta intends to embrace renewables, to slash electricity costs not just in Victoria, but across his entire steel industry portfolio in Whyalla and NSW, and use this to make Australia great again in manufacturing and industry.

Yet here we are, with the leader who promised never to lead a political party that didn’t take climate change seriously … doing exactly that. And at the same time deliberately ignoring one of the greatest technology transitions in the world, just to placate a handful of vested coal interests.

There is now no doubt that Turnbull’s refusal to act on climate change, and his refusal to embrace Australia’s renewable energy riches, is driven by his Faustian bargain with the far right that both denies the science of climate change, and is sworn to defend coal.

According to the Institute of Public Affairs, a right wing think tank that rejects climate science, more than half of the Coalition’s parliamentarians are climate skeptics. The IPA should know, it has provided a few of those MPs from its own ranks.

Yet what were the major policy initiatives of the Turnbull government in the days before the Macron visit? Two programs that highlight its willingness to spend money to “adapt” to the impacts of the climate change that much of the government insists is not happening.

First was the $500 million to be spent on the Great Barrier Reef, an Australian and international treasure to be sure, with a fair chunk of this money aimed at developing new coral species that are more resistant to warmer waters.

Why do they need new species of coral to be able to cope with warmer waters? Climate change of course. What are we doing about climate change? Not much.

Ditto the announcement a day earlier from agriculture minister David Littleproud about an agreement with state ministers to help farmers adapt to climate change.

Why was this needed? Because the climate is changing. What are we doing about it? Not much.

As environmental groups, the Labor Party and The Greens have pointed out, there is little sense spending money on trying to adapt to climate change if you haven’t made much of an effort to tackle it first, and still refuse to do so. It becomes a never-ending pit.

Bill McKibben, the founder of 350.org, an environmental organisation that wants to hold the world to account on its Paris ambition to limit average global warming to 1.5°C, visited the reef last weekend as part of his latest tour of Australia.

“It was a weird feeling being up on the reef and reading news that the government was going to save the reef by not doing anything about the problem that the reef is actually facing. It was quite disorientating,” McKibben told RenewEconomy.

“It’s like coming across someone who has been mugged in a dark alley and you offer them a cholesterol test. It doesn’t address the problem.”

McKibben laments the fact that all around the world, nearly every leader – apart from Trump, who doesn’t care – wants to be perceived as doing something about the environmental problems we face.

“But they refuse to do the things that might actually help,” and this is despite the fact that right now – as Gupta and Neoen pointed out to Turnbull on Tuesday – it would actually be quite easy to achieve significant emissions reductions, given the falling cost of renewables and the emergence of battery storage.

“And that is infuriating,” McKibben says. “For years we listened to people saying (renewable energy) was too expensive, then it was too unreliable. Now it’s cheap, and Musk has built the biggest freaking battery in the world, and it’s working like a charm.

“They are running out of excuses, but the problem is they are still taking money from coal.”

McKibben has no doubt that the world will be running on the wind and the sun within 50 years, and for that matter neither do most energy institutions and forecasters.

The problem is that it needs to happen a lot quicker, and the small bump of momentum that occurred with the signing of the Paris climate treaty has been squashed by the election of Trump.

“One of the overlooked problems with Trump is that he sets the bar so low by being such a grotesque buffoon, and that makes it easier for others to look statesmanlike.”

As for Turnbull, McKibben is less forgiving.

“Turnbull knows everything there is not know about climate change, but doesn’t do anything about it. I don’t know if that if that makes him worse than Trump or better.”

It begs an interesting question. Has Malcolm Turnbull, he who crossed the floor to vote against his party’s bill to scrap the carbon price, become a de-facto climate denier?

Not a denier of the science, because it would seem he accepts that, but a denier of the need to act.

As Macron told him, it requires leadership to overcome dissent, and the “power of conviction”. But Turnbull has shown no inclination to argue his point.

Turnbull is a constant denier, too, of the march of renewable energy, and its undoubted benefits, which are now being embraced by many of Australia’s biggest corporates, as well as millions of households.

It was galling for many – and to the Victoria government – that Turnbull should be seeking to claim credit for a major solar farm that will be built as part of Victoria’s state-based target that Turnbull has often described as “waffle” and “left-wing ideology”.

Turnbull’s government is also a denier of the immense opportunity presented by the falling costs of renewables, and other actions, to be more ambitious on emissions, and to save money and reduce costs at the same time.

Analysis after analysis shows that his government’s weak emissions reduction targets for the electricity sector for 2030 will have already been met by 2020 – creating the prospect of yet another lost decade.

Energy minister Josh Frydenberg continues to label any higher targets as “reckless and extreme.” The government has no policy – nearly five years after it came to power – to address long-term emissions reductions in other sectors of the economy.

So how long will this climate denial last? For Turnbull, at least until the next election, because that is what his compact with the far right appears to demand.

At that poll, either he and his government will get turfed out, and be replaced by a Labor government that will hopefully deliver on its rhetoric, or Turnbull will sneak back in.

The question is whether he will still be cowed by the Far Right at that point – or will he take Macron’s advice on how to be a leader and show that power of conviction.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

237 Comments
  1. Chris Drongers 5 months ago

    Re-convene and re-fund the Climate Change Authority, restart the public engagement on climate change science and its forecasts. Acknowledge that the future world belongs ro those that want new better solutions , not the comfort of current operations.
    I see little evidence of ‘the west’ doing this. But i see lots of evidence of China occupying the space. Already China is starting to tell us what to do (recycling, electric busses replaced diesel consumption equivalent to whole of Greece’s use, Pacific nations development funds). Under current political practice, Australia is toast.

    • Joe 5 months ago

      …and China is bringing in a Carbon Price which should filter through to its trading partners that don’t have Carbon Pricing….which just happens to include Australia.

      • James Thomson 5 months ago

        And the world’s biggest nuclear energy program. That’s where the big difference is.

        • hydrophilia 5 months ago

          Ah, but even ignoring cost, nuclear reactors will not vary their output to follow load. They are at least as problematic in this as PV or wind.
          Of course, if we electrify transportation and the batteries can be used to balance the grid then this solves the problem that both nuclear and PV (not to mention wind and coal) have. At that point, the question becomes “which can produce power most cheaply?”

          • Electric Boogaloo 5 months ago

            Modern fission plants can load follow much better than older designs, but like with all “base load generators”, run best (most economically) at maximum output.

            With increasing electrification of transport, the base load will increase, creating more room for fission.

          • Hettie 5 months ago

            By the time electricity is 100% renewable, in 12 to 15 years, the price difference between nuclear and renewables will be so great that the nuclear guys will all go broke.
            Suck it up, cupcake.

          • James Thomson 5 months ago

            It’s less than 2% now – mostly hydro – and you say 100% in 12 years. This is how you play right into the hands of Abbott and co. They can point to junk claims like that and tell the public, “See, the greenies are just making stuff up. How can you trust these people on energy policy.,” If you don’t follow the evidence and engage in this faith based nonsense you’re doing more harm than they are.

          • RobertO 5 months ago

            Hi James Thompson, just remember babbott has told the world of steel makers, “You can not power a steel plant with RE”
            So S Gupta has bought the steel plant and he now plans to prove babbott is an idiot. Even two toungs wanted to claim
            S Gupta plans for Laverton
            UK “green steel” billionaire Sanjeev Gupta has signed a 15-year deal to take power from the soon-to-be built Numurkah solar farm in northern Victoria, to help power his newly acquired Laverton steel works in Victoria and reduce electricity costs.

            “The signing of an MOU between Gupta’s GFG Alliance, its energy offshoot SIMEC ZEN and French renewable energy developer Neoen was witnessed by prime minister Malcolm Turnbull and visiting French president Emmanuel Macron at a ceremony in Sydney on Wednesday.”

          • Ren Stimpy 5 months ago

            In 2015 renewables was at 71.7 quadrillion Btu or 12.5% of total energy consumption.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2d1384cb1f7b77d841f662db610556291248e75d1d8259ffed051b96d9cc5da1.png

            https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=2-IEO2017&region=0-0&cases=Reference&start=2010&end=2015&f=A&linechart=Reference-d082317.3-2-IEO2017&sourcekey=0

            Furthermore, global installed capacity of solar and wind has since
            doubled between 2015 and today due mainly to the exponential growth of renewables in China, India, and high growth rates in the USA and Japan. Oh, and Australia.

          • Hettie 5 months ago

            Thanks for this, Ren. I can’t keep back issues on my phone for memory reasons, so although I recall the facts, I can never get the citations.
            I foolishly bought an inexpensive laptop which is glacially slow, and I hate windows 10. So it’s the phone for every day.

          • Ren Stimpy 5 months ago

            No worries. Just a shame the IEA and the EIA reports lag so far behind. Globally renewables went ballistic in 2016 and 2017 but we won’t see it in a IEA / EIA report for a quite a while – the 2016 year will probably be reported this September 2018 …. if their fleet of carrier pigeons stay fit and healthy.

          • Hettie 5 months ago

            Love your acid wit.

          • James Thomson 4 months ago

            Innovation, Scale & the Myths of Green Energy Youtube. “Scale, scale, scale” and the “big fib” of green energy. Use numbers, not adjectives.

          • Ren Stimpy 4 months ago

            No problemo. Get these numbers into ya. Solar photovoltaic installed capacity has doubled since 2015. That’s a doubling of installed capacity in just 3 years.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e1725bd568a8385ec3a3615f71b88b9f63cd9e711ecce25ea065c39a73d21ec7.png

          • James Thomson 4 months ago

            You could quadrupal it, it still doesn’t scale. The more you try to add the more obvious this becomes. He made this point several times. Also, these are capacity factors. With wind and solar the actual output – the power you actually get – is roughly a third of the capacity factor. Which partly explains why – after 20 years – wind and solar account for less than 2% of world electricity production.

          • Ren Stimpy 4 months ago

            Your guy (who talks like a football coach – like he’s trying too hard to convince people) was speaking in March 2015. He was using 2013 data. Solar photovoltaics have indeed nearly quadrupled since 2013. At the time renewables were showing a pattern of scaling, and they have continued along that pattern of scaling in subsequent years. Just look at the above chart. So far your guy and his little theory have proved to be wrong.

            Thailand, Vietnam and Indonesia will join the party when renewables cross a price threshold, and that will be driven by the massive volumes of renewables production for demand in China, India, the US and Japan, along with several others in the Middle East and South America …… and Australia.

            Have a look at the above chart, capacity is continuing to scale, which means renewable energy generated – capacity x capacity factor – is also growing at scale. So capacity factor is irrelevant, except for one minor point – the capacity factor of renewables is constantly improving under huge R&D investment!

          • Miles Harding 5 months ago

            only 3 doublings to 100%

          • Hettie 5 months ago

            Yep. Won’t the RWNJs go puce.
            The industrial size installations are already subsidy free, and panel prices are falling so fast that STCs are not needed.
            Canavan and Frydenberg will be chewing the carpet.

          • James Thomson 4 months ago

            “Other” is mostly hydro. For solar and wind it’s less than 2 percent. https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-much-energy-does-the-world-get-from-renewables

          • Ren Stimpy 4 months ago

            Your link is 2014 data. Ancient history in terms data of the high growth rate of the installed capacity of renewables.

            In 2018 the world will have nearly triple the installed capacity of solar photovoltaics that it did in 2014.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e1725bd568a8385ec3a3615f71b88b9f63cd9e711ecce25ea065c39a73d21ec7.png

          • Ren Stimpy 5 months ago

            It’s 12.5% you dick tard.

          • Hettie 5 months ago

            Chill out, Ren.
            He finally revealed his source, a book published in 2009 although he didn’t say that. I Googled the title, and there was author an publication date, so the data could well have been correct in 2008.
            I have given him a spray.
            No wonder he wouldn’t give any citations.
            But I knew it was you from the email header.
            What hydro said.
            You have good stuff to say. Don’t let yourself down.

          • Ren Stimpy 5 months ago

            Just getting warmed up.

          • James Thomson 4 months ago

            https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-much-energy-does-the-world-get-from-renewables The data is correct now. Getting “a spray” from you is like being flogged with a wet lettuce.

          • Electric Boogaloo 5 months ago

            If Australia sources 100% of its electricity from renewables in 12 to 15 years, I’ll put the barrel of my loaded shotgun in mouth and you can pull the trigger.

            I’m not suicidal, I’m just extremely confident that it’s not going to happen.

          • Ren Stimpy 4 months ago

            Please bet your house, not your… more important bits… if you must.

          • Sir John Maga 5 months ago

            When electricity is 100% renewable, pigs will fly in battery powered drones!

          • Hettie 5 months ago

            Mmmm.
            They would have to be pretty big drones to carry pigs. Big animals, pigs.

          • Sir John Maga 5 months ago

            Indeed.

          • Ren Stimpy 5 months ago

            Please bet your house, not your… more importants…

          • Ren Stimpy 5 months ago

            I see you have backed away from your very edgy bet……Sensibly due the growth rate of renewables and storage. We want to see you live comfortably and report this incredible growth of renewable energy, objectively.

          • Sir John Maga 5 months ago

            Please. You are not out of the woods yet. I watch your wildly fluctuating electricity prices. Where else in the word can you see $14,000 per MW electricity one minute, and minus $50 the next. Only down under! Blame the coal companies if you must, but the real culprit is wind. The variability of wind mate, and more wind you add, the worse it will become.

            If you want to see the future, take a look at Germany. On May 1st,
            they set a wind and solar record, complete with negative pricing
            and all the fanfare, but like it was scripted by Donald Trump himself,
            wind virtually stops for the next 5 days! Thank god for coal!

            https://www dot energy-charts dot de/power dot htm?source=all-sources&year=2018&week=18

          • Giles 5 months ago

            Great, so tell us why those prices fluctuate the same way in Queensland, with no large scale renewables (not a single one), and 80% coal?

          • Sir John Maga 5 months ago

            Couldn’t tell you. Best ask a local. Most probably the result of the grid being burdened
            heavily by the wind outage in SA.

          • Giles 5 months ago

            So all of a sudden you don’t know. Tell you why, coal or gas plants tripping, network outages. Nothing to do with wind, my friend, take your trolling elsewhere.

          • Ren Stimpy 5 months ago

            Have a closer look at the actual energy generated. Solar complements wind during such low pressure systems (or high pressure systems here in the SH). Wind + solar generated more energy than brown coal during that 5 day period. In only 3 out of the 5 days did they have to bring more black coal generation online.

            https://www.energy-charts.de/energy.htm?source=all-sources&period=daily&year=2018&week=18

            You are not giving wind technology enough credit – technological
            advancement has seen it be able to generate more power
            during lower wind speeds. The revolution happening in the field of
            energy storage will see that also progressively complement wind + solar.

          • Sir John Maga 5 months ago

            If you care to get real inquisitive, here is the real culprit. Mother Nature.
            A huge blocking high pressure area over Europe, getting ready
            to bomb them right back into the stone age. With all their pretty
            little windmills stationary, only coal and nuclear will keep the lights on.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c45bb624270e71d09e74473e98576bca6da76955b39ef79875737f2b20a6d099.gif

          • Calamity_Jean 5 months ago

            Natural gas is cheap in the US. Between gas and renewables, some coal and nuclear plants in the US are ALREADY going broke, especially the older ones with maintenance issues.

          • Giles 4 months ago

            That data is 10 years old. Bit like asking how many cars were on the road in 1870.

          • Hettie 4 months ago

            I very told him that, GIles but he won’t accept it.

          • James Thomson 4 months ago

            Then check the current IEA data for 2018. Ask the editors of Renew Economy – like the IEA they’re pro wind and solar but they won’t deny the simple fact that, hydro and burning biomas aside, wind and solar currently, in 2018, contribute less than 2% to world electricity production. It hasn’t shifted much in ten years and that tells the story. I am not a denier. I just think another technology can do the job that renewables can’t. For this I get abused.

          • Giles 4 months ago

            Well, i don’t think i’ve ever heard anyone describe the IEA as pro-wind and solar. They are notorious for constantly underestimating deployment, and over-estimating costs.
            The fact that you are citing stories from the climate denier Jo Nova and treating her garbage as gospel suggests you not really interested in emissions reductions either. Climate denial and nuclear support often go hand in hand.
            But let’s play your game, ill informed as it is. The IEA’s data for 2016 show that wind and solar contributed just over 5% of electricity production. Furthermore, they say that by 2040, in order to meet the climate goals you say you want to achieve at the same time as subscribing to a climate denial website, that wind and solar will be producing 10 times the production of nuclear, and way more than coal.
            The idiot MP Craig Kelly – like you, someone who depends on climate denier website and nuclear ranters – raised the same issues as you, and this is what we had to say.
            https://reneweconomy.com.au/craig-kelly-slams-reneweconomy-shameless-propaganda-arm-of-green-rent-seekers-99670/

          • Hettie 4 months ago

            Giles IS the editor of Renew Economy, you idiot.

          • James Thomson 4 months ago

            Strictly speaking, I’d be asking how many cars were on the road in 1998. Bit of a difference.

          • Giles 4 months ago

            Not really. 1998 was not an inflection point for cars. you’ve quoted stats before the global investment boom in wind and solar.

          • John Saint-Smith 5 months ago

            “most economically”? I think you mean “comically”. Nuclear power cannot contain its wastes or the cost of containing those wastes. It is centralized power that maintains the hegemony of the 1%, and there is no future for mankind down that neo-con rabbit hole, as they have already ably demonstrated.

          • Miles Harding 5 months ago

            There are limits.
            Even after pushing all the control rods in, the reactor continues at about 40% or so, as the fission by-products break down.

            Nuclear fuels are not produced by any renewable process, so will be exhausted the same as fossil fuels are being. Fusion has the potential of having a much large fuel store, but stubbornly remains 50 years in the future.

            A few years back, New Scientist published a story on ‘peak Uranium’, indicating the limits on the world’s supplies. Ignoring the obvious cost and environmental issues, the story indicated that uranium reserves could be exhausted within 50 years if adoption is widespread.

          • Electric Boogaloo 5 months ago

            There are thousands of years worth of Uranium in known reserves and most likely thousands more in unknown reserves.

            As prices increase, more will be discovered and known reserves that currently aren’t mined become economic to mine. Fortunately, fuel costs represent a very tiny part of the lifecycle cost of fission plants so a doubling in the price of fuel only increases the cost of electricity by a tiny amount.

            With the use of breeder reactors existing reserves can be extended to tens of thousands of years and that’s not including using Thorium.

          • Alastair Leith 5 months ago

            We’re going to be spilling solar and wind in the middle of they say I in australia by the time we get to about 60% renewables. How’s nuclear at ramping zero to omen hindred percent twice daily? Yeah thought so, put some up the maintaknance costs a lot and kill some the generation numbers.

          • Hettie 5 months ago

            Alastair, you need to edit.

          • Hettie 5 months ago

            We so need to get electric vehicles to soak up that midday excess by charging in shopping centre and workplace carpark, then being able to release some of the charge at home overnight, while overnight wind excess pushes water uphill in multiple small PHES sites.
            The pieces will all fit together, if only the rotten pollies would get out of the way.

          • Electric Boogaloo 5 months ago

            Legitimate question: How are the rotten pollies standing in the way?

            I know of one pumped-hydro system that is being planned in South Australia and has even received funding from the rotten pollies.

          • Electric Boogaloo 5 months ago

            Why would a fission plant ramp from 0-100%?

            Have you ever taken a look at the load profile of the National Electricity Market? There are gigawatts of coal-fired generation capacity always in play! At no point in time does the load fall to 0MW.

          • Alastair Leith 5 months ago

            Reread my comment. Alternatively download the AEMO Statements of Opportunity and/or their reports that discuss grid demand minimum trends. AEMO have a track record of being exceedingly conservative about PV growth.

            And grid demand doesn’t have to even get to zero to have baseload generation like coal and nuclear in major worlds of pain if it becomes a regularity.

          • Electric Boogaloo 5 months ago

            A week or two ago in SA there was no wind for a whole week and the state was reliant upon gas and imports.

            What’s the cost of renewables generation overbuild and storage to handle extended periods of low production like that? Now add on the extra load from electrified transport.

          • Alastair Leith 5 months ago

            So you are changing the subject, is that it?

          • Electric Boogaloo 4 months ago

            No, you’re the one who talked about SA exporting energy at 50% renewables and “spilling” electricity at 60% renewables.

            I’m merely pointing out that there are a lot of times when SA is importing electricity and burning a lot of gas and that these periods can last for durations exceeding a week.

            If you want to go with only renewables, you need to factor in the cost of overbuilding generation and sufficient storage to be able to buffer energy for these periods of low production.

            If you go with fission, you don’t have to go to that extra expense or worry that you have enough to get through the lulls because it delivers a constant amount of emissions-free power around the clock.

          • Alastair Leith 4 months ago

            The bit that people like you dont seem to get is that nobody in Australia and no nation in the world is going to build nukes for the first time to cover a few weeks of winter wind droughts. Nowhere. I’m sorry if that’s a pain in the butt for your business, but that’s just how it is dude. Nuclear in Australia loses on price, social licence, time-frame, waste popularity, GHG emissions footprint c.f. wind & solar, and political possibilities. But hey, start a nuclear energy party, the last guys that did that changed the name and removed almost all references to nukes, good luck, not.

          • Hettie 4 months ago

            Why don’t you cut him loose, Alastair?
            You can’t argue with, or educate stupid.

          • Electric Boogaloo 4 months ago

            What people like you don’t seem to get is that there’s always fossil fuels being burnt in SA, even when it’s exporting power.

            If you’re that for greenhouse gases why are we even bothering with with all this malarkey when we could just stick to burning dirt-cheap brown coal in cheap sub-critical plants?

          • Alastair Leith 4 months ago

            For one thing Coal couldn’t compete with Wind on price in SA, they retired from the market. BUt don’t let facts get in your way on the way out.

          • Electric Boogaloo 4 months ago

            If the current AEMO rules for SA grid operation were in place back then, coal would not have been shut down because it was cheaper than gas.

          • Alastair Leith 4 months ago

            Er, the AEMO can tell a private company (Alinta in that case) you aren’t allow to shut your business down?! Nice planet you live on, EB!

          • Electric Boogaloo 4 months ago

            …and as we know now after the infamous SA blackout, AEMO didn’t have its finger on the ball at all.

            That’s why now there are now those rules limiting imports and wind generation and mandating a minimum level of domestic fossil-fuel generation in SA.

          • Alastair Leith 4 months ago

            You obviously don’t have any comprehension about the economics of energy in general and the economics of nuclear specifically. If a NPP were of large enough capacity to cover a winter wind drought they’d need to be running at 90% CF all year long and still wouldn’t be cheaper than RE because their OPEX is higher. So how would they compete? Sell power 2-4 weeks a year? Yeah really.

          • Electric Boogaloo 4 months ago

            Uhh… the nuclear fission plant would run all the time so why would it only sell power for 2-4 weeks a year?

            You seem to be under the impression that electricity customers prefer to purchase intermittent and unpredictable supply over a stable and consistent supply.

            My whole argument is that the cost of making intermittent and unpredictable supplies into stable and consistent emission-free supplies is greater than that of nuclear fission.

          • Alastair Leith 4 months ago

            I know the argument you put out there, just not aware of any supporting evidence. Model it and show us the model.

            Wind and solar are *very* predictable in terms of the one hour and five minute trading spot market. Just ask our AEMO!

          • Electric Boogaloo 4 months ago

            We’re not talking about one-hour or five-minute trading though, we’re talking about delivering a consistent supply of energy over extended periods of time.

            I find it interesting how anti-nuclear people keep trying to change the topic when facts don’t agree with the dogma.

          • Alastair Leith 4 months ago

            I don’t care what interests you EB. I have modelling to say that an islanded grid like the SWIS in SW WA can go to 85% (at least) by 2030 for the same price as continuing with coal and gas and replacing aging plants with new ones, including $30/T price on carbon.

            This is assuming LCoE prices for wind and solar that are higher than what were being bid last year in other states of Australia. We know that these prices are falling 22% every two years at least for PV (50% in he last two years some reports say) and wind doubles its deployment globally every 3 years and has a more mature/gentle learning curve.

            Nuclear is not especially complementary to variable renewables, even in France where some nukes can technically ramp (but it hurts their economics) they need a lot of hydro and energy imports and exports to Germany to allow nuclear to run as baseload generators. And seeing as wind and solar are so much cheaper than nuclear in Australia (which would take fifteen years to get a large NPP exporting to the grid at least from where we are today with zero social licence in Sa the lost nuclear wntuistic state in Australia) then nuclear is always going to have to concede on merit order to whatever wind and solar are on the grid. There’s no model I’ve seen where it can get the economics ight in this country. Apart from the raft of other envirnomental problems it just is way out of the ballpark on economics. Not a chance.

          • Hettie 4 months ago

            You are very patient with him, Alastair.
            I don’t think he reads the replies to his drivel. He certainly gives no indications of having taken any notice.
            Just saying.
            😝

          • James Thomson 4 months ago

            Precisely.

          • hydrophilia 5 months ago

            Forget base load: if one has enough storage to match the best production curves (a flat line, as you have pointed out, in the case of nuclear or coal) match demand, the only questions are cost per joule and the capital risk. My understanding is that cost per joule is lower for wind and PV than for nuclear and the risk that a nuclear plant may have huge cost overruns or may even be “surplus to requirements” when it comes on-line in a decade or so means that no private money is going into them. Now, this COULD change if the small modular reactors turn out as their boosters hope…. but I’m not holding my breath.

          • Hettie 5 months ago

            Absolutely, and the answer cannot be nuclear.
            Cost to build, to staff, to fuel, to insure, to store the waste, to decommission, all these costs must be recovered from the sale of the power.
            How can that possibly compete with the relatively tiny costs of installing wind and solar?
            No fuel costs. Minimal maintenance, minimal staff.
            That’s why nuclear plants in the US are going bust.
            Read this, and then I’m going to block you.
            I have no time for fools.

          • Ren Stimpy 5 months ago

            Hettie, “hydro” did make the point about cost.

          • Hettie 5 months ago

            Ach. Sorry Hydro, I intended to reply to James Thompson, or Booga not you. And have blocked him. Them . Both. Was very tired.
            Thanks Ren for pointing out my error of addressing that.

          • Calamity_Jean 5 months ago

            ‘At that point, the question becomes “which can produce power most cheaply?” ‘

            That question has already been answered; it’s wind that’s cheapest now, closely followed by solar. Next is coal, then natural gas, then oil, and dead last as the most expensive is nuclear fission. By the time transportation is electrified, solar and wind may have switched places and both will have increased their price advantage over all the others.

          • hydrophilia 5 months ago

            Agreed…. although I tend to look at all sides and, IF the specific new nuclear technology comes out that can burn the waste down to near nothing (rather than simply forever being decades in the future or other unforeseen issues) and IF the cost/benefits work out, I’d support that as well. Note: this is not the same as the normal 2g or 3g reactors.
            So, you could say I am open to nukes… and am open to seeing pigs fly. In the meantime, wind and solar and storage seem wise and wonderful.

          • Hettie 5 months ago

            Open to nuclear and to seeing pigs fly.
            Love it.
            Wind, solar and storage are turning out to be willing workhorses. Competitive nuclear power is a unicorn.

          • Calamity_Jean 5 months ago

            “So, you could say I am open to nukes… and am open to seeing pigs fly. “

            Agree with enthusiasm.

        • Hettie 5 months ago

          Give it a rest.

        • Alexander Hromas 5 months ago

          China’s nuclear industry is state supported and it goes ahead because of this. If fact the only countries that have started building nuclear power plants have done so with government backing. All of the western nuclear reactor builders are broke on on government support. No one in the west wants to buy a Russian reactor because of their poor safety system designs and all commercial investors are scared because of the unending cleanup bills if things go seriously wrong. If we were to build a nuclear power station in Oz the government would have to fund it and build it. The current mob could not organize a piss up in a brewery even if you provided bottle openers what chance of them building something as complex as a nuke

    • Hettie 5 months ago

      The climate change body sacked by Abbott on about his second one day in office, reconvened itself as the Climate Council, and is supported entirely by public donations.
      Tim Flannery is still at the helm.
      I provide $20 per month of my pension. Anyone in full time employment who bought a house 20 years ago could do far more.
      Check out their Facebook page.

      • John Saint-Smith 5 months ago

        Thank you Hettie, as do I. Anyone who has a heartbeat should do all in their power to rid Australia, and the world of this Lying Nasty Party and its traitorous Turncoat of an unleader= he who wears the crown, but is the prisoner of his own ego. Anything less is our shame.

        • Hettie 5 months ago

          The reckless destruction of all our social services, the transfer of the nation’s wealth to overseas corporations to the detriment of the people, the willing obedience to the coal and mining lobbies should indeed be counted as treason.
          Refusal to even try to ameliorate the effects and limit the scope of climate change is, and should be prosecuted as a crime against humanity.

          • Joe 5 months ago

            ‘Treason’, grounds for prosecution…put them in the dock!

        • Hettie 5 months ago

          You have a presence on The Conversation, as do I. Tim Forcey has a presence on Facebook.
          If everyone in any comment stream or Facebook group beats the same drum, shares any anti coalition material we find, tells the truth in *simple* terms, we can beat Murdoch at his own game.
          My election tag line is, “When you vote, be sure to put the Coalition last. That’s where they put you!”

    • Greg Hudson 5 months ago

      ”China is starting to tell us what to do (recycling,”
      Yes, you are right there… China is telling us, by BANNING imports of Australian recycleable materials. Now how does that make sense? We now have to pay $100 more per year per household to BURY what should be going to China !
      It beggars belief. (And I don’t understand WHY this is happening).

      • Hettie 5 months ago

        In part, I think, it’s happening because the waste we ship to China is very poorly sorted. Too much contamination with other waste.
        Also because in typical Australian fashion, there has been no local development of the processes that turn plastic waste into such useful things as rot proof fence posts and boards, road building material, structural insulating panels and so on. Nor have the mountains of glass waste been used to substitute for sand in concrete and related products, or again, road building.
        There are many and varied uses for most “waste” products, but for some incomprehensible reason, Australia is very reluctant to do anything but dig rocks out of the ground and sell them overseas for far less than they would earn as finished products.
        Insane.

    • Andy Wilkins 4 months ago

      China are playing you thermageddonists for the gullible fools that you are. Just check out how many coal-fired power stations they are building.

  2. Alastair Leith 5 months ago

    What is worse? Not accepting climate science in spite of 98%+ consensus
    level amongst climate scientists — or accepting it & then
    intellectually coming to the insanely wrong conclusion that we don’t
    need to act now? Both contain moral bankruptcy, but to me the later is
    far worse.

  3. Joe 5 months ago

    The solution is in the hands of the punters to vote out The ‘COALition Climate Criminals’ when the next election comes. It is been all but useless in banging our heads at the illogical and nonsense actions of the Abbott /Turnbull Federal Government. They are never going to change course on climate change action no matter what the science or the impacts of climate change that are being felt. They / The ‘COALition Climate Criminals’ just have to be gotten rid of next election. We just can’t have another 3 years of nothing on top of the last 5 years already wasted.

    • nakedChimp 5 months ago

      To bad mainstream media (the propaganda machine) is on the FF side.

      • Andy Wilkins 4 months ago

        You have got to be joking. The media have fully hitched themselves to the CAGW band-wagon

        • Hettie 4 months ago

          Wot? AGW I get. What does the initial C stand for?
          And the Murdoch media is rock solid in denying AGRAND deriding renewables.

          • nakedChimp 4 months ago

            ‘catastrophic’

          • Hettie 4 months ago

            Of course.
            So you are saying (I hope) that the media are enthusiastically promoting everything that will exacerbate catastrophic climate change.
            Perhaps not very clearly expressed, Nudie.

        • nakedChimp 4 months ago

          Interesting choice of words there.. ‘band-wagon’

          And no, I’m not joking.
          Most newspapers are operated with or by News Corp.

  4. Chris_S 5 months ago

    Years later, and on this and so many other important issues, the man for whom Australia at large held so much hope, continues to not just disappoint but to distress a significant proportion of the public. Mr Turnbull holds the leadership post but does not want to lead.

    McKibben may say: “Turnbull knows everything there is to know about climate change, but doesn’t do anything about it. I don’t know if that if that makes him
    worse than Trump or better.” For those of us living in Australia and watching the ruthless pretence of action on climate; the creeping plans for the goverment to spy on us, the citizens; the sanctimonious denigration of the disadvantaged and so on and so on. We can despair or mobilise for change.

    People are expected to get more conservative as we grow older. Our “leadership” is pushing many to move in the opposite direction.

    Thank you RE for keeping us informed and armed with facts.

    • Ren Stimpy 5 months ago

      Yeah I don’t know how he sleeps at night, but being as old as he is I imagine there is a lot of farting when he does.

    • Alastair Leith 5 months ago

      I can tell you one thing Turnbull and most MPs don’t know, and that is that 54% of GHG emissions are in the Ag sector, mostly associated with livestock production, largely in QLD and NT, where most of the land clearing is occurring. That’s assuming 20 year GHG accounting, even at GWP100 if land clearing, enteric fermentation and savannah burning are included Ag will soon be at 50% of national GHG emissions.

      Another thing I bet he doesn’t know is that >50% of the GBR that existed when white people colonised this land was already destroyed before the 2016/17 bleaching events due to ocean warming. Again it is livestock production that is the major cause by a long shot.

  5. Ben 5 months ago

    Do you not think that if Australia cannot make any impact on climate change that adapting is not an option?

    Or do you think that Australia can impact climate change?

    Which is it?

    • Ren Stimpy 5 months ago

      Australia is 15th from the top of the list on GHG emissions. Countries which have a similar total of emissions to Australia are – Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Indonesia, Iran, Italy, Mexico, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, UK, with all of these totaling 19%

      19% does make an impact so we can’t just tap out, as our special friends in the conservative bracket of politics would like.

      • JWW 5 months ago

        I think you must look at the per-capita CHG emissions. We all share the same planet, and there is no argument that can be made that someone, who happens to live in a small country (by population) has the right to pollute more than someone who lives in a large country. Otherwise we would just need to split up the large countries into smaller ones and the climate change problem would be fixed??!
        Australia is at/near the top of the list regarding per-capita emissions, so Australians have an obligation to act.
        It is that simple!

        • Ren Stimpy 5 months ago

          True. Per-capita emissions is plenty valid as a climate argument, but try telling that to “Ben” above and his Alan Jones cohorts.

          • Ben 5 months ago

            You would need to understand why Australia has high per capita emissions before assuming it is something we should consider valid. For example, we dig stuff up, we grow stuff, we move stuff around. We do all that lots relative to our population. Per capita is irrelevant to the ice caps, it’s just a convenient stat for low brow click bait.

          • Chris Drongers 5 months ago

            Digging stuff up, growing and moving stuff might have relevance if at the same time Australia had world best practice in energy efficiency. We don’t. We refuse to try to achieve it in housing, transport, industrial processes. We are idiots.

          • Ben 5 months ago

            World best practise in energy efficiency? Do tell…

          • Ren Stimpy 5 months ago

            http://www.energy.ca.gov/commission/accomplishments/2017_energycommisson_accomplishments.pdf

            California (pop. 39 million) also digs stuff up, grows stuff and moves stuff around. California GDP $2.4 Trillion (Australia $1.2 Trillion) California emissions per capita 9.26 t (Australia 16.3 t).

          • Ren Stimpy 5 months ago

            California has to be the model we all strive for – ability to grow GDP while reducing emissions per year.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3e2b9f37b80f8291eefed8916ae4238e4c8409c38548b4ef49ce87a91114d48c.png

            And they achieved it while walking away from nuclear.

            http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/368581-california-approves-closure-of-last-nuclear-power-plant

            And someone told me there’s a girl out there
            With love in her eyes and flowers in her hair.

          • Ben 5 months ago

            California is physically half the size of SA. Are you suggesting California and Australia have similar mining, transport and agriculture?

          • Ren Stimpy 5 months ago

            Most of Australia’s area is barren and not even utilised. Coastal cities and their surrounding regions are the transport majority here in this country. Same as in California which has LA – the highway state which has nearly double the complexity of ours due to a massive population. That California solves all of this AND reduces emissions – what can we learn from those experience-wise bastards?

          • Hettie 5 months ago

            Because they are owned, body and whatever passes for soul, by Rupert Murdoch, who must have massive fossil fuel shareholdings , and the mining industry, principally the fossil fuel lobby.
            Their only driver is getting their bums on the treasury benches, and to do that, they have to keep their rich mates happy, because the rich mates give the money to pay for election campaigns.
            Circular corruption. Organised crime, even.

          • Ren Stimpy 5 months ago

            Crumpets are what they have as souls. Hollow porous crumpets.

          • Hettie 5 months ago

            No! Don’t say that! I like crumpets. Hot toasted crumpets dripping with butter and blueberry jam on a winter afternoon.

            Pumice stone is hollow and porous. It has its uses, of course, but none of the luciousness of a good crumpet.

          • Ren Stimpy 4 months ago

            Bleached coral souls?

          • Hettie 4 months ago

            Oh yes. That’s *much* better.

          • Hettie 5 months ago

            Nailed it, Chris.

          • Joe 5 months ago

            Validation of bad practice to keep on doing the same bad practice….now I’ve heard everything.

          • RobertO 5 months ago

            Hi Joe, I havd block Ben because of his blind faith in Baseload and the ability of RE to follow baseload. He need to read up on New Zealand’s Waikato River in that there are 8 dams and 9 Power stations of which 6 are PHES (could be 7). These were built between 1954 and 1971. I have even told the story on NZ pollies whom in 1978 put Meri Meri Coal (MMC) power station on 8 Hr standby to save money despite MMC night time power being used as part of PHES source.

          • Joe 5 months ago

            Thanks for the note

          • Hettie 5 months ago

            It is so peaceful when the trolls are blocked.
            Ben, James, DeeVee, Booga, I have been patient wth them all, but the time comes to cut them loose.

          • Electric Boogaloo 5 months ago

            You don’t know what the term “troll” means.

            “Bigot” is a term that accurately describes you and your behaviour of blocking people who disagree with you.

          • James Thomson 4 months ago

            Your solution to everything is to stick your fingers in your ears like some petulant child and block it out.

        • Sly 5 months ago

          I disagree. It would make more sense for as a global effort for the worst polluting plants in the world to be shut first. No sense in shutting down high efficiency thermal plant in Australia used to say refine aluminium only for that production to move to China using lower quality coal and less energy efficiency at both the plant and refinery. All we are doing is exporting pollution to meet a per capita target.

          This export of pollution to developing nations has been the Western model for decades and I find it rather shameful. What people should really be looking at is who consumes the product and it is them who need to be lumbered with the carbon cost. Japan, as an example, shut down most (not all ) of its energy intensive refining during the 70’s energy crunch. They still use the refined aluminium, copper etc but its just imported from countries like us. The myth that western nations use less steel and other such materials these days is just that. We import this material in the form of cars, ships, electronics and all sorts of chemicals that we no longer make from developing nations that apparently love the pollution we won’t live with ourselves.

          Essentially all per capita targets do is allow rich people to export their carbon manufacturing or polluting industries or in Australia’s case to become even more polluting industries in the developing world. At the same time we fail to accept the actual user of a product bears the responsibility for its pollution and pat ourselves on the back for our low per capita result and being great global citizens.

          • Joe 5 months ago

            The point is that Australia is a high per capita CO2 polluter, one of the worst in the world in fact, and of course via our coal exports we are amongst the world’s leaders in ‘exporting pollution’. And we have a Fedral Govt. that leads the world in rejecting the climate science and blindingly continues on with FF business as usual.

          • Sly 5 months ago

            The point is this idea kills poor people so you can feel better and yet achieves nothing globally (which is all that matters) as the pollution moves elsewhere and increases. You are basically saying the China growth model is what the world needs more of. Given China is the worlds biggest polluter can we really survive any more? I doubt we’ll survive with just one.

            Also, I don’t really understand how exporting coal is exporting pollution. Are you saying Japan has zero CO2 emissions because all of their fossil fuels are imported? They must have some really good per capita numbers for CO2, perhaps we should start importing coal and stop mining to save the planet. Sorry, while I’m no coal fan I don’t buy that argument. The reality is our coals have higher energy content than the average available in places like China and to displace ours with even more lower grade material is an insane strategy. It would be like shutting down the NSW black coal mines and producing more power from those Victorian brown coal CO2 monstrosities. Coal is exceptionally common and the belief that we can effect the global consumption is ludicrous.

            We already have a target from 92, arguing about other’s is just a delaying tactic providing excuses for no action, lets stick with it and work down to zero.

          • Joe 5 months ago

            The old chestnuts and drug pusher argument / justification…..our Coal is better than someone else’s Coal and if we don’t sell Coal / export Coal then someone else will instead. All weasel words used by FF boosters to keep on doing ‘Coal business as usual’. RE means that Coal no longer needs to be burned, the Planet demands it.

          • Sly 5 months ago

            That’s probably the most pathetic reply I’ve read this year. You haven’t addressed one word I’ve raised. You are just another ignorant murderer of developing world children with simplistic views and spilling out your own untruthful weasel words . No better than a big coal executive. People like you are a curse on this planet, not because you goals are wrong, but simply because you lack empathy for the suffering you cause to others. Goodbye, I apologise for attempting to educate you about the murderous effects of your ill conceived ideas will have on real people right now in so many countries you don’t give a damn about.

          • Hettie 5 months ago

            What a looney.

          • Joe 5 months ago

            “Murderous effects….”‘, that would be the ‘Coal is good for humanity’, Coal boosters of the world like yourself. Try educating yourself to the health impacts of Coal burning and then perhaps you might like to trouble yourself about the effects of Climate Change.

          • RobertO 5 months ago

            Hi Sly You are an idiot. China is not closing any coal power station. China is also not connecting any RE generators. China is also taking all our recycling of plastics (and other recyclables).

            Just to export coal for burning is just exporting pollution (both transporting it, more pollution, to the country where they burn it)

            China has a per capita level is about 35 and they have in the last year suspended some 200 or so coal power stations that were under construction, they have passed laws requiring RE generators to be connected to their grid (too many grid operators were holding up RE connections due to FF suppliers holding controls over the grid operators). They connected more RE last year than the total new connection in the rest of world. As for Australian recyclables they have slowed the amount of waste for recycling from Australia. Some plastics have been stopped (we should be doing our own as Transport is a pollution cost that we could avoid)

          • Hettie 5 months ago

            Sock it to’im, Robert. Though I doubt he will understand your sarcasm.
            The block him. It feels so good to be rid of the Bens and Slys. So dumb they think they’re clever.

          • Sly 5 months ago

            I’ll give you a life tip. Learn to read before you call someone an idiot you illiterate clown. As I didn’t say or even allude to what you have written in your first paragraph you come off as an utter moron.
            As for the rest I have clearly explained why you a wrong. That you can’t accept it just shows as well as being illiterate you are a moron. Now sod off troll, your pointless ramblings are driving up everyones per capita emissions.

          • Hettie 5 months ago

            Sly, RobertO is a respected member of the regular Renew Economy community.
            Most of us make errors of spelling and grammar from time to time. Your own posts are far from perfect, and your arguments defy logical interpretation. From what I can tease out, you would hold the country of final destination responsible for the GG produced in the manufacturing. While I can understand that to some extent, the destination country is not responsible for the energy choices of the manufacturer. That falls to the manufacturer, and to the government of the country of origin.
            However, in an illogical opposite stance, you do not hold a country that exports vast quantities of fossil fuel for the GHGs emitted when those fuels are mined, transported and burned.
            How does that work?
            If the fossil fuels are to be extracted, the country of origin must permit that. Must sell and profit. Or could mandate zero fossil fuel extraction. Does that not make the country of origin responsible for the pollution?
            Responsible for the morbidity and mortality from that pollution, and for the resultant global warming.
            As long as Australia exports coal, developing countries have less incentive to invest in renewables.
            However, the price of renewables is falling rapidly, so renewables are taking over, and cold, all coal, will soon be unsaleable.
            Be grateful for that.
            And remember that the substance of what is said in these discussions is more important than the niceties of grammar and spelling.
            A whole generation of Australians went through school without being taught grammar or spelling.
            I happen to belong to an earlier generation, and the errors drive me nuts, but I have learned to tolerate them. The content is more important.
            Yet if it is not clearly expressed, if you don’t take the trouble to organise your thoughts, you will not be understood, no matter how well you differentiate your from you’re, or there from they’re from their.
            The way I see it, you are closer to being a troll than RobertO.
            So take care with the insults, lest you be blocked.

          • Sly 5 months ago

            Oh please, spare me. He called me an idiot in the first sentence of his reply based on not reading my post. That’s not not a grammatical error. That’s a personal insult based on his own stupidity or bias and somehow you are attempted to justify that when frankly this so called ‘respected member’ needs the same warning. I’m actually not so much fussed about the insult but that he was too lazy to actually read the comment.

            As for the export of pollution I have explained my viewpoint quite clearly. Put simply if all Chinese plants, as an example, used purely Australian thermal coal (with ~25% more contained energy per unit coal) then their consumption would drop by hundreds of millions of tonnes annually which represents many times our nations CO2 emissions. (remember they use about 3 billion tonnes of this stuff each and every year) Obviously on a supply side that’s not possible but my argument is we have a moral obligation to provide the cleanest fuel as everyone transitions to zero emissions. The Chinese have been closing some of their own mines in favour of cleaner imported product. If we stop exports those very mines will simply reopen. The commenters here are focussed on the local situation but it’s a global problem. As I said, coal is common, most have it and are quite happy to dig it up and burn it. I do understand your points about cleaner coal being a potential incentive to continue using it but on the flip side it’s much easier for countries to get rid of coal plants when there are no coal mines being lost in that country and it saves foreign exchange. I’d say the net effect is neutral. You don’t see protests in other countries to build more coal plants, in fact, it’s the opposite. In my opinion the entire coal export argument is a red herring.

            The primary point I made was shutting down production here only for it to move to China, India and Southern Africa and then importing the product is immoral in that these places have lower standards, create more total pollution and it has massive health implications for these people (just look at China). That has been the Western solution to both CO2 and other forms of pollution for a long time and is disgraceful. So we also have moral obligation not to do this not only because it’s really not nice but will increase CO2 emissions.

            Any plan that leads to pollution shifting by relocating production and factories is simply unacceptable but it is exactly what per capita targets do. That’s why all carbon should go to the end user, that way they can see the impact their lifestyle choices have, they can make informed decisions, it can be regulated (much easier to close an Australian coal mine if there is no demand) etc. Some have said we are like drug dealers, probably true, but using that same analogy decades of trying to ban these substances have not solved that issue. It is only when the addict realises they are an addict and decides to change that they stop using. I do understand why many feel this way, just as I understand why many feel harsher drug laws will solve that issue, but it is doomed to failure just like most simplistic solutions.

            Anyway, goodbye (especially respected RobertO) and enjoy your high horses.

          • Hettie 5 months ago

            And I have now blocked Sly.

    • Chris Fraser 5 months ago

      We can do both of course. We can decarbonise and commit outrageous sums for breeding a new species of politician for better adaptation. One with conviction, morals, and a charisma grafting from President Macron.

  6. Glen Ryan 5 months ago

    Despite the government rhetoric and right wing media bias which blinds most of Australians, those from overseas are able to see the vast wealth of Tier 1 investment opportunities here that they could only dream of at home.

  7. Charlie Richmond 5 months ago

    I think he is just playing his cards to keep his own private slush fund from the fossil fuel companies flowing.

    • Hettie 5 months ago

      Yes. That’s evident.

  8. JIm 5 months ago

    Turnbull’s best justification would have to be that climate leadership is impossible from the Liberals no matter who they are led by. The Impossible Government if you like. I suspect however that this simply isn’t true. With business needing the certainty a carbon price provides, and the weight of public opinion backing action, there is scope to do what Macron and British Conservatives leaders of recent years would be doing in his place. Or Governor Schwarzenegger of California, a Republican who led on this issue. Over ten years ago, John Howard, of all people, embarked on a review of carbon trading options. He wasn’t re-elected so we don’t know if he would have carried through. Turnbull’s understanding of the need far surpasses Howard’s one suspects, yet he can’t any do better, and the situation in the meantime has got far more desperate!

    • Joe 5 months ago

      I think ‘Honest John’s’ comments in recent times clears the air on his thinking about RE…..another non believer.

  9. Carl Raymond S 5 months ago

    They will never run out of excuses, but they have run out of legitimate excuses.

  10. Robert Westinghouse 5 months ago

    LNP MUST GO, as nothing but more of the same
    with Trumbil. He makes me sick with his obvious bias towards the rich end of town.
    Sorry to say this but we must vote for the smaller parties to put pressure on the
    rapists of our country….As Gran says the LNP are killing me with their policies

  11. James Thomson 5 months ago

    Speaking of denial, why avoid the fact that after 20 years and about 3 trillion dollars renewables deliver less than 2% of the world’s energy. It simply doesn’t scale as an alternative to fossil fuels. Nuclear power, which powers France, does so it’s easy for a French president to lecture an Australian PM on climate change action. It is clean and has the best safety record. Accept the science on climate change but also accept the science on nukes and renewables. We don’t have time for Jules Verne

    • Chris Drongers 5 months ago

      Please inform me of why renewables won’t ‘scale’ up?

      World electricity generating capacity is currently somewhere between 7 and 10 TeraWatts, New coal plant costs around $3.5M/MW so replacing the current world generation with coal would be around 10 x 1000000 x $3.5M = $25-$35 Trillion, operating the coal plants would be extra (somewhere around $20 to $50/MWhr) and the coal plants have to be replaced about every 40-50 years as do all machines. Nuclear is even more expensive.

      And renewables don’t drive climate change, pollute the air with particulates and are getting cheaper.

      So what is your argument again?

      • James Thomson 5 months ago

        Think of it this way if you don’t understand scaling. To power most of Australia , by day anyway, you would need a 1033 km highway 41 lanes wide with nothing but solar panels. Then the sun sets. Germany found out they don’t scale when they spent 20 years on the biggest renewables program in Europe only to have to go back to burning half their forestry output for power…along with brown coal, Russian gas and French nuclear energy. Scaling is about being able to meet demand, not cost…which is a separate issue. Renewables don’t scale which is why James Hansen calls them the “kool aid” of the energy debate. Look at France. Nukes scale.

        • Chris Drongers 5 months ago

          “by day anyway, you would need a 1033 km highway 41 lanes wide with nothing but solar panels.” or roughly the roof area of every house in Australia, should be doable using the suitable roof areas of houses plus suitable industrial and commercial roofs.
          Add a similar area of brownfield solar plants (start with discarded minesites, rubbish dumps, water resevoirs) and move to greenfield low value agricultural land and nighttime consumption is covered as well.
          The critical factor is cost/kWhr and solar and wind are cheaper per kWhr than coal or nuclear.
          Storage is critical but relatively cheap once we decide to build that rather than keep buying coal or work out an NPV for storing nuclear waste for 10,000 years.

          • James Thomson 5 months ago

            And at night? Australia has 24 million people. For a population of 7 billion what are you going to do? Why muck around with wishful thinking when there is a proven technology that can do the job now…when we need it. Cost? What are we going to tell our kids? The means was at hand but your world cooked because we didn’t want to spend the money? Waste is simple and safe to dispose of and Prism reactors will be able to use it as fuel anyway.

          • Ren Stimpy 5 months ago

            “Prism reactors”? You absolute dickhead.

          • Matthew 5 months ago

            Ren, keep it civil. No need for abuse. I’m sure everyone who reads this page is on the same side.

          • Hettie 5 months ago

            Agreed

          • James Thomson 5 months ago

            Why? Because you want to be part of a cheer squad and have a meltdown when your views get challenged…calling people trolls and telling them to get out of the way. This intemperance of mind is the flip side to climate change denial. You’re Andrew Bolt’s other half.

          • RobertO 5 months ago

            Hi James Thompson, And your a support of Andrew Bolt. I think you also support the idea that slow progress is the best option so that we can all feel the warmth of the planet and we will be able to swim in the oceans of the world because they all have more clean water from all the ice that melted.

          • Hettie 5 months ago

            James you continue to make assertions without citing your sources.
            James Hansen may well have 2% renewables world wide in 2015, or 2012. And been correct then. But this is 2018, and installations, perticularly solar, have been extremely high for the past few years.
            China, India, African countries, Scandinavian countries and of course Australia have been going renewable. Figures from only 2 or 3 years ago are now way out of date.
            The latest International Energy alliance report quoted 17% of electricity and 12% of all energy is now from renewables.
            It is moving so fast that even last month’s figures are obsolete.
            You clearly think that you know what you are talking about. Every regular reader here will tell you that you are plumb wrong.
            And getting more wrong with every day that passes.

          • James Thomson 4 months ago

            See above for citations. Check the IEA data. Wind and solar account for about 2% of electricity production world wide NOW. Flooded valleys and burning biomass account for the rest of what’s counted as renewable.

          • Hettie 5 months ago

            You have had plenty of time to provide a citation for your absurd statement that only % of world energy comes from renewables.
            You have failed to do so.
            Blocking you now.

          • James Thomson 4 months ago

            See above for citations. But don’t be lazy. Check for yourself. Don’t believe me.

          • Ren Stimpy 5 months ago

            Crikey it’s hard sometimes.

          • James Thomson 4 months ago

            Do some reading.

          • Ren Stimpy 4 months ago

            Done. Experimental technology that hasn’t yet been commercialised. Am I right? Maybe you can help out by pointing to where Prism reactors have been deployed and a history of their power generation prices in $/MWh so we have something tangible for the purposes of comparison?

          • James Thomson 4 months ago

            Yes, you are right but they;re not far off. There are other types of reactors in the pipeline as well. Nuclear technology didn’t stop in 1945. It doesn’t really matter because the types of nukes we have now can more than do the job – it’s the only technology we have that can. Waste is not a problem. It’s easy and safe to store and we’re talking about one football field’s worth of it. Over 100 people will die on South Australian roads this year alone. Nukes have been operating for over fifty years and have the best safety record of any energy technology (WHO) If there wasn’t so much irrational fearmongering around nukes by green movements the price of nukes would come down as more were built but I think that given the crisis we’re in cost is not the main concern. We can’t tell our grandchildren that their world cooked because we didn’t want to spend the money. If solar and wind could do the job I wouldn’t care how much was spent on them to stop climate change. That’s our only real point of difference – the effigacy of the technology.

          • Ren Stimpy 4 months ago

            You don’t have to convince me on nuclear safety, I was previously a supporter of nuclear power.

            But the costs are astronomical, and growing (after 50 wasted years of opportunity to get the costs down!) and even new projects which are not yet complete have become non-viable and been cancelled with taxpayers left to foot the bill. The projects which doggedly persist towards completion such as Hinkley will charge huge $/MWh for their power, and require government legislation of price growth in order to recoup the investment (is that anti free market or what).

            https://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-not-answer-consumers-pay-abandoned-reactors-38863/

            And that is in countries with established nuclear power supply chains etc. Imagine the beyond-astronomical costs for Australia to develop nukes, given we have no experience at doing so! It’s just not viable in Australia based on (all other things aside) cost, and never will be.

          • Hettie 5 months ago

            Ever heard of wind turbines? Of pumped hydro electric storage (PHES)?
            You need to do some more reading, James.
            That, or you are just another troll. Because of the tone of your comments, trying to assert that renewables won’t scale (what rot), I strongly suspect you are a troll, with no interest in learning about how renewables will replace fossil fuels and nuclear power within about 12 years, as long as the idiots get out of the way.
            The economics alone will make sure of it.
            You may try to convince yourself that nuclear will rule, but if you put all your money into nuclear energy shares, you WILL go bankrupt.
            And if you will not bet the farm on it, why are you making an idiot of yourself here?
            Remember Kodak? They invented digital photography, but refused to recognise that the new technology would displace film. And in just five years they were bankrupt.
            The technology of pv has come ahead in leaps and bounds over the past 30 years. Wind turbines too, and all the time, prices are falling.
            The number of new rooftop installations in Australia in the last 12 months was about 40% higher than in the previous 12 months, and systems are getting bigger. Getting close to doubling every 2 years.
            One house in 7 has solar panels. 17%.
            Double that every 2 years.
            17, 34, 68, 136%. Oops .
            100% in 5 years. Same pattern as digital photos.
            Businesses too.
            Overseas, Apple meets 100% of its enormous energy use from renewable energy.
            Most of Silicon Valley is heading that way.
            Banks are refusing to finance expansion of existing coal mines, let alone new ones, because the risk of failure is too great.
            Super funds are getting out of fossil fuel shares while there are still idiots who will buy them, and increasing their performance against funds that are keeping their coal shares.
            All round the world, nuclear power plants are going broke because they can’t meet the market price set by renewables.
            Look around you. Look for the evidence. It is there in abundance.

          • Ren Stimpy 5 months ago

            The young fuckwit doesn’t respond well to current realities or logic, and can’t even read a simple graph. Don’t waste your time. Let him go out into the world and learn his lessons first.

          • James Thomson 5 months ago

            I’m simply passing on the views of the world’s leading climate change scientist, James Hansen. If the science bothers you I can’t help that.

          • Hettie 5 months ago

            James, I’m starting to think that you are like Pauline Hansen.
            So ignorant that you don’t realise that your ignorance, not your knowledge, is encyclopaedic.

          • Calamity_Jean 5 months ago

            “And at night?”

            Wind power, ever hear of it?

          • Hettie 5 months ago

            Jean, don’t waste your time on James. He is seriously deluded. Quotes figures that seem to be from around 2002, and refuses to give citations. Appears to belong to the group who are so dumb they don’t realise it but think they a very clever.

          • Calamity_Jean 5 months ago

            “Appears to belong to the group who are so dumb they don’t realise it….”

            Yeah, good old Dunning-Kruger. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

            I don’t like to let BS like this to go by because then it looks to a stranger happening onto the discussion like the idiot is right.

          • James Thomson 4 months ago

            Don’t believe me. Check the data on wind and solar. The IEA for example, or UN stats. Is James Hansen, the world’s leading climate change scientist, also “dumb” and “an idiot” when he uses this data to describe renewables as the “kool aid” of the energy debate. We all want a solution to rising emissions but it needs to work.

          • Calamity_Jean 4 months ago

            “Check the data on wind and solar. The IEA for example, or UN stats.”

            What am I supposed to be looking for? This is too general for effective searching in the limited time I have available.

            “Is James Hansen, the world’s leading climate change scientist, also “dumb” and “an idiot” when he uses this data….”

            Dr. Hansen is a brilliant climate researcher. He’s not an electrical systems engineer.

          • Hettie 4 months ago

            Sounds like James is (metaphorically) relying on a brain surgeon to give accurate, up to date data about the uptake of high tech dental equipment.

          • James Thomson 4 months ago

            Check the IEA data for wind and solar in 2018. Are they deluded too?

          • RobertO 5 months ago

            Hi Chris Drongers, Your wrong about the amount of area we require, it’s less that your quoting. The average building consumes less energy than it capable of producing if the roof was covered in solar panels. Its the combo of solar + wind + storage that will retire all other forms of generation (full time and then CH4 or gas will be our backup). As for the costs they will start to drop in Australia by 2022 (one of the main causes will be the right downs of the poles and cables networks some time after 2022).

          • Hettie 5 months ago

            I think Chris was quoting one of the trolls with that daft highway figure.

        • Ren Stimpy 5 months ago

          You are wrong about Germany. They increase their renewables while reducing nuclear and coal powered electricity year after year, and they export power to France and other countries.

          https://www.energy-charts.de/energy.htm?source=all-sources&period=annual&year=all

          • James Thomson 5 months ago

            Yes look at your graph and note the pathetic performance of renewables.

          • Ren Stimpy 5 months ago

            Are you cross-eyed? Have another good look this time.

          • Ben 5 months ago

            Why did SA wholesale prices hit the market cap this week? Interconnector down and all that wind power doing about 100MW.

            It’s variable generation that doesn’t match demand. That’s the problem.

            Nuclear is a perfectly viable proven technology with zero emissions and could use existing transmission lines and substations if we swap out coal for nuclear as coal retires.

            Variable generation is a simple fact, I’m surprised it’s so controversial.

          • Joe 5 months ago

            Ah, the mighty Nu Clear energy, the boosters just can’t get enough of it. It is so expensive that there is no business case but government underwrites it. The dangerous waste is left for generations to live with. The potential for accidents means that Government have to guarantee the operations of a Nu Clear power plant,,,that’s a blank cheque fully funded by us punters / taxpayers. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukishima, all such exciting moments in Nu Clear history, NOT.

          • Ren Stimpy 5 months ago

            Variable generation won’t be a problem when we have adequate storage (pumped hydro, grid batteries, powerwalls) and interconnectors. From a consumer’s perspective, the variable generation plus storage model is far superior (to the central baseload plus gas peakers model) because there will be a large percentage of the daily peak demand periods supplied directly by cheap wind power, albeit not all of them. But where stored energy is needed, ok it will be more expensive than raw wind power but at least storage is recharged using cheap offpeak excess variable generation (solar and wind) instead of expensive gas – the price of which we are currently at the mercy of.

          • Ben 5 months ago

            More interconnectors have to happen, SA is limited to about 600MW transfer to VIC. But SA is poised to double the wind farm capacity to 4000MW. Where will the power go?

            Hydro is great, but there is no way the environmentalist activists will let new dams be built.

            Chemical storage will eventually cover most domestic and even some commercial loads for most of the time. This will effectively reduce load on the grid, except for EV which has potential to greatly increase load.

            The obvious questions are:
            – what about when the wind isn’t blowing enough to supply demand plus charge storage
            – what about the cost of transmission lines, substations and interconnectors that distributed wind farms need – is that included
            – all that transmission infrastructure costs money to operate and maintain – that cost goes into power bills

          • Ren Stimpy 5 months ago

            The greens (should I say boo?) don’t object to pumped hydro, being an extremely small footprint compared to massive flooded valley non-pumped hydro.

            And half of which can be serviced in expended mine pits.

          • Hettie 5 months ago

            Only half? I had the inpression that with 22,000 suitable sites most would be old mine pits. They have some major advantages that I can see, not least of which being that as the pit environment is already thoroughly trashed, all vegetation and habitat utterly destroyed, EIS would be waved through. The construction access would be the existing mine ramps, and though I guess both upper and lower reservoirs would need to be sealed to prevent seepage loss, the pipes could be laid on the surface of the slope with little need for drilling, the crippling cost of Snowy 2
            Does PHES need separate pipes for uphill and downhill flow? Or can gate valves send the down flow to turbines, then allow the bottom pond to be sent back up in a closed loop? I’m just thinking as I write, speculating. Someone will enlighten me. You always do.

          • RobertO 5 months ago

            Hi Hettie cheaper to use same setup. Motor on top of Francis Turbine is used to pump water back up pipe and when water is allowed to flow down hill motor on top becomes generator. Take a look at Francis Turbine Designs(and you can get them in just about any size to fit you water head and flow rate.

          • Hettie 5 months ago

            Thanks Robert. It’s the broad brush , not so much the fine detail that I’m after, and one pipe made more sense to me than two. Pleased to have been on the right track. After all, at any one time, the flow is in only one direction.
            Does it make sense, then, to have the system completely closed, as water is a scarce resource. I know that usage in PHES is way lower than for mining and generation using coal, so there must be some sort of reliable water source if there was a mine,…..just curious.

          • RobertO 5 months ago

            Hi Hettie, once the systen top tank (or what ever they are using) is full then losses should be small. Evaporation from open tank could be under 3%, in a mine they have ways of sealing leaks so it could be from 10% to less that 1%. I think the Kidston project has mine water at 4326 ML (licence) but it should use some what less that that (about 250 to 500 ML )

          • Hettie 5 months ago

            Thanks Robert. You are so good at helping me learn about this stuff. Much appreciated.
            For the life of me, I can’t understand why the idiots, some of whom appear to want to get with renewables, refuse to accept that they have much to learn, and fight to the death to defend their errors.
            Daft. Totally daft.

          • Hettie 5 months ago

            Look again and see how coal and nuclear are declining year after year, while wind and solar keep increasing.
            As the prices of renewables, and the LCOE from them continue to fall, while the costsand LCOE from fossil fuels and nuclear continue to rise, the trends will accelerate.
            If you can’t or won’t accept that, there is little hope for you.

    • Hettie 5 months ago

      Not true. 12% of all energy, and 17% of electricity. And now growing exponentially. Doubling every 2 years. 5 years to 100%.
      So get the hell out of the way.

      • James Thomson 5 months ago

        Source? I’m using figures quoted by James Hansen…but what would he know. Pinker quotes the same figure.

        • RobertO 5 months ago

          Hi James Thompson, And I am using figures quote by our ex PM Tony Abbott, “You cannot power a Steel Mill by RE”. Just because he quote this does not make him right, in fact I believe he is 100% wrong

          • Joe 5 months ago

            The Sanjeev is making the Steel from RE.

          • Chris Drongers 5 months ago

            If the Pilbara renewables hub goes ahead it is comforting to know that it won’t support a steel industry in Indonesia.

        • Hettie 5 months ago

          And what was the date of those statements?

        • Giles 5 months ago

          I suspect the French government know best. And they have concluded that just maintaining the current nuclear fleet will result in costs of above $80/MWh – more expensive than wind and solar. Which puts them into a pickle, and explains why they are looking to renewables, to lower the nuclear share to 50% in the short term, and how to lower it further over the long term. One study showed that replacing the entire fleet with wind, solar and storage would be cheaper than continuing with it and replacing it.

        • Hettie 5 months ago

          A proper citation, please, James. Journal, title , date. Anything less is just your assertion that Hansen said xyz. It is not credible.

      • James Thomson 5 months ago

        You’re including habitat destroying, metane producing hydro. Fine if you don’t mind daming the Mekong. For wind and solar it’s less than 2%. Hansen references this in many places but you can find it in his book, “Storms of My Grandchildren”

        • Hettie 5 months ago

          At last ! A reference. That book was published in 2009. I just Googled the title and up it popped with the author’s name and the publication date. I am perfectly ready to accept that in 2009, or 8, 2% was correct.
          BUT this is 2018, James.
          Things have changed in nine years.
          Are your children the same height they were in 2009? The trees in your garden? The market share of smartphones in the phone market?
          In 2015, 12.5% of the world’s total energy was produced by renewables, as reported by the International Energy Agency, which makes such careful assessment that it takes them 2 years to be satisfied they have it right, and then publish their report.
          Exponential growth, doubling about every two and a half years.
          Jan 2009 – 2%
          Jul 2011 – 4%
          Jan 2014 – 8%
          Jul 2015 -12.5% only 18 months. Likely to be in
          May 2018 25%.
          It is ludicrous to claim that in such a dynamic market, 9 year old figures are still current.
          You have just proved yourself to be totally out of touch.

          • James Thomson 4 months ago

            Check. It hasn’t changed.

          • James Thomson 4 months ago

            Try reading the book.

        • Hettie 5 months ago

          Not much vegetation to produce methane, or habitat left in abandoned mine sites, James.
          Small PHES installations, close to the wind and solar farms that will power them, are the way of the future. Old coal mines are often close to the grid. Solar and wind always are. No use producing power with no way to get it to market.
          Besides, this is Australia.
          What the Chinese do is not our responsibility, but their topography would include multiple suitable off river sites.
          Just accept that you do not know much about world energy markets in 2018, and do some research. You may have been bang up to date in 2009, but you sure ain’t now.

          • James Thomson 4 months ago

            Hydro, not abandonded mine sites. You’re right. I rely on the opinion of experts and experts like Hansen say waiting for renewables to do the job is like “waiting for the tooth fairy’. We need nukes.

    • RobertO 5 months ago

      Hi James Thompson Your answer brings to my mind the quote, “It a pity we do not have some of those mini nuclear power plants that we could just chuck on to the back of an aircraft and ship them out to Puerto Rico” after Hurricane Maria. Somebody forgot to mention the weight of 650 Tons. So the answer is “Try and keep up with current reading!”

  12. howardpatr 5 months ago

    Malcolm Turnbull, know best known as HYPOCRITE TURNBULL.

    • Hettie 5 months ago

      Try Malfoy Turncoat.

  13. Rebecca 5 months ago

    Congratulations Giles Parkinson, our LNP have failed Australians on many front’s including Renewable Energy. It’s a sad state of affairs when this political party can not keep pace with the Australian Community. But again as with the Banking Industry they prefer to bow to the corporations. Including the coal mining corporations. And they ignore the wishes of the majority of the Australian people, we must not forget the many wrongs done at the hands of this LNP Government.

  14. Matthew 5 months ago

    Powerful editorial comment as always, Giles. Let’s hope it is widely read.

  15. Electric Boogaloo 5 months ago

    Yes, Australia should definitely be more like France and get over 75% of its electricity from emissions-free, economical and reliable nuclear fission.

    • John Saint-Smith 5 months ago

      And as those nuclear stations reach their decommissioning date, and France is forced to accept the unacceptable cost of that thankless clean-up, enthusiasm wanes for replacing those early generators with new nuclear designs which cost four or five times as much, but include none of the much promised ‘new horizon’ nuclear technologies promised half a century ago.

      I’m asking where are the fast breeder reactors that would eat up the contaminated U238 and convert it to more fuel? Where are the Thorium reactors? Where are the fusion reactors? Where are the stable waste disposal sites where the fuel waste can decontaminate itself, safely and affordably for the next 100,000 years?

      Meanwhile those scoffed at, ‘absurdly weak, expensive and intermittent’ renewables have proven to be not only safe and affordable, but they democratize energy generation, opening up the future for fossil fuel deficient nations around the world. The primary source of new electricity generation is now renewables, because they delivered, and nuclear did not.

      There is but a slim chance of saving the biosphere with a total commitment to 100% non-polluting renewable energy and recycled materials combined with a revolution in equitable re-distribution of wealth. There is not a snowflakes’ of saving the world with 10,000 nuclear power stations controlled by greedy capitalists,

      • Hettie 5 months ago

        Very loud applause, for you, John S-S.
        A man after my own heart.

      • Electric Boogaloo 5 months ago

        France had Rapsodie, Phenix and Superphenix fast breeder reactors and next year is going to decide if the successor design ASTRID will be built.

        Other nations like the USA, UK, China, India and Russia also have and have had fast breeder reactors. Russia is probably leading the field with its operating BN-600 and BN-800 plants.

        As for fusion, that doesn’t exist yet but if you know what the meaning of E=mc^2 is then you’ll understand why so many nations have been working on cracking fusion for decades and why it will render everything else obsolete.

        • John Saint-Smith 5 months ago

          Superphenix – Construction began in 1974 but suffered from a series of cost overruns, delays and enormous public protests. Construction was complete in 1981, but the plant was not connected to the grid until December 1986. In operation, Superphénix demonstrated very poor reliability and had a historical capacity factor less than 7%. Many of these problems were solved over time, and by 1996 the prototype was reaching its design operational goals.
          The plant was powered down in December 1996 for maintenance, and while it was closed it was subject to court challenges that prevented its restart. In June 1997, the newly elected Prime Minister, Lionel Jospin, announced that Superphénix would be closed permanently; this was made official by ministerial decree in December 1998. (Wikipedia)

          I asked where these power stations were operating successfully, pointing the way towards a central role for nuclear power in the future, and you tell me that E=mc^2! That’s just wishful thinking, as it has been for half a century. What’s more, you didn’t even deign to respond to the major problem of nuclear power. It is way too expensive and it is not able to be democratized or distributed to third world countries.

          Please try to do some research before commenting.

          • Hettie 5 months ago

            Like a lump of sponge rubber, when
            someone slaps him down, he just bounces back.
            And has about the same amount of brain.

          • Electric Boogaloo 5 months ago

            Nuclear fission isn’t “way too expensive” as evidenced by the hundreds of commercial power reactors in operation around the world.

            The only reason third world countries don’t have it is that they don’t have industrialised economies with large demand for electricity nor functioning national electricity grids. Those countries are better served for now directing their efforts to providing clean drinking water and sanitation and stamping out graft and corruption.

            Note that Superphenix was shutdown because of ill-informed activism, not because it wasn’t ultimately successful. Interesting that you didn’t also copy+paste anything on Russia’s successful BN-600 and BN-800 fast breeder reactors…

          • RobertO 5 months ago

            Hi Electric Boogaloo And do not forget the UK unit at Henkley. Was it due some 2 years ago and now due in 2 years time. It certainly got a very bright future at the estimated price of 92 euro per MWhr (opps wind is only euro 53 per MWhr). Hinkley also has CPI written in so that as each year progress it will get more expensive (opps again wind and/ or solar with storage are currently dropping in prices)
            Nuclear has a problem in that it has become too expensive to build, too expensive to run and as for no emmisions that the biggest lie of all radiation leaks for the next 25,000 years. Cleanup costs are also becomming too expensive, (Hint Look at France https://www.power-technolog
            and another
            http://www.france24.com/en/
            Note also if the unit is 3000 tons then storage requirements are about double that amount. It on an equal footing with Clean Coal (cra*)
            Try reading on Westinghouse Nuclear program

          • John Saint-Smith 5 months ago

            Thanks for that, I wasn’t going to bother… something about zombies.
            Night all.

          • Hettie 5 months ago

            Yep.Time for bed. Sleep is a much better use of time than arguing with the willfully blind.

    • Hettie 5 months ago

      Have a careful read of the article in R E Friday, May 4, 2018, about France and its nuclear problems.

      • Roger Brown 5 months ago

        What about the Japanese Melt down , still pouring millions of Gallons of the Toxic waste water into the oceans. USA has found fish diseases (Cancer) in their waters already ?

        • Hettie 5 months ago

          Aware of that, Roger, but Booga was saying that Australia should emulate France and go 75% Nuclear, so I pointed him to a reference spacifically about France.
          His attention span seems too limited to take on more than one idea at a time, and anything directly criticising nuclear power gets dismissed out of hand.
          I’ve spent way too much time on him. Blocked him now. Thought I had already done so. Better late than never.

    • Nick Kemp 5 months ago

      Why? We don’t need them and all our energy could be coming from renewables before a nuclear plant could be built. Also, they aren’t economic these days. perhaps your comment is sarcasm?

      • Hettie 5 months ago

        Nah. He’s a nuclear nut. Just ignore him and he might go away.
        No use trying to convince him on economics. He’s a true (false) believer.

      • Electric Boogaloo 5 months ago

        It’s not sarcasm. Fission plants can be built in five years.

        Are you seriously proposing that Australia’s fossil-fuel generation fleet will be entirely replaced with renewables in five years?

  16. Ben 5 months ago

    Which is it:
    a) Climate change is happening and we can’t affect the outcome, therefore adaptation is useless; or
    b) The course of climate change can be affected by Australia

    I’m interested in the logical inconsistency in the article, and also if this is intended as a factual article or an opinion piece?

  17. Gregory J. OLSEN Esq 5 months ago

    I still remember clearly Big Mal’s words at the Sydney Town Hall, in August 2010, when he spoke at the launching of BZE’s Beyond Zero Emissions 2020 Stationary Energy Plan, “I want to congratulate Matthew (Wright) again and all his team for this extraordinary piece of work. It is very important work. It provides the most comprehensive technical blueprint yet for what our engineers, our scientists can begin to do for us tomorrow. I commend them for their work, we’re deeply indebted to you all for this work and I encourage them and others to take note of this and to build on it as we work together, I trust, to a zero emission future, we know, is absolutely essential if we are to leave a safe planet to our children and the generations that come after them.” Will that Mal ever stand up again?

    Interestingly enough, he used the phrase, “No leadership and no conviction” to describe the gutless wonder that the Kruddster was in retreating from pricing carbon dioxide equivalent emissions in April of that year. Quite ironic really. 🙁

  18. itdoesntaddup 5 months ago

    Délicieux!

  19. GlennM 5 months ago

    We have a saying, if it walks like a dog, smells like a dog and farts like a dog..then it a dog.

    MT is a climate denier

  20. Marg1 5 months ago

    It was good to see that some of our world leaders are actually leaders, Great to see Macron smack down Turnbull re: Climate change inaction. Well done Mr Macron!

    • Hettie 5 months ago

      Well done indeed.
      Australians are the second biggest emitters of carbon pollution per capita in the world, 2% of world total on domestic dirt, but our exported coal makes us responsible for way more.
      I’m not at all sure of this, but the figure of 30% sticks in my mind.
      No doubt one of our better informed readers will set me straight on that. I hope so.
      Three loud cheers for Macron.
      Just ignore Malcolm. He hates that.

      • Miles Harding 5 months ago

        We could add our delegated manufacturing to this for a more impressive total.

        I have long felt that we should be including the emissions incurred in overseas manufacturing, Just as the final product is in the possesion of the consumer, so should the pollution costs of manufacturing. This makes a country like China with a bad, but improving, environmental record a far less attractive.

  21. Chris Drongers 5 months ago

    Turnbull and Frydenberg could model themselves on USA Energy Secretary Rick Perry. Perry serves in the climate change & fossil fuel loving government of Donald Trump. At the same time he is working effectively to promote renewable energy in the USA and to use financial prudence rules to head off attempts to subsidise coal power stations back in to profitability.
    I would love to hear Frydenberg’s answer to the question ‘what did you do during the climate change crisis Gran Pa?’ and his explanation of how his statements demonizing renewables square with him having an understanding of the science of climate change and the economics of power supply.

  22. Sir John Maga 5 months ago

    Maybe Turnbull saw the data that says global temperatures have decreased over the past two years, as well as 1999 – 2014.

Comments are closed.