As you say, will be interesting to see the response from the mainstream media about Dutton's vague uncosted plan....going on past experience I assume they will lap it up and think it is wonderful. 🙄
Where does he get the 'trillion' dollar cost of Labor's plan? Is that legit, or just a figure plucked out of the air (or from somewhere a bit darker! 😁 )
At a time when reality is a bit challenging Dutton offers us mermaids riding unicorns up to heaven, a far more alluring prospect than the gritty CSIRO version. Keep in mind that Nine, 7 and Murdoch are not media companies but political parties, hoping to continue running the country. While we’re distracted, gazing at the flying horses, they’ll decide what our lives look like.
Nice critique TD. Utterly contemptible how the duopoly treats the citizenry with utter contempt. I had missed Zali Steggal's post only I'd add Australia hasn't got a coherent govt, just a cabal with vested self-interests.
Further to John Quiggin’s point above, let’s not overlook the role of some of the more strategically disastrous decisions taken by the Albanese ALP that have enabled Dutton to disgorge this sac of effluence upon us.
1. So desperate to avoid a wedge, a panicked Albanese went along with Morrison’s folly and has now gone all-in on AUKUS. Once you open the nuclear Pandora’s Box, don’t be surprised to see the paid-for shills of climate inaction and corporate grift use it against and start to outmanoeuvre you.
Albanese may rail (with reason) against the irrationality of Dutton’s nuclear gambit, but by being culpable in undermining the Australian generalised anti-nuclear sentiment himself, he has both opened up the opportunity and made his own position more complicated. Expect the corporate media to work this angle.
2. A ‘circular nuclear economy’ was always going to be on the table as soon as AUKUS got green-lighted. Sovereign capability with nuclear propulsion very quickly facilitates the discussion about nuclear power generation, particularly with the public’s consciousness massaged by the MSM. If Dutton and his corporate backers get away with this scam, we shouldn’t be surprised when nuclear weapons are floated for consideration on how to best ‘deter Chinese aggression’. Sheridan and Harcher are probably already sweating up propaganda pieces for this.
3. The States will stand against the LNP’s cynical and dangerous scam re. nuclear reactors but face similar issues with the now ALP-endorsed AUKUS boondoggle. Nuclear waste disposal from submarines will be as much of a political hot potato as building nuclear power plants. It’s worth noting that no nuclear US or UK submarine has ever been effectively decommissioned and they are still sitting around in dockyards after all these years as the problem gets kicked down the road.
4. By failing to go harder on renewables, proffering a laughable testimony to
state capture with The Future Gas Strategy,
continuing to approve coal and gas projects, compounded with an abject failure to even address the fleecing permitted by exploitative tax and royalty scams Albanese has left the door wide open for the multinational fossil fuel companies to continue to dictate Australian climate, energy and environmental policy. The smarter commentators are right to call out Dutton’s ‘policy’ for what it is: a strategy to undermine investment in renewables and extend the gouging of Australia by multinational energy corporations, eager to squeeze every last dollar out of us with the collaboration of our supine, compliant and wretchedly incompetent political class.
JQ’s point about the pie in the sky status of CCS is spot on. It is either a gullible swallowing of blatantly misleading fossil fuel propaganda or a cynical, craven capitulation to yet more lies.
And shame on those so-called journalists, the corporate media lap dogs that mindlessly gobble up this ridiculous pig swill and report on it as if it were actual policy.
Thanks for this, Mal. I'm working on another piece that approaches this week's announcement from a broader angle and this will be part of it. I see Dutton's announcement as part of the general realignment going on with our politics, and the point you make here about the crossover between ALP and LNP policy is central. It is another example of how convential two-party analysis misleads us.
It is difficult to find authoritative information about nuclear power plants in Australia. As far as I know, neither the CSIRO nor the universities have have a core of direct experience in the field.
A valuable resource on mega projects, including nuclear power plants, is IPA Global - https://ipaglobal.com/
For example, this summary sounds a warning on costs and how long it will take to get going.
“ Nuclear projects data from IPA’s capital projects database show a median (half above/half below) cost overrun of 110 percent! The median execution schedule slip is 65 percent. By comparison, unsuccessful $500 million-plus megaprojects in other industrial sectors (chemicals, oil and gas, refining, etc.) have median cost growth and execution schedule slip of only about 30 percent”
Still leaves many potentially fatal flaws around infrastructure, fuel sourcing, waste disposal, operating capability …
While I’ve been against nuclear power in the past, I wonder if I was mistaken. I have family in the environmental assessment and regulation area in mining, and they say that renewables bring with them large enviro issues. Land clearing and area required being two, with wind turbines, while the erected footprint isn’t much when you take into account the cleared area for lay down plus in any sort of terrain the clearing required to get to site will be massive (Pilbara for starters) due to the size of the turbine blades which are around 30m a piece. On the fauna side they are a massive problem for bats and in the EU are said to kill 10s of thousands pa (without even considering birds). They’re having to consider shutting them down early evening and morning. Bats are a problem throughout the N of WA, NT & I’d guess QLD.
However, all that said I doubt Dutton has any intention of building 7 reactors. Imo this is just an avoidance policy to delay doing anything until it’s too late. I can’t help but feel that the rest of the world is going to backtrack on CO2 emissions and Dutton is hoping to catch this and use it as an excuse to avoid doing much at all.
Being an admitted hater, I hope the likes of Albanese, Dutton and every other pollie on the planet dies a horrible death; they all deserve it!
I think you touch on a good point: the issue isn't so much that the LNP are (allegedly) backing nuclear. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, even if you happen to disagree with it as a policy. The problem is that they have introduced it with absolutely no credible plan as to how it might work and you can't help, therefore, but doubt their bona fides, that this is a political play that has little to do with policy per se. At the end of the day, that's my objection to what happened this week: that the LNP hold us in such contempt they couldn't even be bothered to do the serious policy work necessary to pursue nuclear.
Patricia Karvelas calling it a “Blueprint” in the SMH did not help. That word infers there is detail and/or legitimacy. She then questioned it but the damage is done.
I didn't see that, but sheesh. By such sleights of hand do we (or they) normalise bullshit. Even framing it as "genius or insanity" is deceptive. There are other options.
The Simon Holmes à Court bit did not enlarge on clicking, just put all the points in a tiny column. I'm not an X person but no matter, I could come up with a long list myself.
Thanks again Tim for a good read. Worth the pennies I pay.
But, as Bernard Keane pointed out a while back, Labor's reliance on CCS to justify coal and gas exports is just as bad, or worse. CCS has a track record of near-total failure, whereas nuclear is just expensive and dangerous.
Tim, you give me hope, thank you.
Love Zali's tweet.
As you say, will be interesting to see the response from the mainstream media about Dutton's vague uncosted plan....going on past experience I assume they will lap it up and think it is wonderful. 🙄
Where does he get the 'trillion' dollar cost of Labor's plan? Is that legit, or just a figure plucked out of the air (or from somewhere a bit darker! 😁 )
She occasionally let's it rip. Very interesting. Anothery from yesterday if you can click on this
https://twitter.com/zalisteggall/status/1803224252403028051
At a time when reality is a bit challenging Dutton offers us mermaids riding unicorns up to heaven, a far more alluring prospect than the gritty CSIRO version. Keep in mind that Nine, 7 and Murdoch are not media companies but political parties, hoping to continue running the country. While we’re distracted, gazing at the flying horses, they’ll decide what our lives look like.
Look at today's media: Dutton dominates coverage. I suspect it will be a sugarhit though.
Nice critique TD. Utterly contemptible how the duopoly treats the citizenry with utter contempt. I had missed Zali Steggal's post only I'd add Australia hasn't got a coherent govt, just a cabal with vested self-interests.
Not sure that a promise to bring down power prices in 10-12 years is a great vote winner even if one could believe it.
Me neither, but I don't think that is the object of any of this. This is about dominating from minority, as I wrote a while back: https://tdunlop.substack.com/p/the-liberal-party-doesnt-need-a-majority?r=bhqa3&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true&fbclid=IwAR0KzIWvY0a35mzFq3t8DUS5Jo0qYnfUoNMwG-Atafc5-FzXqidOfmcUzxs
@Tim You are excused; 2nd post welcome
Great article as always, Tim.
Further to John Quiggin’s point above, let’s not overlook the role of some of the more strategically disastrous decisions taken by the Albanese ALP that have enabled Dutton to disgorge this sac of effluence upon us.
1. So desperate to avoid a wedge, a panicked Albanese went along with Morrison’s folly and has now gone all-in on AUKUS. Once you open the nuclear Pandora’s Box, don’t be surprised to see the paid-for shills of climate inaction and corporate grift use it against and start to outmanoeuvre you.
Albanese may rail (with reason) against the irrationality of Dutton’s nuclear gambit, but by being culpable in undermining the Australian generalised anti-nuclear sentiment himself, he has both opened up the opportunity and made his own position more complicated. Expect the corporate media to work this angle.
2. A ‘circular nuclear economy’ was always going to be on the table as soon as AUKUS got green-lighted. Sovereign capability with nuclear propulsion very quickly facilitates the discussion about nuclear power generation, particularly with the public’s consciousness massaged by the MSM. If Dutton and his corporate backers get away with this scam, we shouldn’t be surprised when nuclear weapons are floated for consideration on how to best ‘deter Chinese aggression’. Sheridan and Harcher are probably already sweating up propaganda pieces for this.
3. The States will stand against the LNP’s cynical and dangerous scam re. nuclear reactors but face similar issues with the now ALP-endorsed AUKUS boondoggle. Nuclear waste disposal from submarines will be as much of a political hot potato as building nuclear power plants. It’s worth noting that no nuclear US or UK submarine has ever been effectively decommissioned and they are still sitting around in dockyards after all these years as the problem gets kicked down the road.
4. By failing to go harder on renewables, proffering a laughable testimony to
state capture with The Future Gas Strategy,
continuing to approve coal and gas projects, compounded with an abject failure to even address the fleecing permitted by exploitative tax and royalty scams Albanese has left the door wide open for the multinational fossil fuel companies to continue to dictate Australian climate, energy and environmental policy. The smarter commentators are right to call out Dutton’s ‘policy’ for what it is: a strategy to undermine investment in renewables and extend the gouging of Australia by multinational energy corporations, eager to squeeze every last dollar out of us with the collaboration of our supine, compliant and wretchedly incompetent political class.
JQ’s point about the pie in the sky status of CCS is spot on. It is either a gullible swallowing of blatantly misleading fossil fuel propaganda or a cynical, craven capitulation to yet more lies.
And shame on those so-called journalists, the corporate media lap dogs that mindlessly gobble up this ridiculous pig swill and report on it as if it were actual policy.
Thanks for this, Mal. I'm working on another piece that approaches this week's announcement from a broader angle and this will be part of it. I see Dutton's announcement as part of the general realignment going on with our politics, and the point you make here about the crossover between ALP and LNP policy is central. It is another example of how convential two-party analysis misleads us.
While the msm will take the low road, down there with China and subs furphies, your article is a compelling reason to renew my subscription.
Thanks, Kevin.
It is difficult to find authoritative information about nuclear power plants in Australia. As far as I know, neither the CSIRO nor the universities have have a core of direct experience in the field.
A valuable resource on mega projects, including nuclear power plants, is IPA Global - https://ipaglobal.com/
This paper is on topic
https://ipaglobal.com/news/article/weak-project-systems-imperil-next-generation-nuclear-projects/
For example, this summary sounds a warning on costs and how long it will take to get going.
“ Nuclear projects data from IPA’s capital projects database show a median (half above/half below) cost overrun of 110 percent! The median execution schedule slip is 65 percent. By comparison, unsuccessful $500 million-plus megaprojects in other industrial sectors (chemicals, oil and gas, refining, etc.) have median cost growth and execution schedule slip of only about 30 percent”
Still leaves many potentially fatal flaws around infrastructure, fuel sourcing, waste disposal, operating capability …
Thanks for the links.
While I’ve been against nuclear power in the past, I wonder if I was mistaken. I have family in the environmental assessment and regulation area in mining, and they say that renewables bring with them large enviro issues. Land clearing and area required being two, with wind turbines, while the erected footprint isn’t much when you take into account the cleared area for lay down plus in any sort of terrain the clearing required to get to site will be massive (Pilbara for starters) due to the size of the turbine blades which are around 30m a piece. On the fauna side they are a massive problem for bats and in the EU are said to kill 10s of thousands pa (without even considering birds). They’re having to consider shutting them down early evening and morning. Bats are a problem throughout the N of WA, NT & I’d guess QLD.
However, all that said I doubt Dutton has any intention of building 7 reactors. Imo this is just an avoidance policy to delay doing anything until it’s too late. I can’t help but feel that the rest of the world is going to backtrack on CO2 emissions and Dutton is hoping to catch this and use it as an excuse to avoid doing much at all.
Being an admitted hater, I hope the likes of Albanese, Dutton and every other pollie on the planet dies a horrible death; they all deserve it!
I think you touch on a good point: the issue isn't so much that the LNP are (allegedly) backing nuclear. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, even if you happen to disagree with it as a policy. The problem is that they have introduced it with absolutely no credible plan as to how it might work and you can't help, therefore, but doubt their bona fides, that this is a political play that has little to do with policy per se. At the end of the day, that's my objection to what happened this week: that the LNP hold us in such contempt they couldn't even be bothered to do the serious policy work necessary to pursue nuclear.
Patricia Karvelas calling it a “Blueprint” in the SMH did not help. That word infers there is detail and/or legitimacy. She then questioned it but the damage is done.
I didn't see that, but sheesh. By such sleights of hand do we (or they) normalise bullshit. Even framing it as "genius or insanity" is deceptive. There are other options.
*ABC news, not SMH! https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-20/nuclear-dutton-coalition-unanswered-questions-beak-rules/104000664?utm_source=abc_news_app&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_app&utm_content=link
The Simon Holmes à Court bit did not enlarge on clicking, just put all the points in a tiny column. I'm not an X person but no matter, I could come up with a long list myself.
Thanks again Tim for a good read. Worth the pennies I pay.
Bugger, sorry about that. I tested it before I sent and it worked ok, but battle plans don't also survive the war, or whatever that expression is!
lol: Helmuth von Moltke 1800–91
Prussian military commander
No plan of operations reaches with any certainty beyond the first encounter with the enemy's main force.
Looks like the link to Nick’s tweet goes to Twitter’s bookmarks page. Here’s a direct link:
https://x.com/NickFeik/status/1803234631682236770
Thanks, I'll change it.
But, as Bernard Keane pointed out a while back, Labor's reliance on CCS to justify coal and gas exports is just as bad, or worse. CCS has a track record of near-total failure, whereas nuclear is just expensive and dangerous.