Bowen gives Dutton’s nuclear plans a blast as energy sources shape up as an election battle

South Western Times
Thu, 22 February 2024

Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen called on Opposition Leader Peter Dutton to release plans for nuclear power ahead of the next election.

Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen has demanded Opposition Leader Peter Dutton release information on his party’s plans to embrace nuclear energy.

Talking to the media in Bunbury, Mr Bowen called out Mr Dutton on what he described as a “fantasy” plan.

“I’d say this, the time for talk is over,” he said.


“If the Liberal Party wants to propose a nuclear reactor for Bunbury we’d let them come out and announce their policy and the people of Bunbury will have their say on it.

“Come on, come on Mr Dutton, the next election is getting closer, tell us what your policies are, don’t say ‘oh, we’re going to think about nuclear,’ show us where they’re gonna be, show us what the cost is, then we’ll have a debate about it.”


Talking to media last week, Mr Dutton gave another indication his party would be taking its nuclear pitch to the polls.   :(

“We need to have a mature conversation about nuclear,” he said.

“It’s the latest technology that has zero emissions and it can firm up renewables in the system.”

Mr Bowen slammed the idea.

“It’s a fantasy, I mean, they might as well issue a Golden Book, that’s how realistic nuclear power is for Australia,” he said.

“We don’t have a nuclear industry in Australia, it will take years to get one up and running, years, decades.

“It’s the most expensive form of energy available in the world, renewable is the cheapest, nuclear is the most expensive, coal and gas come in between.

“Why anybody would propose an answer for Australia which is slow to build, expensive to build and does not have social licence to use is beyond me.”

The idea of embracing nuclear power is not new for Mr Dutton with the Liberal leader having brought it up last year during a speech at the Institute of Public Affairs, a conservative-leaning think tank.

At the July event he said nuclear was the way forward.

“If the Government wants to stop coal-fired power and phase out gas-fired power, the only feasible and proven technology which can firm up renewables and help us achieve the goals of clean cost effective and consistent power is next generation nuclear technologies,” he said.

“My old friend Chris Bowen has burrowed so deeply down the renewable rabbit hole that he refuses to consider these new nuclear technologies to be any part of the solution of our energy problems.”

According to the CSIRO, nuclear power is not an “economically competitive solution” in Australia and by the time costs of small modular reactors improved it would be too late to make a difference for a net zero emissions goal.   :(

Quote:

“We don’t have a nuclear industry in Australia, it will take years to get one up and running, years, decades".

Seriously Mr Bowen?

Australia's uranium has been mined since 1954, and our uranium
reserves are the world's largest, with 28% of the total.

Re Dutton's stance, it's ironic that Gough Whitlam's Labor party
was in favour of developing nuclear power generation in Australia
until the tree-huggers of the day kyboshed it.   Sadly.

If it takes so long to get a nuke power plant up and running then we should start now.

There is obvious anger at the Albanese government’s rolling out of an across-the-board $300 handout for power relief.

People cannot fathom why millionaires, billionaires and the generally well-off households are getting a handout they don’t need.

Everybody has forgotten about another much larger group who have no right to it as well – the hundreds of thousands of households that have solar power on their roofs, households like mine. I installed solar when the top feedback rebate was available.

Since then, my bills have always been small or in credit with my power provider. I am currently in credit for $2200. It was much higher before power prices took off under this government.

In addition to the Albanese government’s $300 gift, the Miles government is going to top that up with another $1000 for Queenslanders, bringing my power credit up to $3500.

If this is the best plan Labor governments can come up with for helping people doing it tough, then there is no hope for them.

A commenter

Frank wrote on May 18^th, 2024 at 10:38am:

People cannot fathom why millionaires, billionaires and the generally well-off households are getting a handout they don’t need.

Yet the Coalition were prepared to raise taxes for low and middle income earners whilst giving the wealthy a much larger tax break....You are a hypocrite and a smacking dickhead Fwank!!!


Quote:

Stage 3 Tax Cuts Go to Wealthy Occupations, Low & Middle Income Earners Miss Out: New economic research reveals that the Stage 3 tax cuts proposed by the Federal Government will give Bank CEOs, surgeons, and federal politicians a windfall tax cut of $9075, while low-income workers like aged care workers, disability careers and minimum wage employees get $0. The proposed Stage 3 tax cuts will see those earning more than $200,000 raking in the biggest benefit, while those on less than $45,000 will receive nothing, according to new report from the Australia Institute entitled Fair Go Gone: Stage 3 tax cuts & LMITO by Occupation. When the Low- and-Middle-Income Tax Offset (LMITO) ends, middle-income earners like teachers, nurses and midwives will pay $1080 more in tax.

Were was your concern when the Coalition gave billionairs a tax cut and screwed low income earners arsehole???

:-? :-? :-?

https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/stage-3-tax-cuts-go-to-wealthy-occupations-low-middle-income-earners-miss-out-report/

philperth2010 wrote on May 18^th, 2024 at 11:20am:

Frank wrote on May 18th, 2024 at 10:38am: People cannot fathom why millionaires, billionaires and the generally well-off households are getting a handout they don’t need. Yet the Coalition were prepared to raise taxes for low and middle income earners whilst giving the wealthy a much larger tax break....You are a hypocrite and a smacking dickhead Fwank!!! Quote: Stage 3 Tax Cuts Go to Wealthy Occupations, Low & Middle Income Earners Miss Out: New economic research reveals that the Stage 3 tax cuts proposed by the Federal Government will give Bank CEOs, surgeons, and federal politicians a windfall tax cut of $9075, while low-income workers like aged care workers, disability careers and minimum wage employees get $0. The proposed Stage 3 tax cuts will see those earning more than $200,000 raking in the biggest benefit, while those on less than $45,000 will receive nothing, according to new report from the Australia Institute entitled Fair Go Gone: Stage 3 tax cuts & LMITO by Occupation. When the Low- and-Middle-Income Tax Offset (LMITO) ends, middle-income earners like teachers, nurses and midwives will pay $1080 more in tax. Were was your concern when the Coalition gave billionairs a tax cut and screwed low income earners arsehole??? :-? :-? :-? https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/stage-3-tax-cuts-go-to-wealthy-occupations-low-middle-income-earners-miss-out-report/

The answer is implied in the question.

It was stage 3 tax cuts. Stage 1 and Stage 2 tax cuts addressed the lower income groups.

We've got solar - and the cash is for costs of living.... some bloke got it right as I did years ago with my Guinness Quotient - he said once you could buy 100 schooners of beer for $300 (or something) - now you can only buy 45 (or something) ... anything left over goes into other things - the car needs an oil change and the oil costs up to $100 - I could be back in my Jaguar, FCS...

My Guinness Quotient of Comparative Prosperity meant that I could drink five pints a day @ $20 a day..... now you're lucky to get two... that's inflation for you.

This is a dysfunctional government: the Treasurer subsidises the electorate’s ever-rising energy bills to counter the efforts of his colleague, the Minister for Energy and Climate Change, who is hellbent on increasing them.

Captain Nemo wrote on May 18^th, 2024 at 12:31pm:

philperth2010 wrote on May 18th, 2024 at 11:20am: Frank wrote on May 18th, 2024 at 10:38am: People cannot fathom why millionaires, billionaires and the generally well-off households are getting a handout they don’t need. Yet the Coalition were prepared to raise taxes for low and middle income earners whilst giving the wealthy a much larger tax break....You are a hypocrite and a smacking dickhead Fwank!!! Quote: Stage 3 Tax Cuts Go to Wealthy Occupations, Low & Middle Income Earners Miss Out: New economic research reveals that the Stage 3 tax cuts proposed by the Federal Government will give Bank CEOs, surgeons, and federal politicians a windfall tax cut of $9075, while low-income workers like aged care workers, disability careers and minimum wage employees get $0. The proposed Stage 3 tax cuts will see those earning more than $200,000 raking in the biggest benefit, while those on less than $45,000 will receive nothing, according to new report from the Australia Institute entitled Fair Go Gone: Stage 3 tax cuts & LMITO by Occupation. When the Low- and-Middle-Income Tax Offset (LMITO) ends, middle-income earners like teachers, nurses and midwives will pay $1080 more in tax. Were was your concern when the Coalition gave billionairs a tax cut and screwed low income earners arsehole??? :-? :-? :-? https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/stage-3-tax-cuts-go-to-wealthy-occupations-low-middle-income-earners-miss-out-report/ The answer is implied in the question. It was stage 3 tax cuts. Stage 1 and Stage 2 tax cuts addressed the lower income groups.

Exactly.

But blustering Poison Pill Phil is too addled to remember or understand that.

Frank wrote on May 18^th, 2024 at 2:30pm:

Captain Nemo wrote on May 18th, 2024 at 12:31pm: philperth2010 wrote on May 18th, 2024 at 11:20am: Frank wrote on May 18th, 2024 at 10:38am: People cannot fathom why millionaires, billionaires and the generally well-off households are getting a handout they don’t need. Yet the Coalition were prepared to raise taxes for low and middle income earners whilst giving the wealthy a much larger tax break....You are a hypocrite and a smacking dickhead Fwank!!! Quote: Stage 3 Tax Cuts Go to Wealthy Occupations, Low & Middle Income Earners Miss Out: New economic research reveals that the Stage 3 tax cuts proposed by the Federal Government will give Bank CEOs, surgeons, and federal politicians a windfall tax cut of $9075, while low-income workers like aged care workers, disability careers and minimum wage employees get $0. The proposed Stage 3 tax cuts will see those earning more than $200,000 raking in the biggest benefit, while those on less than $45,000 will receive nothing, according to new report from the Australia Institute entitled Fair Go Gone: Stage 3 tax cuts & LMITO by Occupation. When the Low- and-Middle-Income Tax Offset (LMITO) ends, middle-income earners like teachers, nurses and midwives will pay $1080 more in tax. Were was your concern when the Coalition gave billionairs a tax cut and screwed low income earners arsehole??? :-? :-? :-? https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/stage-3-tax-cuts-go-to-wealthy-occupations-low-middle-income-earners-miss-out-report/ The answer is implied in the question. It was stage 3 tax cuts. Stage 1 and Stage 2 tax cuts addressed the lower income groups. Exactly. But blustering Poison Pill Phil is too addled to remember or understand that.

Why do you and ballsack compete so hard to be the biggest dickhead on the forum....The $300 is peanuts compared to what the Coalition wanted to gift millionaires until Labor made it fairer!!!


Quote:

Sorry, but Stages 1 and 2 did not make Stage 3 fairer. Only changing Stage 3 did that Stage 1 increased the threshold for the 37% tax rate from $87,000 to $90,000 – this did nothing for those on low-middle incomes, given the current median full-time income is $83,200. Stage 1 also included the introduction of the low-middle income tax offset. That might have been “immediate” to use Senator McKenzie’s words, but it was also only temporary. It is no longer in place. Thus the only thing remaining from Stage 1 all goes to those earning above the median full-time income. Stage 2 included changes that assisted those on low and middle incomes, such as the 32.5% threshold increase from $37,000 to $45,000. But it also included an increase of the 37% threshold again, this time to $120,000, which once again this part provided no benefit at all to low or middle-income earners.

Don't let the truth get in the way of your ignorance arseholes!!!

::) ::) ::)

https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/sorry-but-stages-1-and-2-did-not-make-stage-3-fairer-only-changing-stage-3-did-that/

philperth2010 wrote on May 18^th, 2024 at 4:54pm:

Frank wrote on May 18th, 2024 at 2:30pm: Captain Nemo wrote on May 18th, 2024 at 12:31pm: philperth2010 wrote on May 18th, 2024 at 11:20am: Frank wrote on May 18th, 2024 at 10:38am: People cannot fathom why millionaires, billionaires and the generally well-off households are getting a handout they don’t need. Yet the Coalition were prepared to raise taxes for low and middle income earners whilst giving the wealthy a much larger tax break....You are a hypocrite and a smacking dickhead Fwank!!! Quote: Stage 3 Tax Cuts Go to Wealthy Occupations, Low & Middle Income Earners Miss Out: New economic research reveals that the Stage 3 tax cuts proposed by the Federal Government will give Bank CEOs, surgeons, and federal politicians a windfall tax cut of $9075, while low-income workers like aged care workers, disability careers and minimum wage employees get $0. The proposed Stage 3 tax cuts will see those earning more than $200,000 raking in the biggest benefit, while those on less than $45,000 will receive nothing, according to new report from the Australia Institute entitled Fair Go Gone: Stage 3 tax cuts & LMITO by Occupation. When the Low- and-Middle-Income Tax Offset (LMITO) ends, middle-income earners like teachers, nurses and midwives will pay $1080 more in tax. Were was your concern when the Coalition gave billionairs a tax cut and screwed low income earners arsehole??? :-? :-? :-? https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/stage-3-tax-cuts-go-to-wealthy-occupations-low-middle-income-earners-miss-out-report/ The answer is implied in the question. It was stage 3 tax cuts. Stage 1 and Stage 2 tax cuts addressed the lower income groups. Exactly. But blustering Poison Pill Phil is too addled to remember or understand that. Why do you and ballsack compete so hard to be the biggest dickhead on the forum....The $300 is peanuts compared to what the Coalition wanted to gift millionaires until Labor made it fairer!!! [quote]Sorry, but Stages 1 and 2 did not make Stage 3 fairer. Only changing Stage 3 did that Stage 1 increased the threshold for the 37% tax rate from $87,000 to $90,000 – this did nothing for those on low-middle incomes, given the current median full-time income is $83,200. Stage 1 also included the introduction of the low-middle income tax offset. That might have been “immediate” to use Senator McKenzie’s words, but it was also only temporary. It is no longer in place. Thus the only thing remaining from Stage 1 all goes to those earning above the median full-time income. Stage 2 included changes that assisted those on low and middle incomes, such as the 32.5% threshold increase from $37,000 to $45,000. But it also included an increase of the 37% threshold again, this time to $120,000, which once again this part provided no benefit at all to low or middle-income earners.

Don't let the truth get in the way of your ignorance arseholes!!!

::) ::) ::)

https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/sorry-but-stages-1-and-2-did-not-make-stage-3-fairer-only-changing-stage-3-did-that/[/quote]

Greg Jericho and the Australia Institute/Grauniad are not on my list of credible. More like the pinch-of-salt-or-three brigade.



So why did Labor promise before the 20232 lection to deliver the Stage 3 tax cuts unchanged??

They opposed it under Shorten in 2019. Lost the election. So they changed their position. Won the 2022 election. Then broke their election promise and did change it.

Albo. Fighting Tories while saddling the barbed wire fence, the little yeah-but-no-but pseodo-PM.

the Australian Greens Party  launched its new “No coal. No Gas. No Nuclear” campaign. I couldn’t help but fill in the next logical item in the series: “No economy”.

The marketing genius of referring to wind and solar power as “renewable”, when the associated infrastructure needs to be replaced more often than for nuclear or fossil fuel power stations, is wearing off.
...
The Labor government’s childish anti-nuclear campaign built around three-eyed animals should be regarded as an international embarrassment. The number of nuclear reactors in the US, which provide around 20 per cent of the country’s electricity, declined from a peak of 111 in the late 1980s to 93. But as the anti-nuclear hysteria wears off, more reactors are being proposed. Now the Biden administration has embraced nuclear power as the only realistic way to provide reliable zero-carbon dioxide energy.

France, which has safely produced the bulk of its electricity via nuclear fission for years, has announced it is building at least six and up to 14 new nuclear power stations in coming years. India is building at least 18 by the early 2030s, and China is planning at least 100 new reactors by 2035.

Yes, new nuclear power stations will be expensive until the tempo of production increased and local industry climbed the learning curve. In any case, the cost argument is laughable given state and federal governments just sprayed around $400bn of borrowed money against the wall during Covid-19 for a cumulative excess deaths outcome that was scarcely different from Sweden’s, a country that spent barely anything by comparison.

As for safety, far more people tragically died at a South Korean electric battery manufacturing plant last week, at least 22, than have died from nuclear power related accidents since the poorly run and designed Chernobyl plant broke down in the 1980s.

Transition to “net zero” by 2050 is a delusion. As eminent Canadian scientist Vaclav Smil pointed out in a recent essay, it hasn’t even started – despite all the trillions spent. “Since the world began to focus on the need to end the combustion of ­fossil fuels we have not made the slightest progress in the goal of ­absolute global decarbonisation,” he points out.

Since 1997, fossil fuel consumption in absolute terms has increased 55 per cent. Its share of the total has declined from 86 per cent to 82 per cent. “All we have managed to do halfway through the ­intended grand global energy transition is a small relative decline,” Smil writes.

For affluent nations to achieve the net-zero carbon goals outlined in the international treaties they have signed, they would have to commit to annual expenditure of at least 20 per cent of GDP, for decades. To put it in perspective this is even more than the Soviet Union spent for a few years in its existential struggle to defeat Germany in World War II.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/europes-electoral-earthquake-sounds-warning-for-greens/news-story/42814927c4157b5898e0243b9ec03bc4

AusGeoff wrote on Feb 26^th, 2024 at 4:37am:

Quote: “We don’t have a nuclear industry in Australia, it will take years to get one up and running, years, decades". Seriously Mr Bowen? Australia's uranium has been mined since 1954, and our uranium reserves are the world's largest, with 28% of the total. Re Dutton's stance, it's ironic that Gough Whitlam's Labor party was in favour of developing nuclear power generation in Australia until the tree-huggers of the day kyboshed it.   Sadly.

It might have been a good idea back then. But since then, nuclear has gone from the cheapest to the most expensive option. Does that makes sense to you? Labour support nuclear when it is the cheapest option, the coalition supports it when it will send the country broke. And you think this makes Labor look like hypocrits? The coalition might have actually been able to get nuclear up and running in this country if they had not spend decades with their head in the sand on climate change.

freediver wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 10:26am:

AusGeoff wrote on Feb 26th, 2024 at 4:37am: Quote: “We don’t have a nuclear industry in Australia, it will take years to get one up and running, years, decades". Seriously Mr Bowen? Australia's uranium has been mined since 1954, and our uranium reserves are the world's largest, with 28% of the total. Re Dutton's stance, it's ironic that Gough Whitlam's Labor party was in favour of developing nuclear power generation in Australia until the tree-huggers of the day kyboshed it.   Sadly. It might have been a good idea back then. But since then, nuclear has gone from the cheapest to the most expensive option. Does that makes sense to you?

What/who makes you think it went from cheapest to most expensive in 50 years?  Apart from Chris Bowen.

the whole question sidesteps the immigration debate. would all these new stations even be a huge priority with a stable or even gradually declining population? i bet not. immigration is the ultimate nexus issue; all other issues simply revolve around and emerge from it, but no one wants to talk about it (at least in serious detail) or make the obvious connections.

Frank wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 11:38am:

freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 10:26am: AusGeoff wrote on Feb 26th, 2024 at 4:37am: Quote: “We don’t have a nuclear industry in Australia, it will take years to get one up and running, years, decades". Seriously Mr Bowen? Australia's uranium has been mined since 1954, and our uranium reserves are the world's largest, with 28% of the total. Re Dutton's stance, it's ironic that Gough Whitlam's Labor party was in favour of developing nuclear power generation in Australia until the tree-huggers of the day kyboshed it.   Sadly. It might have been a good idea back then. But since then, nuclear has gone from the cheapest to the most expensive option. Does that makes sense to you? What/who makes you think it went from cheapest to most expensive in 50 years?  Apart from Chris Bowen.

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1719178624

freediver wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 11:46am:

Frank wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 11:38am: freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 10:26am: AusGeoff wrote on Feb 26th, 2024 at 4:37am: Quote: “We don’t have a nuclear industry in Australia, it will take years to get one up and running, years, decades". Seriously Mr Bowen? Australia's uranium has been mined since 1954, and our uranium reserves are the world's largest, with 28% of the total. Re Dutton's stance, it's ironic that Gough Whitlam's Labor party was in favour of developing nuclear power generation in Australia until the tree-huggers of the day kyboshed it.   Sadly. It might have been a good idea back then. But since then, nuclear has gone from the cheapest to the most expensive option. Does that makes sense to you? What/who makes you think it went from cheapest to most expensive in 50 years?  Apart from Chris Bowen. https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1719178624

Ok, apart from Bowen and Grappler.

JC Denton wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 11:43am:

the whole question sidesteps the immigration debate. would all these new stations even be a huge priority with a stable or even gradually declining population? i bet not. immigration is the ultimate nexus issue; all other issues simply revolve around and emerge from it, but no one wants to talk about it (at least in serious detail) or make the obvious connections.

Up to a point.

The climate doomsday mania has gripped the whole world, including countries with zero immigration.

Frank wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 11:51am:

freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 11:46am: Frank wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 11:38am: freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 10:26am: AusGeoff wrote on Feb 26th, 2024 at 4:37am: Quote: “We don’t have a nuclear industry in Australia, it will take years to get one up and running, years, decades". Seriously Mr Bowen? Australia's uranium has been mined since 1954, and our uranium reserves are the world's largest, with 28% of the total. Re Dutton's stance, it's ironic that Gough Whitlam's Labor party was in favour of developing nuclear power generation in Australia until the tree-huggers of the day kyboshed it.   Sadly. It might have been a good idea back then. But since then, nuclear has gone from the cheapest to the most expensive option. Does that makes sense to you? What/who makes you think it went from cheapest to most expensive in 50 years?  Apart from Chris Bowen. https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1719178624 Ok, apart from Bowen and Grappler.

Do you not know how to read a graph?

freediver wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 1:56pm:

Frank wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 11:51am: freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 11:46am: Frank wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 11:38am: freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 10:26am: AusGeoff wrote on Feb 26th, 2024 at 4:37am: Quote: “We don’t have a nuclear industry in Australia, it will take years to get one up and running, years, decades". Seriously Mr Bowen? Australia's uranium has been mined since 1954, and our uranium reserves are the world's largest, with 28% of the total. Re Dutton's stance, it's ironic that Gough Whitlam's Labor party was in favour of developing nuclear power generation in Australia until the tree-huggers of the day kyboshed it.   Sadly. It might have been a good idea back then. But since then, nuclear has gone from the cheapest to the most expensive option. Does that makes sense to you? What/who makes you think it went from cheapest to most expensive in 50 years?  Apart from Chris Bowen. https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1719178624 Ok, apart from Bowen and Grappler. Do you not know how to read a graph?

There is no graph at that post, only a still from Oppenheimer.

Frank wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 11:53am:

JC Denton wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 11:43am: the whole question sidesteps the immigration debate. would all these new stations even be a huge priority with a stable or even gradually declining population? i bet not. immigration is the ultimate nexus issue; all other issues simply revolve around and emerge from it, but no one wants to talk about it (at least in serious detail) or make the obvious connections. Up to a point. The climate doomsday mania has gripped the whole world, including countries with zero immigration.

i mean if climate change isnt real, why have a nuclear debate at all. just make a bunch of coal stations, would be way cheaper and easier. yes there are negative externalties to coal even if there were no anthropogenic forcings but they're not serious enough to justify wasting time with nuclear instead. carbon based energy is absolutely the best in class if not for the fact that it may heat the planet, if it doesn't why bother with anything else.

immigration is huge cuz its whats driving the need for more capacity mostly at least in states are are 'industrialised'. sure there'd be a need to replace aging generators and we'd be arguing about what they should be replaced with etc etc etc but without a squazillion warm bodies being trucked in from overseas this would be a much more relaxed non-urgent conversation. ukraine is a great case in point, even with the russian strategic rocket force potshotting its transformers every other day it still keeps the lights on pretty good bc its capacity is vastly beyond the needs of its current population, which has declined since 1991.

JC Denton wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 3:38pm:

Frank wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 11:53am: JC Denton wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 11:43am: the whole question sidesteps the immigration debate. would all these new stations even be a huge priority with a stable or even gradually declining population? i bet not. immigration is the ultimate nexus issue; all other issues simply revolve around and emerge from it, but no one wants to talk about it (at least in serious detail) or make the obvious connections. Up to a point. The climate doomsday mania has gripped the whole world, including countries with zero immigration. i mean if climate change isnt real, why have a nuclear debate at all. just make a bunch of coal stations, would be way cheaper and easier. yes there are negative externalties to coal even if there were no anthropogenic forcings but they're not serious enough to justify wasting time with nuclear instead. carbon based energy is absolutely the best in class if not for the fact that it may heat the planet, if it doesn't why bother with anything else. immigration is huge cuz its whats driving the need for more capacity mostly at least in states are are 'industrialised'. sure there'd be a need to replace aging generators and we'd be arguing about what they should be replaced with etc etc etc but without a squazillion warm bodies being trucked in from overseas this would be a much more relaxed non-urgent conversation. ukraine is a great case in point, even with the russian strategic rocket force potshotting its transformers every other day it still keeps the lights on pretty good bc its capacity is vastly beyond the needs of its current population, which has declined since 1991.

Agree.

There is a less urgent case for transition from finite energy sources to longer lasting ones.
There is a strong case for clean air, water, soil (CO2 is not a pollutant).

Frank wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 2:24pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 1:56pm: Frank wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 11:51am: freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 11:46am: Frank wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 11:38am: freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 10:26am: AusGeoff wrote on Feb 26th, 2024 at 4:37am: Quote: “We don’t have a nuclear industry in Australia, it will take years to get one up and running, years, decades". Seriously Mr Bowen? Australia's uranium has been mined since 1954, and our uranium reserves are the world's largest, with 28% of the total. Re Dutton's stance, it's ironic that Gough Whitlam's Labor party was in favour of developing nuclear power generation in Australia until the tree-huggers of the day kyboshed it.   Sadly. It might have been a good idea back then. But since then, nuclear has gone from the cheapest to the most expensive option. Does that makes sense to you? What/who makes you think it went from cheapest to most expensive in 50 years?  Apart from Chris Bowen. https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1719178624 Ok, apart from Bowen and Grappler. Do you not know how to read a graph? There is no graph at that post, only a still from Oppenheimer.

Are you high? If so, the coalition needs you on their team.

freediver wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 11:46am:

Frank wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 11:38am: freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 10:26am: AusGeoff wrote on Feb 26th, 2024 at 4:37am: Quote: “We don’t have a nuclear industry in Australia, it will take years to get one up and running, years, decades". Seriously Mr Bowen? Australia's uranium has been mined since 1954, and our uranium reserves are the world's largest, with 28% of the total. Re Dutton's stance, it's ironic that Gough Whitlam's Labor party was in favour of developing nuclear power generation in Australia until the tree-huggers of the day kyboshed it.   Sadly. It might have been a good idea back then. But since then, nuclear has gone from the cheapest to the most expensive option. Does that makes sense to you? What/who makes you think it went from cheapest to most expensive in 50 years?  Apart from Chris Bowen. https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1719178624

The BoA part of that article where it states the following should be looked at:


Quote:

Bank of America (2023)[edit] In 2023, Bank of America conducted a LCOE study in which it postulated that existing LCOE estimates for renewables do not account for fossil fuel or battery backup and therefore levelized full system cost of electricity (LFSCOE) would be a more reasonable metric to compare sources in terms of providing 24/7 consumer electricity.[87] LCOE      LFSCOE(Texas, US)    LFSCOE(Germany, EU) Nuclear      82      122      106 Wind        40      291      504 Solar         36      413      1548 Biomass      95      117      104 Coal      76             90      78 Gas      38             40      35

Nuclear dosn't look so bad taking more factors into consideration.

Edit: For those that think in terms 3 eyed fish etc and still support coal should read this.

6.25 PM Current power sources

NSW
Black Coal 79%
Gas  9%
Hydro  6%
Solar  0 %
Wind 5%

QLD
Black Coal 70%
Gas 24%
Hydro 5%
Solar 0%
Wind 1%

Click on fuel mix- https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/data-nem/data-dashboard-nem


The lefties claim Liberals want to keep gas by proposing nuclear ;D

Quote:

Adam Bandt @AdamBandt Labor have approved a $1 billion Gina Rinehart-backed gas project. The Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek has approved over 150 new gas wells to run until 2080. This is Labor: helping billionaires profit off fuelling the climate crisis. I thought we got rid of Morrison. https://x.com/AdamBandt/status/1805749151575195694

freediver wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 5:40pm:

Frank wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 2:24pm: freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 1:56pm: Frank wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 11:51am: freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 11:46am: Frank wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 11:38am: freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 10:26am: AusGeoff wrote on Feb 26th, 2024 at 4:37am: Quote: “We don’t have a nuclear industry in Australia, it will take years to get one up and running, years, decades". Seriously Mr Bowen? Australia's uranium has been mined since 1954, and our uranium reserves are the world's largest, with 28% of the total. Re Dutton's stance, it's ironic that Gough Whitlam's Labor party was in favour of developing nuclear power generation in Australia until the tree-huggers of the day kyboshed it.   Sadly. It might have been a good idea back then. But since then, nuclear has gone from the cheapest to the most expensive option. Does that makes sense to you? What/who makes you think it went from cheapest to most expensive in 50 years?  Apart from Chris Bowen. https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1719178624 Ok, apart from Bowen and Grappler. Do you not know how to read a graph? There is no graph at that post, only a still from Oppenheimer. Are you high? If so, the coalition needs you on their team.

Your site is ****ed, FD, a laggy, dungfired dinosaur of a board. I click on your link and i get Grappler's post with the Oppenheimer still.

It has been poined out to you dozens of times that your site is laggy, it doesn't display the latest post - that's why people post empties and flips to chivvie it along.

What have you done about it? Nuffin'. You ask me if I am high.  Pull your finger out, pal, fix your antiquated, wood fired old site. You earn an income from us, meager as it is and diminishing by the day.

For FFFF's Sake.

Frank wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 6:39pm:

I click on your link and i get Grappler's post with the Oppenheimer still.

It leads me to the first post in Australian Politics Forum › General Discussion › General Board › high price tag for nuclear", perhaps that may help your angst and show the graph?

Frank wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 6:39pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 5:40pm: Frank wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 2:24pm: freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 1:56pm: Frank wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 11:51am: freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 11:46am: Frank wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 11:38am: freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 10:26am: AusGeoff wrote on Feb 26th, 2024 at 4:37am: Quote: “We don’t have a nuclear industry in Australia, it will take years to get one up and running, years, decades". Seriously Mr Bowen? Australia's uranium has been mined since 1954, and our uranium reserves are the world's largest, with 28% of the total. Re Dutton's stance, it's ironic that Gough Whitlam's Labor party was in favour of developing nuclear power generation in Australia until the tree-huggers of the day kyboshed it.   Sadly. It might have been a good idea back then. But since then, nuclear has gone from the cheapest to the most expensive option. Does that makes sense to you? What/who makes you think it went from cheapest to most expensive in 50 years?  Apart from Chris Bowen. https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1719178624 Ok, apart from Bowen and Grappler. Do you not know how to read a graph? There is no graph at that post, only a still from Oppenheimer. Are you high? If so, the coalition needs you on their team. Your site is ****ed, FD, a laggy, dungfired dinosaur of a board. I click on your link and i get Grappler's post with the Oppenheimer still. It has been poined out to you dozens of times that your site is laggy, it doesn't display the latest post - that's why people post empties and flips to chivvie it along. What have you done about it? Nuffin'. You ask me if I am high.  Pull your finger out, pal, fix your antiquated, wood fired old site. You earn an income from us, meager as it is and diminishing by the day. For FFFF's Sake.

we need a new board system. if we can all pitch in to get a proper xenoforo i'll help out. the current thing we use is ancient beyond measure.

XenForo is good, is what my fine forum runs on.

Will be a big job but I would toss in a few bucks if that helps. We will need the patience of Job but definitely be worth it in the end.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 7:37pm:

XenForo is good, is what my fine forum runs on. Will be a big job but I would toss in a few bucks if that helps. We will need the patience of Job but definitely be worth it in the end.

it would be nice if we could have a search function that worked and post (up to 100 ) pages that go over the current amount so reading through any thread wasnt so frustrating

xenforo would rule

Fd doesn't care. 

Aww, come on, it's a step back in time, it should be heritage listed. You old fogeys should be applauding!

John Smith wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 8:00pm:

Fd doesn't care.

why dont we just make a new forum and all migrate there then? can no one agree on who gets to be the admin? i mean it's understandable there's a lot of power hungry freaks here

JC Denton wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 9:01pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 8:00pm: Fd doesn't care.  why dont we just make a new forum and all migrate there then? can no one agree on who gets to be the admin? i mean it's understandable there's a lot of power hungry freaks here

You're always welcome to join Monk's forum. The software is far superior to here. The problem is to many nut cases on power trips that won't join just because it's Monk's. 

John Smith wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 9:43pm:

JC Denton wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 9:01pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 8:00pm: Fd doesn't care.  why dont we just make a new forum and all migrate there then? can no one agree on who gets to be the admin? i mean it's understandable there's a lot of power hungry freaks here You're always welcome to join Monk's forum. The software is far superior to here. The problem is to many nut cases on power trips that won't join just because it's Monk's.

an alt site can only work if we get a total migration going, otherwise itll never be the same

JC Denton wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 9:47pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 9:43pm: JC Denton wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 9:01pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 8:00pm: Fd doesn't care.  why dont we just make a new forum and all migrate there then? can no one agree on who gets to be the admin? i mean it's understandable there's a lot of power hungry freaks here You're always welcome to join Monk's forum. The software is far superior to here. The problem is to many nut cases on power trips that won't join just because it's Monk's.  an alt site can only work if we get a total migration going, otherwise itll never be the same

Mong tried to get people in this forum to join his forum only a few rusted on old leftists did.

Those who are members of Mongs forum spend more time posting here than over at his shithole

Setanta wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 6:52pm:

Frank wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 6:39pm: I click on your link and i get Grappler's post with the Oppenheimer still. It leads me to the first post in Australian Politics Forum › General Discussion › General Board › high price tag for nuclear", perhaps that may help your angst and show the graph?

I clicked on your link. It took me to the 10th post on that thread

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1719178624/10#10

Setanta wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 6:17pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 11:46am: Frank wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 11:38am: freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 10:26am: AusGeoff wrote on Feb 26th, 2024 at 4:37am: Quote: “We don’t have a nuclear industry in Australia, it will take years to get one up and running, years, decades". Seriously Mr Bowen? Australia's uranium has been mined since 1954, and our uranium reserves are the world's largest, with 28% of the total. Re Dutton's stance, it's ironic that Gough Whitlam's Labor party was in favour of developing nuclear power generation in Australia until the tree-huggers of the day kyboshed it.   Sadly. It might have been a good idea back then. But since then, nuclear has gone from the cheapest to the most expensive option. Does that makes sense to you? What/who makes you think it went from cheapest to most expensive in 50 years?  Apart from Chris Bowen. https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1719178624 The BoA part of that article where it states the following should be looked at: [quote]Bank of America (2023)[edit] In 2023, Bank of America conducted a LCOE study in which it postulated that existing LCOE estimates for renewables do not account for fossil fuel or battery backup and therefore levelized full system cost of electricity (LFSCOE) would be a more reasonable metric to compare sources in terms of providing 24/7 consumer electricity.[87] LCOE      LFSCOE(Texas, US)    LFSCOE(Germany, EU) Nuclear      82      122      106 Wind        40      291      504 Solar         36      413      1548 Biomass      95      117      104 Coal      76             90      78 Gas      38             40      35

Nuclear dosn't look so bad taking more factors into consideration.

Edit: For those that think in terms 3 eyed fish etc and still support coal should read this.[/quote]

Taking more factors into account?

Do you know how to store nuclear waste until it is no longer dangerous, and how much that would cost? Because no-one else seems to. They all seem happy to get the power today and let their grandchildren deal with the radioactive waste.


Frank wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 6:39pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 5:40pm: Frank wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 2:24pm: freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 1:56pm: Frank wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 11:51am: freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 11:46am: Frank wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 11:38am: freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 10:26am: AusGeoff wrote on Feb 26th, 2024 at 4:37am: Quote: “We don’t have a nuclear industry in Australia, it will take years to get one up and running, years, decades". Seriously Mr Bowen? Australia's uranium has been mined since 1954, and our uranium reserves are the world's largest, with 28% of the total. Re Dutton's stance, it's ironic that Gough Whitlam's Labor party was in favour of developing nuclear power generation in Australia until the tree-huggers of the day kyboshed it.   Sadly. It might have been a good idea back then. But since then, nuclear has gone from the cheapest to the most expensive option. Does that makes sense to you? What/who makes you think it went from cheapest to most expensive in 50 years?  Apart from Chris Bowen. https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1719178624 Ok, apart from Bowen and Grappler. Do you not know how to read a graph? There is no graph at that post, only a still from Oppenheimer. Are you high? If so, the coalition needs you on their team. Your site is ****ed, FD, a laggy, dungfired dinosaur of a board. I click on your link and i get Grappler's post with the Oppenheimer still. It has been poined out to you dozens of times that your site is laggy, it doesn't display the latest post - that's why people post empties and flips to chivvie it along. What have you done about it? Nuffin'. You ask me if I am high.  Pull your finger out, pal, fix your antiquated, wood fired old site. You earn an income from us, meager as it is and diminishing by the day. For FFFF's Sake.

Coming down hard eh?

Frank wrote on Jun 28^th, 2024 at 9:10am:

Setanta wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 6:52pm: Frank wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 6:39pm: I click on your link and i get Grappler's post with the Oppenheimer still. It leads me to the first post in Australian Politics Forum › General Discussion › General Board › high price tag for nuclear", perhaps that may help your angst and show the graph? I clicked on your link. It took me to the 10th post on that thread https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1719178624/10#10

Does anyone else get this? If I hover over the link I posted it does not have the /10#10 bit in it.

JC Denton wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 7:56pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 7:37pm: XenForo is good, is what my fine forum runs on. Will be a big job but I would toss in a few bucks if that helps. We will need the patience of Job but definitely be worth it in the end. it would be nice if we could have a search function that worked and post (up to 100 ) pages that go over the current amount so reading through any thread wasnt so frustrating xenforo would rule

Indeed it would! Be worth paying a bit more and getting the extended search function. Be nice to be able to post more than 5000 words per post. With real forum software be no need for a dedicated server.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 28^th, 2024 at 10:46am:

JC Denton wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 7:56pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 27th, 2024 at 7:37pm: XenForo is good, is what my fine forum runs on. Will be a big job but I would toss in a few bucks if that helps. We will need the patience of Job but definitely be worth it in the end. it would be nice if we could have a search function that worked and post (up to 100 ) pages that go over the current amount so reading through any thread wasnt so frustrating xenforo would rule Indeed it would! Be worth paying a bit more and getting the extended search function. Be nice to be able to post more than 5000 words per post. With real forum software be no need for a dedicated server.

don't forget post reactions, increased avatar limits, the ability to embed tweets, the ability to more easily embed urls in text, etc. this place is a dinosaur.

Having a debate about energy costs is vital because if they continue to rise it will cripple industry and further beggar the poor. The starting point should be serious scrutiny of the cost of the renewables-dominant system the government favours and what it will do to the retail price of power.

Recall Labor’s pledge to cut power bills rested on the dubious claim that wholesale electricity prices would fall because when wind and solar generate it, the fuel is free.

This thesis was neatly summed up in the beginnings of an energy haiku penned by Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen.

“The sun and wind don’t send a bill.”

Alas, the retailer does, and prices keep going up.

Stephen Wilson, an Adjunct Professor in the School of Mechanical and Mining Engineering at the University of Queensland, has tackled this myth in a new report for the Institute of Public Affairs titled “The Ruinous Cost of Free Energy”.

He points out what all energy ministers ignore: that the cost of wholesale electricity is not set by the lowest cost of generation on the National Electricity Market. It is set by the highest. And the size of the bill for consumers and taxpayers does not rest on the wholesale price alone. Australians will pay for the total system cost.

But even the wholesale electricity price won’t fall across a year under the government’s plan, because the frequent troughs of weather-dependent generation must be covered by something and whatever that something is will be expensive.

Wilson notes the cheapest system is the one we inherit, engineered in the 20th century on a foundation of low-cost mine-mouth coal.

Gas and energy expert Saul Kavonic says price spikes and scarcity in energy will cause manufacturing to be “unsustainable”.

“It can provide bulk electricity at a wholesale cost level in round numbers of about $50 per megawatt-hour (MWh) or in other words 5c per kilowatt-hour (kWh).”

With the retirement of coal, and the rise of wind and solar, the balance has shifted to an era where gas dominates price setting, as it fires up to cover renewable generation troughs. Even if gas only “meets the last megawatt of demand, it sets the spot price for all generators operating at that moment across the entire market”.

“(If) an extra unit of gas for the marginal generator is about $10 per gigajoule (GJ), then the wholesale electricity price at that moment will be about $100/MWh, which is 10c/kWh.” So, double what we once paid and entirely a function of covering the limitations of variable renewable energy.

The truth of Wilson’s thesis played out in what happened to the wholesale price during the recent cold, still nights, but this is just a halfway house on the road to ever more expensive power. The next phase will be worse.

“If the system is to be operated only on wind, solar and hydro power, with energy shuffled in and out of large and small storage assets and devices, the generation cost averaged across the energy for the total interconnected system will approach $200/MWh (20c/kWh) or more,” the report says.

“The further the system moves away from the inherited generation system in the coal-based ‘$50 cost zone’ through the gas-based ‘$100 cost zone’ and towards the wind- and solar-based ‘$200 cost zone’, the more the actual outcomes for final consumers are likely to escalate to even higher price levels.”

Wilson concludes that the lowest cost system is the one we have, and the next-lowest cost system is one built on new baseload power plants, whether they be coal or nuclear. And the focus of this entire debate should be: How do you generate zero-emissions energy without a catastrophic fall in living standards?

No doubt Wilson’s thesis will be furiously contested. But time will out. The truth will be written in your electricity bill.
Chris Uhlmann


The Ruinous Cost of Free Energy:
https://ipa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/IPA-Research-Report-The-Ruinous-Cost-of-Free-Energy-FINAL-July-2024.pdf

Renewable energy is rising in the world’s primary energy mix, hitting 14.6 per cent, and the share of fossil fuels is falling.

But look closely and the two reports committed what was once seen as the cardinal sin of journalism, burying the lede.

The big story wasn’t hard to spot; it was in the first line of the Energy Institute’s media release.

“Record global energy consumption, with coal and oil pushing fossil fuels and their emissions to record levels,” it said.

Fossil fuel consumption in the world’s primary energy mix did fall, by 0.4 per cent, but it still accounts for 81.5 per cent of the stuff that makes the world work. Oil production increased by 1.8 million barrels a day to reach a new high of 96 million barrels a day in 2023.

Let’s stick with the zeitgeist and put the good news on coal first. In Europe and North America coal consumption “has been in constant decline over the past 10 years”. But then, this: “Global coal production reached its highest-ever level, beating the previous high set the year before.”

“Whilst China is by far the largest consumer of coal (it beat its own record set in 2022 and now accounts for 56 per cent of the world’s total consumption), in 2023 India exceeded the combined consumption of Europe and North America for the first time ever,” the report says.

The only thing that is changing with coal is where it is burnt, and not much of anything has changed with the world’s consumption of oil. It all nets out to an increase in carbon emissions, exactly the opposite of what the world says it wants to do.
Chris Uhlmann

Quote:

Having a debate about energy costs...

Labor and the Greens implemented the cheapest, most economically rational way to reduce GHG emissions a decade ago. The coalition dumped it, and right now are trying to replace it with the most expensive option.

If Labor was truly against nuclear energy on principle, it would cancel any arrangements to purchase nuclear-powered submarines and it would dismantle the nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney.

However, we know Labor has no principles other than doing the bidding of the union thugs who fund them.

This appears to be the ultimate reason behind Labor’s anti-nuclear scare campaign.

Labor provides billions of dollars of grants, subsidies and incentives to support renewable energy investments.

Between them and the Coalition, this has cost taxpayers $29 billion in the past 10 years.

Labor enforces regulations and mandates which enforce a guaranteed market for renewable energy.

Industry superannuation funds controlled by Labor’s union bosses invest heavily in these renewables projects, and why not?

It’s underwritten by taxpayers thanks to Labor, guaranteeing a lucrative return for these union-controlled super funds.

These lucrative returns are then used to support the Labor Party with large donations.

It was no coincidence that in December 2023, union-controlled industry super funds demanded even more “favourable investment conditions” underwritten by taxpayers for the transition to net zero.

These funds included CBUS, chaired by former Labor treasurer Wayne Swan, and AustralianSuper, with close ties to former Labor prime minister Paul Keating.

I’ll highlight a few more union affiliations among the current Labor cabinet:

• Bill Shorten and the AWU
• Tony Burke and the SDA in New South Wales
• Don Farrell and the SDA in South Australia
• Katy Gallagher and the CPSU
• Pat Conroy – the CFMEU and the AMWU
• Richard Marles and the ACTU

It’s insidious how much unions have infiltrated this Parliament, and how it compromises good government.

This is a scam paid for by the Australian taxpayer with subsidies, and by Australian consumers with their record high energy bills.

Labor and its union masters don’t want this corrupt gravy train derailed by nuclear energy.

That’s why they’ve come out swinging against it, while once again showing their absolute contempt for the intelligence of the Australian people.

Fortunately, Australians are smart enough not to fall for Labor’s pathetic scare campaign of three-eyed fish memes.

Australians understand that nuclear power is safely used at 450 sites around the world in 32 countries.

Australia is the only advanced economy in the world which doesn’t make use of this proven technology, despite having at least a quarter of the planet’s proven uranium reserves.

This important natural advantage to Australia is being squandered.

It makes absolutely no sense that Australia – one of the world’s most energy-rich countries – is facing energy shortages this winter and has some of the highest energy prices in the world.

That is, unless you follow the money trail.

Labor and the unions are orchestrating a massive scam on the Australian people, and the price of it will be our economy and our standard of living.

This scam and the destruction it is causing must be exposed and stopped.

Nuclear energy is a beginning, but uranium is just one of Australia’s natural advantages.

We also have abundant reserves of coal and natural gas.

All of these natural advantages should be utilised in an independent energy policy that prioritises affordability and reliability over climate change ideology.

The Prime Minister’s inability to stand up to unions has been exposed by thugs like John Setka.

The Prime Minister’s weakness has been further exposed by Senator Payman, who has escaped any serious sanction for crossing the floor against Labor policy last week.

Why are we allowing this union-Labor renewables scam to happen?

Is it to arrest climate change by reducing carbon dioxide emissions?

Because if it is, that’s not working.

Global emissions continue to rise, another indicator of the union-Labor renewables scam.

They will rise no matter what Australia does, no matter how many coal mines and power stations we close, no matter how many wind turbines and solar panels pollute the Australian landscape.
https://x.com/PaulineHansonOz/status/1807688134060298405