It is worthwhile starting this description by repeating the slogan, that if an energy transition does not reduce emissions, then it is not worth doing. Even if its cheap and innovative.
In a previous blog, I have tried to demonstrate that Peter Dutton has made a major mistake by saying that “energy is the economy”, and ignoring all the other factors that make the economy.
Dutton also seems to point to a major weakness in his own nuclear argument saying:
The Coalition’s energy policy is the only plan for cheaper, cleaner and consistent energy.
This is an odd argument to make when many people have pointed out the problems with this:
There is no costing of nuclear energy being given by Dutton and his party at all. This implies they do not know for sure it is cheaper.
They merely assert it must be less costly than renewables.
However, we have costings for Renewables from reputable sources that insist they are cheaper than nukes [1], [2], [3, 4] and costs of Renewables has been decreasing.
In the last 20 or so years the costs of nuclear have regularly turned out to be much greater than the builders estimated. Some projects have been discontinued because of this unexpected extra cost, and there can be no guarantee that the next set of projections will not be under-estimates as well.
This greater than expected cost requires an increased the price of electricity to pay the extra cost back.
Claims of cheapness are merely optimism about nuclear and pessimism about everything else.
There are people and companies wanting to build renewables, but Dutton claims that nuclear will have to be paid for by the taxpayers. Any mistakes or bad planning will be costs to taxpayers and there is no competition.
There is no evidence that any private enterprise is even vaguely interested in taking on the costs and dangers of building.
Then, we are trying to build at least 7-14 reactors at the same time. Just as large amounts of normal building cause price increases due to materials and labour shortages, so we can expect such increases from building reactors simultaneously. The only countries with experience of building large numbers of reactors together, at the moment, are China and Russia, and it is probably unlikely that Australians wish to entangle their energy future with either of those countries.
Nuclear also has ongoing costs, not just of keeping complicated systems functional and avoiding fat tail accidents, but of mining, fuel provision, transport and waste disposal.
More importantly, Dutton ignores the time factor:
He makes a big deal of energy costs now (which is high all over the world for many reasons) but nuclear energy would not arrive for at least 15 years (at the very best) and time of construction blow outs seem normal, given other people’s experience, so its likely to be later still.
Therefore, even in the unlikely event nuclear reactors will provide cheap energy, this cheapness is hardly going to relieve price issues now.
We don’t know how long any particular nuclear reactor can exist before the probability of danger overwhelms the probability of benefit. He is estimating 80 years. That is not 80 years of continual action as they need servicing, and at the end of life the cost of decommissioning is usually very expensive and takes a long time. These costs should be factored into the upfront costs rather than being ignored.
Without increasing immediate emissions-reducing power, like renewables, then nuclear will not help reduce emissions, because fossil fuels will have to be used to make up the decline in energy supply as coal phases out. If we don’t start reducing emissions now, then they will accumulate and make climate change worse.
Dutton also ignores the systemic nature of energy.
Even 16 nuclear energy sources will make up a small part of the system, especially by the time they are built, unless we reduce energy usage significantly.
Because they are a small part of the system, even if they were incredibly cheap, it is probably unlikely they will reduce energy prices.
If Australia expands its energy consumption, which is pretty likely, then it almost certainly will need more cabling, even if the nuclear stations use the old coal wires. So one of his arguments for cheapness is likely to be wrong, and the idea that no new cables will be needed shows the inability of the Coalition to look at the system as a whole.
So given this nuclear program is unlikely to reduce emissions, or produce cheaper electricity for a long time, if ever, the main plan for justification is to attack renewables and contemporary prices.
Prices only slowly rose under the Coalition and are massively expensive under Labor. This could be true, but its easy to keep electricity prices even, if you are not doing anything at all to reduce emissions, and think that increasing emissions is actually ok because you deny climate change. He adds to alarm.
The Albanese Government has us on a path towards the hollowing-out of industry and business in our country….. And it’s all because a weak Prime Minister is making decisions aimed at stopping Labor voters defecting to the Greens.,… Labor’s energy policy train wreck is only making it more vital that we include nuclear.
I don’t think anyone with any political awareness, could seriously think Labor is trying to take over Green’s policies. But it does seem from this, that Dutton’s arguments depend on exaggerated rhetoric
Nowhere in the world has a renewables-only policy worked.
This may be true, although people disagree, South Australia will likely shortly become mainly renewables with some gas firming, but no one, certainly not the Labor party is aiming for a Renewables only policy. The question is whether nuclear is the best form of emissions reduction.
He argues:
Germany too has invested heavily in renewables.
Wind and solar account for more than 30 per cent of its mix. But when Russia invaded Ukraine and cut off gas supplies to Europe, Germany was left in a precarious position. It ramped-up its coal-fired power generation.
This shows what many people have said previously, that Germany’s energiewende depended way too heavily on coal, lignite and gas (partly because it did phase out nuclear and energy corporations went for the cheaper and more profitable option of heavily polluting lignite), and Germany should never have made the decision to depend on overseas supplied gas, especially from Russia. However, since then Germany has attempted to boost its Renewable Capacity. It is certainly not going back to nuclear.
As we said earlier the point of the energy transition is not cheapness, although renewables seem cheaper than nuclear, it is emissions reduction. This is almost the only thing that counts. But of course the Coalition use the well known drug dealers defense – ‘We sell good drugs’ – as
[products] will be produced in other countries with weaker environmental standards than Australia.
One interesting part of this speech is that Dutton is almost claiming that nuclear can work with renewables,
The Coalition… sees renewables and nuclear as companions – not competitors, as Labor does.
rather than repeating his earlier position that large-scale renewables will be suppressed and fossil fuels increased to make up for the suppression. How far we can trust this really is a change of anything other than camouflage is uncertain.
The other argument he makes is that renewables are unpopular.
From Bunbury on the west coast to Port Stephens on the east coast, furious residents are protesting offshore wind farms due to their impacts on fishing, tourism and livelihoods….In February and September, farmers flocked to Canberra to rally against the roll-out of industrial scale renewables and transmission lines on their prime agricultural land.
It is correct that there is resistance to wind (in particular), although much of it seems to be about neoliberal implementation practices and lack of consultation or explanation. However there is a political force and encouragement over these protests from the Coalition and from oil company think tanks, and the Coalition, perhaps unsurprisingly, is not interested in encouraging dissent against offshore or onshore mining, that could destroy bore water supplies harm fishing, tourism and so on. Dutton has previously made clear that no protest will be acceptable over nuclear because of “national interest”.
The question arises could Australia use nuclear energy? The answer is clearly yes, but it has to be done along with increasing renewable energy. OR emissions will not decrease, and money is being thrown away for nothing.
By itself nuclear is just expensive and slow to get up. It will need subsidies, if power is to remain cheap and available, whatever the Coalition argue.
There is no point in building 7 nukes, that will almost certainly not produce enough energy to make a difference.
Nuclear is also experimental in the sense that we do not know what will happen when a country with no nuclear power plants tries to build 14 or so at the same time.
More importantly than providing baseload, we need to deal with the problem that large scale solar will produce massive amounts of excess energy which has to be stored. Storage is the number one problem for emissions reduction. If we get enough storage then we might not need ‘baseload.’ However it is also correct we do not know if this is possible at the moment, it just looks probable.
Any kind of transition which actually lowers emissions will be costly, that includes nuclear. To pretend otherwise is dishonest. This possible dishonesty is especially marked when the Coalition have not produced any costings and have simply denied everyone else’s costings with no evidence. Saying that they:
will release our costings in due course – at a time of our choosing. Not at Chris Bowen’s or Anthony Albanese’s choosing – but our choosing
simply implies their costings have been difficult at best, or they want to make sure these costings are not open to long, careful criticism.
Dutton concludes:
Let me conclude on this point; we can’t switch nuclear power on tomorrow – even if the ban is lifted.
Like other countries, we need to ramp-up domestic gas production in the more immediate term to get power prices down and restore stability to our grid.
I think that statement renders the position clear, For the Coalition, nuclear functions to increase emissions now and, likely, forever. Presumably we don’t challenge petrol for cars either. There is no talk of the electrification of everything, or of reducing emissions from other sources. The aim seems to be to keep fossil fuels burning and emissions up.
If there is, as he claims, something visionary about this plan, it is spending lots of money, not changing and everything being ok, probably because climate change is unreal and fossil fuel company profits must be maintained.
The Leader of the Australian Coalition and opposition party made a recent speech I will be returning to. In this post I simply want to discuss a basic error that he opens with, which I think is dangerous.
He starts
Energy isn’t part of the economy.
Energy is the economy.
He attributes the remark to conservative journalist Chris Ullman and the statement could originate with Vaclav Smil, so this is a borrowed and considered statement, not a brain fart.
However, it is pretty obviously not true. Drop a nuclear bomb on Sydney, will any of that energy make an economy, improve Sydney’s economy or make Sydney’s people (as a whole) prosperous? No. It is more likely to immediately destroy processes than to immediately improve them.
Energy is not the economy, energy is vital to and limiting of economies.
It would seem vital to understand that economies and energy come along with:
Social organisation, labour, relations of power and relations of access to energy. These influence the way social wealth is distributed and inhibited. Control over resources such as energy and riches, gives people and organisations power to influence and pattern markets and other parts of society.
Available and directable energy. Unavailable and chaotic energy is rarely beneficial unless ordered and processed. As we have learnt recently, energy can be made unavailable to increase profits and lock in production.
Time constraints. Food has to be eaten before decay. Building something might take too long for it to be useful, when compared to the speed of the threat arising. How quickly can two different processes adjust to change?
Entropy, waste, pollution, increasing disorganisation, or illth. Economies always produce waste and usually produce ‘harms’. Economies can cause levels of destruction which overwhelm their ability to function. The more energy they have, the more destruction and alteration they are capable of.
Transport of goods (requires energy), so they can be traded.
Ecologies, land, food (which is energy), water, resources, and climate. It is best when the ecologies are working in a relatively harmonious systemic way, with humans and each other. A decaying ecology leads to a decaying economy. Ecologies are probably never completely balanced, but hugely unstable ecologies (often as disrupted by humans) are hard, and costly, to live within.
The ways we socially think about and imagine energy, and the way it is used to benefit human life. We may tend to think some apparently unreal energies are real, and that some energy sources are more powerful than they are.
in summary, The Economy is not just energy, but involves a system of systems, which depends on other systems. We have to keep all those systems working reasonably well for survival
These multiple interactions are vital points for understanding an economy, but people generally seem to want to ignore them. The question is why is Mr. Dutton enthusiastic about ignoring them?
I think he tends to answer this in his next passage, which in summary states.
If energy is cheap then all is well. If it is expensive then:
Our manufacturers pay more to produce and package goods.
Our builders pay more to construct homes.
High power prices have inflationary impacts across the economy.
Higher costs are passed on to Australians.
You end up paying more for every product, good and service.
Cheap and consistent energy is critical for more affordable lives and a more prosperous economy.
This is only true if we reduce the complexity of the economy, and refuse to ask what are the consequences of this cheap energy production? What are the power relations in the economy – who gets cheap energy? How destructive is the energy production – what does its pollution do? How available and directable is most of the energy? lots can be wasted. What effects does it have on the rest of the energy system? Does it interfere with other needed energy? What effects, long and short term, does it have on ecologies? How do we think about that energy?
These points make the economy more complex but also more real.
Peter Dutton then asserts that nuclear power is cheap, available and low illth.
He does this by:
Ignoring any costings whatsoever, or any need to pay back huge public expenditure through increasing the cost of electricity or something else.
Ignoring the time taken for construction and development, and what the state of the electricity system will be by the time nuclear is constructed.
Ignoring the issues and costs of waste, breakdown, servicing, decommissioning etc
Ignoring the magical socio-psychological appeals of nuclear. Can 7 to 14 nukes really save Australia from energy problems? Will they both replace coal that is going out of business and provided the extra energy we will need by 2050? (No, they are not even enough to replace the lost coal, it is only because nuclear seems magically powerful that this question can be avoided).
Dutton is still talking about SMRs which do not exist commercially and which are less powerful than standard nukes. This would imply these imaginings have a magical hold on him.
Ignoring any other effects nuclear may have on the economy, ecology, or energy supply, and
Discouraging low-cost low-GHG sources of energy, This discouragement will increase the use of gas and hence the production of GHG emissions.
Even assuming that his “hidden data” does make energy cheap. then a change in energy systems which does not reduce GHGs is not worth the money. So we need to know whether nuclear increases pollution and destruction and so on.
We expect a right wing politician to say the economy is society or that it is the important part of society because it makes business the essential part of society, but saying that we don’t need to think about the effects of different types of energies, involves ignoring everything important to human life and not being prepared for the potentially harmful interaction between systems.
Climate scientists say the cuts should be at least 50% by 2030, it would be better if they were 75%.
The Coalition opposition wants to abandon all 2030 targets so emissions can increase freely. It hopes all necessary emissions reduction will happen between 2040 and 2050 because of 7 nuclear power stations. This is impossible without massive cuts in Australian energy use.
The idea of a carbon budget calculates a ‘fair’ level of total GHGs that can be emitted for a country to avoid 1.5C or 2C of warming. The Climate Targets Panel,says Australia has a carbon budget of up to 10.1bn tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions between 2013 and 2050 to help keep heating below 2C.
At current rats of GHG emissions (2024), Australia will have consumed its carbon budget for 1.5C in less than 5 years.
And it will have consumed its carbon budget for 2.0C in about 11 years.
This is according to figures from the Commonwealth Department of Industry and Resources, Climate Change Authority, and Guardian Australia
Current Emissions Reduction
The currently claimed emissions reductions almost completely stem from land use change, which is fairly contentious and hard to measure. However, if those emissions are removed, then it looks as though the emissions reductions since 2005 are trivial.
The emissions from the Australian economy (including electricity, industry, transport, agriculture and waste) have decreased about 2.5% since 2005. This low level of reduction is not unexpected as the Coalition, has ruled over most of this period.
As well, the emissions produced by burning Australian Coal and Gas, overseas is not included in these counts. For example according to the Resources and Energy Quarterly, National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Australian Energy Statistics, and the IPCC, Australian emissions from black coal are about 156.7 billion tonnes and emissions from Australian black coal sold overseas are 864.4 billion tonnes.
Consequences
2023 was a record-breaking year for average temperatures in Australia and the world, and 2024 has been hotter again, so far.
Global surface temperature of the sea has so far been hotter in 2024 than in 2023, which is the hottest year ever recorded.
In the past 18 months, the extent of sea ice (in millions of kilometres) in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica. have been well below anything previously recorded.
A Table of Australian events which probably were worsened by climate change (Stops at 2020, missing massive floods and further bushfires)
Event
Type of Event
Location
Effect of climate change
Australian bushfires, 2019-20
Wildfire
South-east Australia
More severe or more likely to occur
Queensland fire weather, 2018
Wildfire
Queensland, Australia
More severe or more likely to occur
New South Wales hottest summer, 2017
Heat
New South Wales, Southeastern Australia
More severe or more likely to occur
Northern Australia marine heatwave, 2016
Oceans
Off Northern Australia
More severe or more likely to occur
Western Australia severe frosts, September 2016
Cold
Western Australia
More severe or more likely to occur
Extratropical Australia wildfire risk, 2015-16
Wildfire
Australia
More severe or more likely to occur
Record Australian heat event of October 2015
Heat
Australia
More severe or more likely to occur
South of Australia “exceptional” air pressures, August 2014
Atmosphere
Off Southern Australia
More severe or more likely to occur
Australia high temperatures, spring 2014
Heat
Australia
More severe or more likely to occur
Australia heatwave, May 2014
Heat
Australia
More severe or more likely to occur
Australia record summer temperatures, 2013
Heat
Australia
More severe or more likely to occur
Australia & tropical Pacific warm anomalies, 2013
Heat
Australia & far west Pacific
More severe or more likely to occur
Eastern Australia record heat
Heat
Eastern inland Australia
More severe or more likely to occur
Australia record hot September, 2013
Heat
Australia
More severe or more likely to occur
Australia record temperatures, 2013
Heat
Australia
More severe or more likely to occur
Australia hot summer, 2012-13
Heat
Australia
More severe or more likely to occur
Fitzroy river flooding, 2010
Rain & flooding
Queensland, Australia
Decrease, less severe or less likely to occur
Global temperatures and rainfall extremes, 1951-2005
Heat
Europe, North America, Asia, Australia, and the Northern Hemisphere
More severe or more likely to occur
Australian “Millennium Drought”, mid-1990s to late 2000s
BNEF has just released a paper called “Australia’s nuclear-powered distraction threatens net zero” I will link to it as soon as I can find a link. This is based upon articles about the article
Summary
The issue is not really whether a case could be made for nuclear in Australia, but whether the Coalition policies will deliver:
More emissions, and
More expensive electricity.
That would seem to be the case from the mess of their policy, and their repeated requirement that we trust them to give details after the election.
The plan, even if completely successful will certainly not add that much to Australia’s energy supply, and there is no point going with small amounts of nuclear if we are going to increase emissions through rolling back on renewables.
Political Obstructions?
Despite nuclear energy technology having been banned in Australia since 1998, under Coalition PM, John Howard, with three of the high population states also banning it, the federal Coalition opposition has proposed seven sites for nuclear plants which they claim could be operational as soon as 2035, which is improbable. As Bloomberg states, it will be “a slow and challenging” effort to overturn existing bans, and to force people to accept nukes on the sites selected without consultation.
Nuclear is expensive
Nuclear could reduce emissions, but it is usually a very expensive technology in markets with limited experience, unsupportive politics and uncertain regulation — such as Australia. We have already mentioned that cost overruns are normal even with experienced builders. Another problem is that people cannot be held to contract prices as we do not want cheaply built and unsafe reactors, so we have to assume they are not deliberately underquoting.
Renewables are cheaper and easier
The usual estimates are that renewables are cheaper than Nuclear. Bloomberg said that going by existing nuclear industries in western nations, the cost would be “at least four times greater than the average” for Australian wind and solar plants with storage today.
Furthermore, Australia has plenty of wind and solar resources with large areas of semi-vacant land, and lots of people vying to build wind or solar power. There appears, as yet, to be no one volunteering to build nuclear in Australia, certainly not seven power stations worth by 2035.
To repeat, SMRs do not exist commercially so we have no idea what they would cost, or how much energy they would produce. So it is pointless budgeting for them.
Australia’s coal fired power stations will largely be phased out by 2035. So, to avoid power supply shortfalls and high electricity bills between the gradual shutting down of coal energy and the beginning of nuclear, we have to increase renewables and energy storage. If we do not do this, then electricity prices will increase massively or emissions from Gas will increase.
Nuclear will also add significantly to the costs of energy. To pay off the huge capital investment, which it seems will be carried by taxpayers, prices will have to rise.
Conclusion
if the debate serves as a distraction from scaling-up policy support for renewable energy investment, it will sound the death knell for decarbonisation ambitions – the only reason for Australia to consider going nuclear in the first place.
1) There is no costing at all, except for claiming it is cheaper than Labor’s renewable plan. The CSIRO’s costing are just officially denied. We have no idea of the cost and are not promised a costing.
2) The costs and time frames of nuclear energy production, are notoriously under-estimated even by experienced builders. Australia has never built a nuclear power station, and we are now to build 7 of them (simultaneously?), so we can assume any estimate is an under-estimate.
3) Given that no Australian company will be able to build them, then most of the money for building and supplies will go overseas.
4) The plans seems completely inadequate. The energy generated by seven nukes will not replace the energy from the coal fired power stations that are closing down. On top of that, they clearly cannot supply the extra energy the country may require.
5) Commercially available SMRs are currently hopeful fictions. They may produce about a third of the energy of standard nuclear energy stations. We have no idea what they will cost to build.
6) Dutton apparently thinks a drawing of a building is the same as a ‘concept design’, so his pronouncements that SMRs are viable are hopeful fantasies.
7) The Dutton plan does not care about emissions reduction, and the only reason for altering the energy system is because of the need to reduce emissions. If a plan does not reduce emissions significantly it is a waste of money.
8) There are no plans to reduce emissions from transport or farming.
9) The Dutton plan also seems to involve the suppression of large scale renewables.
10) This suppression plus the inadequacy of the number of reactors, pretty much guarantees that methane burning, and its emissions, will increase to provide the necessary energy.
11) Dutton will scrap the 2030 emissions reduction targets, breaking his own government’s previous agreements at the Paris COP. This, again, illustrates the plan’s lack of concern about emissions reduction. Supposedly net zero will occur after the reactors are built, even though the reactors do not provide significant reduction, gas burning will increase emissions, and other sources of reduction are not being mentioned.
12) Hence it seems plausible to assume that the idea has nothing to do with emissions reduction, other than to distract from it. Therefore it is a complete waste of money, no matter how cheap it is.
13) The Dutton plan for people’s resistance to nuclear is simply to ignore it and suppress it by force or bribery of particular people. However, the Coalition encourages opposition to renewables.
14) There is no comprehensive plan for waste disposal. We can worry about that later.
15) There is no evidence that the proposed sites have enough water for cooling, or that the local environment can handle the heating from taking waste heat.
16) Taxpayers will be responsible for the entire life-time costs of the reactors. It is not clear whether tax payers will get all the profits. Renewable energy is largely financed by the private sector.
17) The economic benefits are asserted rather than proven and would apply to renewables all over the country as well.
18) The Nuclear plan is unlikely to reduce the cost of electricity at all. It will most likely it will boost the price, by stopping the expansion of cheaper low emissions sources, and being inadequate to what is required.
19) Again the nuclear plan will not set Australia on course for net-zero by 2050, or even reduce emissions in any real sense.
It is a complete waste of money and effort, for no obvious benefit.
See the two previous posts on the Australian Coalition’s nuclear energy policy for documentation
The quick summary is that the Coalition’s nuclear plan will not significantly add to energy availability or emissions reduction in Australia. It will, however, cost a lot.
Peter Dutton, the leader of the Australian Opposition, has declared that he has released the policy which will make Australia Nuclear if the Coalition get into government.
The first thing to note is that his policy release is completely uncosted, despite the main scientific organisation in Australia, saying that nuclear would be at least 50% more expensive than solar and wind and would not be available any sooner than 2040, and previous attacks on CSIRO estimates by the Coalition, with the CSIRO denying those attacks had any validity. Oddly perhaps if Labor released uncosted policies that simply ignored the costings by the CSIRO, then the Coalition and Murdoch media would be jumping up and down in dismay, shouting about irresponsibility. But not now.
Some costs for the newest design large scale reactors:
Construction cost experience with generation 3 nuclear projects in US and Europe
AGL Energy’s CEO Damien Nicks said “There is no viable schedule for the regulation or development of nuclear energy in Australia, and the cost, build time and public opinion are all prohibitive…. Policy certainty is important for companies like AGL and ongoing debate on the matter runs the risk of unnecessarily complicating the long-term investment decisions necessary for the energy transition.””
Andrew Forrest, says “I simply want to see fossil fuels removed from Australia’s energy mix as soon as possible, but as an industrialist, I’ve looked at nuclear and it does not stack up,”
Kyle Mangini, of IMF investments, said it was “virtually impossible” for the private sector to take on the financial risk of building nuclear reactors without taxpayer subsidies. “If you look at where the nuclear facilities are being built globally, they’re almost in all cases being built by governments,” adding “”In Australia, there’s never been a nuclear facility built, so there’s no skilled labour force.”
As we proceed it will become reasonable to suspect that the main aim of the plan is to stop renewables, and keep the fossil fuels burning. The leader of the National party David Littleproud.. [said]
“We want to send the investment signals that there is a cap on where [the Coalition] will go with renewables and where we will put them…. Earlier on Monday [he] told ABC radio the Coalition’s energy policy will show investors Australia doesn’t need “large-scale industrial windfarms, whether they be offshore or onshore”.
As well the Coalition will drop all 2030 targets, and so encourage the build up of emissions, even if they make the 2050 target. The whole point of the change in energy is to reduce GHG emissions. It is doubtful whether this proposed change will do much if anything to reduce those emissions, and emissions reduction is urgent. Over the last year, much to many scientists surprise the average temperature has crossed 1.5 degrees C, reaching 1.63 degrees C. It is likely to cross 2 degrees relatively soon, and then spiral out of control. Innes Willox, chief executive of national employer association Ai Group summarises the policy, by saying:
“With no delivery projected until the middle of the next decade, the proposal does not immediately help with short-term emissions reduction or the cost and reliability of energy in the short term.”
While it maybe true that the reactors are cheaper than Labor’s Plan…. are they a useful source of power and emissions reduction? If they are not, then it is money and time wasted.
The Press Release and after
The Priority is not climate change
The official press release of the policy opens by making it clear the priority is not dealing with climate change
Every Australian deserves and should expect access to cheaper, cleaner and consistent electricity…
Right now, in households and businesses around the country, Labor’s expensive renewables-only approach is failing.
In a classic move, the reason for changing energy systems has been ignored. However, they do recognise one problem with the energy system
90 per cent of baseload electricity, predominantly coal fired power stations, is coming to the end of life over the next decade…
a future Federal Coalition Government will introduce zero-emissions nuclear energy in Australia, which has proven to get electricity prices and emissions down all over the world
Nuclear certainly has not reduced electricity prices everywhere in the world. The unfinished Hinkley Point being an obvious example. However, the propaganda aim seems to be to associate cost of living increases with the current government, imagined cutbacks in fossil fuels, and the rollout of renewables, which is a tactic borrowed from either Trump or his corporate think-tanks. There is no consideration of the inflationary effects of fossil fuel company profiteering, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and hence more competition for gas, or even the local break down of old coal mines and power stations.
Locations
The proposed locations are:
Liddell Power Station, New South Wales
Mount Piper Power Station, New South Wales
Loy Yang Power Stations, Victoria
Tarong Power Station, Queensland
Callide Power Station, Queensland
Northern Power Station, South Australia (SMR only)
Muja Power Station, Western Australia (SMR only)
SMRs do not exist commercially yet.
It appears likely these sites were chosen because they have cabling infrastructure (grid) already in place. Others state:
Some of the sites, particularly Loy Yang in the Latrobe Valley, are very close to earthquake fault lines. Several have no obvious water source, which is essential. They appear to have been chosen for political saleability, not science.
A later comment from Ted O’Brien implies that the Coalition have not even decided the number of reactors involved
Ted O’Brien, who designed the plan, told the ABC’s Insiders the amount of energy generated would depend on the type and number of reactors built at each site, and that neither of those things could be known until a Coalition government could establish a nuclear expert agency to undertake studies.
Rather optimistically Dutton claims the sites “will start producing electricity by 2035 (with small modular reactors) or 2037 (if modern larger plants are found to be the best option).” Again this is with currently non commercially available SMRs, plus clearing all the political and economic barriers which are discussed below. Loy yang one of the sites is not closing until 2034 at the moment, so building could not start until after then. Again the CSIRO estimated the earliest anything could be running would be 2040 given a 12-15 year build.
The latest AEMO integrated system plan “forecasts the retirement of 90% of Australia’s remaining 21 gigawatts of coal generation by 2034-35, with the entire fleet retired by 2038.” To overcome that issue requires plenty of gas backup, or lots of renewables and storage. The Coalition is not saying how much energy they hope their nukes will generate or how they plan to make up the gap, but given the announced hostility to renewables, the plan most likely depends on gas as a major source and not a backup. Ted O’Brien said the obvious solution to the collapse of Coal was to “pour more gas into the market” but also said he would “welcome all renewables”. So their plan is to increase emissions, and it seems obvious that parts of the Coalition do not want more renewables, and more renewables is not part of the plan
AEMO is worried that renewables are not being rolled out fast enough to fill in the gaps in 2024-5, and nuclear cannot be ready in that time. It will be interesting to see what happens there. The climate council says:
Seven standard nuclear reactors would deliver approximately nine gigawatts of energy capacity [possibly more than that depending on design and what you are counting]. While [AEMO claims] Australia will need at least 300 gigawatts by 2050
We apparently use 22 GW of coal at present, so the planned nukes are unlikely to even replace coal use now, never mind the energy from other sources.
O’Brien strangely argued that “Australia already is a nuclear nation. We know that nuclear technology saves lives, we know that because we have a nuclear reactor operating here in Sydney. It’s been operating for decades, saving lives, especially diagnosing and treating cancers.” However, there is a massive difference between the size and complexity of Lucas Heights and that of a nuclear power station
“It must be recognised that this is a ‘zero-power’ pool reactor where the complexities of high pressure, high power, high radiation environments do not exist.”
People who moved into the reactor’s area, already knowing it was there, have objected to its presence for a long time. Even a small reactor is not accepted by everyone.
The big question, however, is what level of energy will these 7 reactors provide? And the answer appears to be “completely inadequate.”
Ownership, Funding and Control?
In a later interview/speech Dutton said:
The assets will be owned by the Commonwealth – a very important point – and we’ll work with experts to deliver these programmes…… [and] The Australian Government will own these assets, but form partnerships with experienced nuclear companies to build and operate them.
So taxpayers will be funding the building, and probably covering decommissioning and insurance. This will be expensive, and how will it be paid for? By increasing taxes, increasing the deficit, decreasing Medibank or social security, or getting huge loans? Hopefully the reactors will not be given to the private sector after the taxpayers have funded them, although the second statement implies they may be run privately, but we have no idea who will be involved. The main builders currently in operation are Russian and Chinese, who we might assume would not be acceptable.
On the other hand Renewables are under private, community or household funding and control, which is usually said to be a good thing.
We also need to remember that nuclear is potentially dangerous and we need heaps of trained and experienced people, and good regulation for Australian circumstances, to keep it safe and to cover fuel handling at all stages.
Supposed Economic Benefits
The sales pitch is that:
Not only will local communities benefit from high paying, multi-generational jobs but communities will be empowered to maximise the benefits from hosting an asset of national importance by way of:
A multi-billion dollar facility guaranteeing high-paying jobs for generations to come;
An integrated economic development zone to attract manufacturing, value-add and high-tech industry; and
A regional deal unlocking investment in modern infrastructure, services and community priorities. Press release
The leader of the Nationals promoted the idea that this plan would be beneficial for rural economies. Apparently locally owned and controlled renewables are not. Susan Ley again emphasised the economic side saying “So, our vision is to make sure that we underpin our economic success with jobs for decades to come in industries where Australia has that competitive advantage.” She did not say what the advantage would be. Ted O’Brien said “Labor is turning the lights out. Prices will soar, jobs will be shed and industries will collapse. Australians will be left poorer and our nation weaker.” LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION – TRANSCRIPT – JOINT PRESS CONFERENCE WITH THE HON DAVID LITTLEPROUD MP, THE HON SUSSAN LEY MP, THE HON ANGUS TAYLOR MP AND MR TED O’BRIEN MP, SYDNEY
However:
A 2023 PricewaterhouseCoopers report into offshore wind found the energy source was expected to add $40bn to GDP between 2027 and 2040, supporting 19,000 jobs in the peak of construction and 7000 to 14,000 operational roles in regional areas. According to International Energy Agency estimates, 17.5 gigawatts of offshore wind will be added to global capacity in 2024 compared with around 8.5GW of gross nuclear capacity
Coalition at odds on energy strategy. The Australian 19 June 2024: 4
Part of the promotion is that renewables are a “wrecking ball through the Australian economy” and that families “know it because it’s harder in their own budgets”, Again the plan is to associate the current multi-causal world wide inflation with Labor’s renewables’ policy. However,
Dr Dylan McConnell, an energy systems analyst at the University of New South Wales, says only about $100 of a household’s annual electricity bill is made up of charges related to environmental programs, such as feed-in-tariffs for rooftop solar or financial incentives for large-scale renewables projects.
[and] In the last quarter, the biggest price rises were in rents, secondary education, tertiary education and medical and hospital services… insurance premiums have gone up 16.4% in the last year… ABS data also shows electricity prices are a small part of Australian household expenditure, at just 2.36% of overall costs.
And the Coalition’s programme not only seems to include 7 expensive reactors, but to need back up in terms of more coal or gas because those reactors will not replace lost coal generation and will not make up for lost renewables. All of this will put more financial strain on taxpayers and customers as they cost more than renewables as will be discussed in the next section. The price is usually set in Australia by the most costly source, so relying more on gas than on renewables, will boost electricity prices. At the best, the prosed nuclear sites will do nothing to reduce the current increase in prices as they won’t exist for some while. So the Coalition’s implied end of rising electricity prices is false.
Problems
An ex-Prime Minister writes:
A nuclear power plant would face the same economic challenges that coal-fired generators do now – for much of the day it would be unable to compete with solar and wind. During those times of excess supply the nuclear plant would add to the excess. That surplus electricity would be taken up by batteries and pumped hydro which would then compete with the nuclear plant during the night.
So the only way the economics of a nuclear plant could be assured in our market would be for the rollout of solar and wind to be constrained. That seems to be Dutton’s intention
So unless renewables are destroyed nuclear may not be profitable.
The Coalition’s lack of costing is obvious, except to insist seven nuclear stations are cheaper than near 100% renewables. However, in one interview the leader of the Nationals was asked how much the plan will cost and whether it was around the CSIRO’s $8.5 billion to $17 billion estimate. He replied “Yeah, look, we’re not disputing that,” (Nationals leader pressed on how much nuclear will cost Aussies).
The lack of costing also does not include the cost of climate disruptions, fires, floods, droughts, heat deaths etc. They also say that “the investment that we’re making, it’s over an 80 year period” which might imply that they are going to build these 7 reactors very slowly. We don’t know as there is no timeline for the building. We have no estimation of the cost of electricity produced by nuclear power despite the CSIRO estimating it would be over 50% more than renewable energy. We don’t know what reactor types are involved, including the experimental SMRs, we don’t know about waste disposal (waste will be kept on site until it isn’t), we have no plans for emissions reduction in the rest of the economy (so talking of 2050 net zero is fantasy). We don’t know who are the likely builders and it is foolish to expect that nuclear energy can be built by Australian companies so campaigning for nuclear energy is campaigning to export billions of Australian money overseas. And, as argued above, nuclear as proposed by the Coalition will only partially replace current coal power. It will not supply the new energy Australia needs. There is a massive gap which we can presume will require more fossil fuels to fill.
in March 2023 Dutton said:
I don’t support the establishment of big nuclear facilities here at all, I’m opposed to it, but for the small modular reactors, we can have them essentially replacing brownfield sites now, so you can turn coal off and put the small modular reactors in and it’s essentially a plug and play. You can use the existing distribution networks
But that was a year ago…. and he may have realised that SMRs are largely fiction and not high energy sources able to replace coal power. An SMR is expected to produce 300 Megawatt electric (MWe) producing 7.2 million kWh per day, less than a third of a large scale reactor at 1,000 MWe producing 24 million kWh per day. So if we don’t go with 5 normal reactors we would have to have over 15 SMRs to replace them. In any case the 5 large scale rectors and 2 SMRs would, according to Simon Holmes a Court, “be expected to generate 50 TWh a year – less than 15% of the new generation needed”.
I have encountered arguments which suggest that submarines have SMR’s. However we have had nuclear submarines since 1958, so we have had them for at least 60 years. No one, not even the military, has appeared to successfully use them on land, and this is despite various militaries having had no problem using long term poisons and mutagens, even when their own troops could not be protected. Whatever, the reason it has not discouraged large scale nuclear building, so there is no reason to think the conversion would be easy or even plausible.
While the Coalition encourages local communities to oppose renewable energy, it appears they may not tolerate opposition to gas, oil or nuclear. The Deputy leader of the Nationals stated “if a community is absolutely adamant then we will not proceed but we will not be looking beyond these seven sites,” to which David Littleproud (the leader) said:
“No, she is not correct,… We made this very clear. Peter Dutton and David Littleproud as part of a Coalition government is prepared to make the tough decisions in the national interest.
To be confusing he also talked about “proper consultation.” In 2019 Ted Obrien in an official Coalition Government media release said:
“Australia should say a definite ‘No’ to old nuclear technologies but a conditional ‘Yes’ to new and emerging technologies such as small modular reactors.
“And most importantly,” said Mr O’Brien “the Australian people should be at the centre of any approval process”
I presume they are intending a neoliberal consultation in which people are told what is happening and ignored, and local businesses bribed. They would also have to deal with the issue that property values would likely decline near the site, although that can be dealt with by telling people that it is their problem.
Importantly there is Federal legislation forbidding nuclear power. Its not clear how changes to that legislation would pass through the Senate. Various states also have legislation (nuclear power is banned in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland), and even the Coalition at state level is not welcoming the project. According to The Australian, Queensland LNP leader David Crisafulli has ruled out lifting the state’s nuclear ban if he wins the Queensland election in October (Coalition at odds on energy strategy. 19 June 2024: 4). The main plan to overcome the problem seems to be bribery (“Somebody famously said ‘I would not stand between the premier and a bucket of money’,”). However Dutton has implied several times that consultation could just involve the Commonwealth overruling the States, again an authoritarian neoliberal consultation process.
However, it is perhaps not surprising that the Minerals Council of Australia (the mining company Union) is in favour of nuclear but wants the ‘free market’ to sort it out, which effectively opposes the idea of government ownership (Tania Constable, End the ban on nuclear energy, and let the marketplace sort it out. The Australian 19 June 2024: 20). So they don’t have complete support from the plan there.
Apparently:
The United Arab Emirates is often put forward of an example Australia could follow. It took just 13 years to connect its first nuclear power plant, and is the only country in the world that has managed to successfully build nuclear from scratch in the last 30 years.
It is obviously not easy to do and that is 13 years after clearing all the political hurdles in Australia, If the Coalition gets in in 2025, and we assume 1 year to get the politics, money, ‘consultation,’ site acquisition, choosing builders and training workers out of the way, and start building, then it would be absolute best practice to have it running by 2039 – somewhat more in keeping the the CSIRO’s predictions that the Dutton predictions. However, Ted O’Brien and David Littleproud are now flagging that there might be two and a half years of local community consultation before the site details were finalised, although communities could not veto the sites. So that adds another year to year and a half to readiness times, making the best practice date 2040, not 2035-37 as promised.
The level of Coalition competence on design is also not impressive. Peter Dutton tweeted that:
“This [image] is the concept design of a zero emissions small modular reactor [SMR].”
This seems frighteningly naïve when it comes to any complex and potentially deadly technology.
That picture is not a concept design for an SMR, it is just a design for a building and setting, which might hold an SMR, a library, a country restaurant, or a cheese display.
A concept design would tell us something about how the SMR is supposed to work, what the materials it will be constructed out of are, what the cooling system is, what the safety system is, where the uranium and waste is stored etc…. You may note that this ‘concept design’ does not even have a fence, it is that insecure and open to terrorist attacks…. this is an empty fantasy drawing, not a design of any practical value.
Foreign Policy
It may now happen that our neighbours think we are going to acquire nuclear weaponry, a normal product of nuclear power, and make moves to defend themselves. This is not fiction. When the Coalition decided to buy nuclear submarines from the US
the US made it plain to senior members of the Morrison government that if there was any suggestion the submarine deal could precipitate any broader policy change in Australia – anything at all that could generate speculation about acquiring nuclear weapons, no matter how fanciful – the deal was off. It must not, under any circumstances, give rise to any extraneous suggestion that the US was bending non-proliferation rules.
That included any talk of establishing a civil nuclear industry.
So they broke their agreement and are now using the argument that nuclear powered submarines are safe, to imply nuclear energy is always safe.
Nuclear vs Renewables.
Apart from over-optimism, and abandonment of emissions reduction, the problems for nuclear and renewables come down to:
Which technology reduces emissions with most speed
How much energy do we need? Can either supply that amounts
Which is most cost effective
Can an economy run on renewables
Which produces less long term environmental problems
What kind of social organisation is required for either of them
Going backwards
6) Renewables will be obstructed by fossil fuel companies for several reasons; the first is the obvious that renewables almost immediately start reducing emissions and the need to make emissions, and potentially cause loss of profit for fossil fuel companies and leave investments in fossil fuels stranded, as they replace fossil fuels. In this policy, it seems that Nuclear as planned does not reduce emissions; it may increase them as gas is used for backup with inadequate power generation. Renewables also allow the slow and modular building of Community controlled energy supplies, local level energy, resilience if they can function when the grid is down, and give the community political power and local finance, as money does not leave the local area. Renewables can be used to encourage independence, local political engagement and choice. Nuclear does not, it remains under outside control. Given the Coalition’s apparent hostility to renewables, the aim seems to be to keep centralised control, fossil fuel company profits and corporate power rather than to solve the emissions problem. In fact there is no real sense from the nuclear position that pollution and emissions are a problem. So it may be that neoliberal corporate dominance is one of many systems incompatible with solving the challenge of climate change, and hence needs to be curtailed.
5) Both nuclear and renewables disrupt environments. Renewables can be built so that farming can continue. Wind farms can also be built offshore and are likely to acts as artificial reefs and attract marine life to boost fishing and tourism. With proper design renewables should create little non-recyclable waste, but that does require the right designs. Nuclear requires ongoing costs of fuel and damage from mining, transport of radioactive supplies and waste, often through residential areas. Waste needs safe storage, and nuclear involves very expensive decommissioning at the end of its life because of high risk to those cleaning up and the local environment. Nuclear portends continued threats to environments.
4) It is possible that a modern corporate economy cannot run on renewables, but then a modern corporate economy cannot run on only 7 nukes. A modern corporate economy cannot run with climate change worsening either. Renewables are expandable, so they might be able to deal with the energy requirements. We might just have to change the economy and lower energy requirements, but that will involve a lot of struggle.
3) The CSIRO is clear on cost. Renewables are far more cost effective than nuclear. Nuclear cost blowouts are apparently worse than cost blowouts for the Olympics. Renewables are cheaper to install even including storage and cables. If well designed they should allow farming. I would rather trust the CSIRO’s estimates than those of a politician who is not itemizing the costs, and may never itemize them. As a further statement, Tim Buckley, director of thinktank Climate Energy Finance says:
“The international experience shows that the western nuclear industry is plagued with massive delays and cost blowouts,”… noting the Vogtle nuclear power plant expansion in the US blew out to cost $35bn, while Britain’s Hinkley Point C plant has been delayed to 2031 and is on track to cost £33bn pounds ($63bn).
2) The question of the energy we need is hard to answer, because this changes all the time. If we have to change the economy, then we change the energy we need. Earlier I mentioned that coal is fading out, and we may need 300GW in the 2030s. This energy cannot be delivered by 7 nukes. It might be that the ideal solution is to develop both nuclear and renewables, but it seems clear that the Coalition does not want to do this, they want to restrict renewables and support gas as with their technology neutral gas led recovery from Covid. Again we may need to change the economy to survive.
1) Either technology could reduce emissions, if the policy and the technology is well designed and implemented. Again the problem seems to be that with only 7 nukes the Coalition’s policy is not designed to reduce emissions. It seems to be designed to generate more gas use at great expense to taxpayers. So the chance of using nuclear and renewables together has been abandoned.
The Conspiracy?
The Dutton nuclear plan
bear a striking resemblance to a policy Trevor St Baker and SMR Nuclear Technology have been advocating for several years, in evidence and submissions to federal and state parliamentary committees, in think tanks and in energy forums.
[St Baker is a patron of the extremely wealthy] Coalition for Conservation, One of its aims is to reach out to environmentalists, renewable energy experts and climate scientists to garner support for Coalition members
I’m not absolutely against nuclear energy, it could be really useful, but I am against nuclear energy when its being used as:
a) a distraction from reducing emissions;
b) in support of continued fossil fuel burning and;
c) to disrupt the replacement of fossil fuels by renewables.
All of these factors seem to be features of Dutton’s policy. The policy will not produce enough energy to make a difference to emissions. It will at best, and probably not at all, generate enough energy to replace some of the phased out coal. We probably need to build at least 40 full scale nukes with continuing expansion of renewables to make a difference; with no sign of that level of build out and the suppression of large scale renewables, the only way to give Australia the energy it wants is through more gas burning. There seems to be no guarantee that the plans can get through the various governmental oppositions. There is no evidence to suggest that it is really intended to. Chucking out the 2030 targets because they are too difficult, suggests that the 2050 targets will become too difficult too, which is great for fossil fuel companies. If the Coalition wanted nuclear to be successful they should have started about 20 years ago.
However, while some people say the deception is easily seen through, Dutton’s choice is not a death wish. He will get funding from mining and fossil fuel companies, he will get corporate and pro-Trump think tanks churning out material to justify him and clog social media. He will get support from Murdoch and probably most of the rest of the media. He will get unity in his Party, and he may even get some Russian and Chinese support through social media.
But then, taking a cue from the Anti-Voice campaign, which is much more appropriate for this policy at the moment….. Peter Dutton wrote:
“In refusing to provide basic information and answer reasonable questions on the Voice, you are treating the Australian people like mugs… your approach will ensure a dangerous and divisive debate grounded in hearsay and misinformation.”
For non-Australians, Peter Dutton is the leader of the opposition right wing party.
Whether you think Dutton is a bad thing is of course a matter of opinion.
Some people apparently think protecting fossil fuel company sales and profits is good, because they are the people who built the modern world and we should continue down that path.
Some people think climate change does not matter because a socialist conspiracy of scientists all over the world is far more probable than a conspiracy of right wing politicians, and corporations who are profiting, to deny climate change.
Some people think that not acting is a really bad choice that will kill Australians and lead to more floods, fires and droughts.
Some people think it is a really bad choice that will kill Australians and lead to more floods, fires and droughts, so we need the money from gas and coal exports….
Peter Dutton does not want fossil fuel energy to be replaced with renewable energy. As a result he has has claimed the 2030 Labor Party emissions targets are difficult and so are unobtainable, and they are bad for the economy, so he won’t bother to have any emissions reduction targets, or at least won’t bother to announce them before the next election. This protects fossil fuel emissions, and so he seems to be serious about protecting fossil fuel company profits.
In the old days would ‘Conservatives’ have shrunk from a problem because it was difficult?
His respect for the corporate economy seems much greater than his respect for human lives and the property of ordinary people. He seems to expect that it will be possible to attain the cutbacks by 2050, but of course with enough delay from not having any targets now those later targets probably won’t happen because they have also become way too difficult.
That is why he is proposing nuclear energy, which the CSIRO has said will be far more expensive than renewables plus all their oncosts of storage, cabling etc. At the best nuclear won’t be ready to run in Australia until 2040, which means at least another 16 years of fossil fuel profits. He almost certainly knows nuclear energy will not really get going, so as to replace all fossil fuels, for another 20 years after that, even if he wanted to. The problems of building the necessary 20 to 50 nuclear power stations at the same time in the one country nowadays are severe or possibly insurmountable, so it won’t happen. [We now know that they have no intention of replacing all fossil fuel generate energy with nuclear] Nuclear power also has huge costs for decommissioning, and for insurance (if you can get any). Taxpayers should not have to pay this or the billions in costs to build.
Nuclear energy also involves water for cooling so, in Australia, this probably means seaside plants only, as the rivers are already drying up. Nukes in France were shut down a year or so ago because of lack of water.
From a reducing climate turmoil point of view, Labor’s targets are inadequate as well, but far less inadequate than Dutton’s.
Dutton is also running around the country campaigning against windfarms at sea (10 or more Km away from habited zones), supposedly for both ecological and consulting with community reasons. Likewise National Party leader David Littleproud spent a day meeting with fishing and anti-wind farm groups opposed to plans for up to 200 floating turbines offshore between Wombarra and Kiama and said the Coalition was committed to overturning the two offshore wind zones now declared for the Illawarra and Port Stephens in the NSW Hunter.
“We should have a slow transition from some of our coal-fired power stations to nuclear power plants that are zero emissions and firm that up with gas and carbon capture storage, which is zero emissions as well,”
However the Coalition have never opposed offshore drilling despite it producing continual noise at depth, and being notably damaging to marine life. I’m also prepared to bet that he won’t go on endlessly about community consultation for nuke installation, if he is serious about it [again this does seem to be correct]. People will just have cop it, especially in Labor electorates, or it will not go ahead and fossil fuel company profits are guaranteed for even longer. which in his eyes seems good.
The latest move the US elites through the Atlas network, corporate bought think-tanks and Murdoch media, in their fight to preserve oil company profits, is not to focus entirely on denial of climate change or scientific conspiracy, as they are perhaps getting a little unpersuasive, but to try and get people worked up about industrial size renewables and their possible local ecological destructiveness. They do not seem to promote objection to industrial coal, gas or even diesel energy and mines, despite their documented detrimental ecological and health effects, especially when at sea, and so it seems less well organised.
There is some evidence to suggest that money is also following this trail from the USA to Australia, along with faked academic papers [2], and other fake news [3], [4], and ‘community resistance’ which has in some places been purchasing support. These activists also make sure not to ever mention the possibility of community led renewable energy – because it is (by definition) not corporate, and they do not bother to compare known effects of climate change with less likely effects of offshore wind warms.
Peter Dutton may well be following his American sponsors. He is probably also betting that Trump will win the next US Presidential election (which seems likely), and that result will be unrestrained action for oil companies and polluters (“Drill, baby, drill.”). Dutton, wants to support his American allies, because he wants to be on the winning side.
Whatever his policies are, Dutton’s choice is not a death wish as some have alleged. He will get funding from mining and fossil fuel companies, he will get corporate and pro-Trump think tanks churning out material to justify him, pay his supporters, and clog social media. He will get support from Murdoch and most of the rest of the media. He will get unity in his Party (who seem to be largely climate deniers), and the whole fossil fuel and corporate ‘Deep State’ will be behind him. He is obviously courting Gina Rinehart [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. He may even get some Russian support through social media, as Putin is keen to continue to sell fossil fuels, and may logically think climate change will make Russia more habitable and gain northern ports.
In terms of gaining victory Dutton is not making a foolish choice, in terms of looking after Australia, its people, wildlife and future, he is.
Even the inadequate Labor Party actions will not be allowed to continue if he wins.
As a neoliberal, Trump gets really upset about climate change being used ‘politically’ to encourage energy transition, cut back the burning of fossil fuels, helping electric cars or promoting corporate responsibility. The only responsibility that Corporations have is to make money, and that can never destroy their ability to survive.
To Recap: Agenda 47 gives Trump’s official policies, many of which are also present in the corporate manifesto Project 2025. They seem to be heavily oriented towards crushing dissent.
This section considers his ecological and climate attitudes.
Against Corporate Responsibility and Shareholder action
He makes it clear by his non-political support of free speech that it should be forbidden for shareholders to ask companies not to destroy the environment. The sole moral responsibility of companies is to make profit. That’s all; not to be safe for workers, not protect the communities they operate in, not consider the effects of their actions on others, or whatever, just make profit.
When President Trump returns to the White House, he will immediately ban ESG [Environmental, social, and governance] investments through executive order and work with Congress to enact a permanent ban.
“When I’m back in the White House, I will sign an executive order and, with Congress’ support, a law to keep politics away from America’s retirement accounts forever.”
The entire ESG scheme is designed to funnel your retirement money to the maniacs on the radical left.
But pensions and retirement accounts with his radicalism and incompetence, they’re going down and they’re going down big and nobody’s seen anything like it.
I will demand that funds invest your money to help you, not them, but to help you. Not to help the radical left communists, because that’s exactly what they are. I will once again protect our seniors, just like I did before, from the woke left and the woke left is bad news. They destroy countries.
ESG simply means asking companies not to destroy the environment that people (including old people) live in, to pay fair wages, not defraud people, adhere to labour laws, factor in the risks of their actions and be transparent and responsible. However, this will be prevented.
Under Trumps laws, no one, including shareholders will be able to ask companies to stop destroying things or poisoning people, apparently because not destroying things and not exploiting workers, is a radical leftism which destroys countries. It should also be remembered that shareholders are company owners, and that if they cannot influence what their companies do, other than support them going for more profit, then that is a fairly odd definition of capitalist property rights.
It seems that, for Trump, it is disloyal to America to challenge corporate power, while siding with corporate power is completely non-political. All those who disagree are “radical left communists, because that’s exactly what they are.” Asking companies to disclose climate risks is also criminal.
Against Recognising Corporate Climate Risk
In May 2021, Biden issued an Executive Order that required federal agencies to define “climate-related financial risk to the financial stability of the… U.S. financial system” which led the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to require private companies to publicly disclose climate-related risks.
This ruling will force companies to share with investors their estimated impact on the environment, which will allow climate crusaders in investment firms to punish companies that do not conform to their radical environmental agenda.
Apparently looking at climate related risk is too big a risk for corporate liberty to pollute and harm people, to be requested.
More Fossil Fuels
Given Trump being against people acting within the normal rules of capitalism, and effectively putting an end to shareholder motions requesting responsibility, it is not surprising that his energy policy is more fossil fuels, despite the warnings about what this will produce.
He states:
“Joe Biden’s war on American energy is one of the key drivers of the worst inflation in 58 years, and it’s hitting every single American family very, very hard… Biden reversed every action I took that achieved energy independence and soon we were going to be energy dominant all over the world.”
Let us ignore that Biden has pushed for the greatest expansion of American fossil fuel production ever, and presided over huge increases in profits for oil companies [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]: that is not enough for Trump.
Nobody has more liquid gold under their feet than the United States of America. And we will use it and profit by it and live with it. And we will be rich again and we will be happy again. And we will be proud again. Thank you very much.
So lets burn more oil and make things harder for non-rich people by encouraging climate change.
On Day One, President Trump will rescind every one of Joe Biden’s industry-killing, jobs-killing, pro-China and anti-American electricity regulations.
China is being made into an enemy, and trying to go against Republican fossil fuel ideology is traitorous.
President Trump will DRILL, BABY, DRILL.
President Trump will remove all red tape that is leaving oil and natural gas projects stranded, including speeding up approval of natural gas pipelines into the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and New York.
Yes we don’t have to worry about whether going after shale oil and gas will damage people, water or whatever, we just have to support fossil fuels and the profits they generate. People who might think this is not automatically good, or who protest, will presumably be told they are not real Americans but woke Marxists, and removed.
Stopping Legal Protest
President Trump will stop the wave of frivolous litigation from environmental extremists that hold up critical energy development projects for years, increase project costs, and discourage future development.
It should not be a surprise to find out that people’s legal ability to protest and disagree with the demands of corporations is denounced as illegitimate and to be prevented. People should obey and curb their speech before their masters. They know nothing, and should have no power to disagree.
Against Climate Agreements and China
Biden is bad because:
he reentered the horrendous Paris Climate Accord, so unfair to the United States, good for other countries, so bad for us. He put up huge roadblocks to new oil, gas and coal production and much, much more…. The country that now benefits most from Joe Biden’s radical left Green New Deal is China.
President Trump will once again exit the horrendously unfair Paris Climate Accords and oppose all of the radical left’s Green New Deal policies that are designed to shut down the development of America’s abundant energy resources, which exceed any country’s in the world, including Russia and Saudi Arabia.
We know by now that we should not expect evidence, but the point seems to be that the current COP agreement involves possible cuts to fossil fuel production, and thus should be repudiated, no matter what the consequences. Corporate profit is the fundamentally important thing. Oddly he uses a justice argument to excuse this, the agreement is unfair…. Fairness presumably means powerful people and countries should do what they like. I guess that by attacking the ‘green new deal’ he is objecting to providing jobs by helping the energy transition. Fossil fuels have to remain the main source of US energy.
As you know, China paid hundreds of billions of dollars to the United States when I was president.
I presume this means the tariffs on Chinese goods, which Americans paid, not the Chinese. It is possible that China lost some deals, but they did not directly pay any money to the US because of the tariffs. We might hope a President would realise this, so I suspect the idea he is referring to tariffs is wrong.
Against EVs
Trump is opposed to electric cars, and people making a choice.
Because EVs cost an average of TWICE as much as gas-powered vehicles, take longer to fully charge, and have shorter ranges, almost two-thirds of Americans prefer their next car purchase to be a gas-powered vehicle, nearly half of all car dealerships would never sell an EV, and about half of current EV owners plan to switch back to a gas-powered car.
This is probably one reason why Elon Musk is attempting to cozy up to Trump. He realises that if Biden wins, he will be no worse off, but if Trump wins, EVs might be banned or taxed or put out of action, to protect fossil fuels.
Carbon Capture and Storage
Trump does make a few sensible statements.
According to two 2022 studies, the vast majority of CCS projects have underperformed or failed to date and hydrogen blending is plagued with safety and effectiveness concerns
This is true, but in context, it means that even symbolic attempts to reduce emissions should not be allowed.
So in summary:
Basically most of Trump’s Agenda 47 policies take the attitude that anyone who disagrees with him should be dismissed, punished, or prevented from acting.
This does imply that, whether he claims to be or not, he will act as a dictator and attempt to purge the USA of the liberty of dissent, and prolong ecological destruction and climate change.
Agenda 47 makes clear:
Trump is fighting non-existent ‘communists’, and those he calls ‘woke.’ Both terms seem to mean people he does not like or who disagree with him.
He is enthusiastic about protecting America from free speech he does not like.
People who disagree or inconvenience him are not real Americans.
The DoJ should support him, and the Party, alone, and go after people he does not like.
Education should only reinforce Republican doctrine as anything else is political.
Attempts to recognise that the USA has a history of racism, are racist.
Corporations should have free rip, particularly oil companies, and people (even shareholders) should not be free to object to corporate behavior, or attempt to alter it it.
He opposes any ideas that people should protect America (or the world) from environmental destruction, as such protection is Marxist.
Fossil fuels must be the only energy source to be protected.
He wants to stack the government with pro-Trumpists so he will never hear anything he does not like..
This, seems a complete recipe for destruction. Under Trump the USA will not face its real problems, although it may try to crush people who recognize those problems as only Marxists and Woke people would notice them and want to solve them.
Start thinking in terms of complex systems and Barry Commoner’s four laws of ecology which are rephrased below..
The original formulation:
Everything Is Connected To Everything Else
Everything Must Go Somewhere
There Is No Such Thing as a Free Lunch
Nature Knows Best
Reformulated they can become
Everything is connected to everything else.
Everything is systemically complex and interacting at some level or other.
Hardin adds, as a corollary, that “We can never merely do one thing.” Most actions will have multiple effects, most of which we ignore.
All processes produce ‘by-products’ which have to go somewhere (usually on this planet).
If they don’t support life they probably harm it. Commoner states: “In every natural system, what is excreted by one organism as waste is taken up by another as food,” and “The absence of a particular substance from nature, is often a sign that it is incompatible with the chemistry of life.” Not thinking about this is a major cause of illth production
Acting requires energy, materials and consequences, which affects affecting ecologies.
Action does not come out of nowhere, with no cost. Commoner writes: “Because the global ecosystem is a connected whole, in which nothing can be gained or lost and which is not subject to over-all improvement, anything extracted from it by human effort must be replaced.”
It also points to physical entropy – every built object and organisation requires energy use to maintain.
Nature does it best.
Commoner writes: Most “major man-made change in a natural system is likely to be detrimental to that system.” It also implies that nature may be able to fix ecological problems better than humans, although the idea of maladaptive systems needs to be kept in mind.
So with these principles in mind we might need to:
Realize there are no humanly produced externalities to the human world. If we poison and destroy the world we are poisoning and destroying ourselves. Everything Is Connected To Everything Else. Everything Must Go Somewhere. There Is No Such Thing as a Free Lunch
It should be recognised that some recyclable products can be produced in such quantities that they overwhelm the recycling capacity of the economy or the planet, becoming pollution. CO2 is a good example.
Phase in laws to stop all forms of production, organisation, activity, business or agriculture from harming the environment whether it is producing greater profits or not. This will not be easy, and it will have unintended consequences, but its a guideline to aim towards.
Prohibit dumping into the sea.
Phase in laws that insist that organisations and production which harm environments remediate them as soon as possible. Make sure the business puts money aside as the project continues, so that they can’t escape the costs through bankruptcy. If the land cannot be remediated then stop the production. This again will be resisted. The fact that it is resisted shows something about the systems we have in place. There Is No Such Thing as a Free Lunch
Remediation should involve restoring the ecology to as close as possible to its previous levels of complexity. Planting a monoculture of grass or trees is not remediation. Planting and abandoning the planting to die, is not remediation. Nature Knows Best
Companies will almost certainly try and pull out before they face the costs and leave the taxpayers with the costs, hence the phase in, to allow them to adapt, and start remediation. However, even if they just stop the harm that will be good. There Is No Such Thing as a Free Lunch
Stop massive deforestation, and any further cutting of non previously cut forests. That should follow from the attempts to stop ecological harm.
Stop dispossessing people from their land. This is far commoner than we might think.
Reduce pollution and make the waste from all operations recyclable by ecologies or economies. This also should follow from stopping ecological harm.
Scrap the production of objects (intentionally or unintentionally) which cannot be processed, back to their initial components by existing bacteria, or other natural processes, or which are poisonous to humans.
it might be useful to encourage laws which make it compulsory for the input to factories and businesses to include the output, to give them an incentive to clean up the output. Everything Must Go Somewher
Stopping pollution is more important than financial compensation, but such compensation should be payable to those who have been damaged by pollution.
Make sure there is a fund so that polluted communities can afford to deal with those that pollute them, and get recompense.
This list of things implies:
Reduction of GHG emission especially from agriculture and burning fossil fuels..
regenerative agriculture or regenerative ecology to fix soils and ecologies, as similarly to natural processes as possible.
Scrapping meat feedlots unless the pollution can be controlled and diminished
The aim is to stop activity which destroys or harms life on the planet and disrupts the planetary cycles.
The worse climate change gets, the more expensive it will be to stop making the climate even worse.
This is really a follow up to the last post where some ways of dealing with features of complexity have been discussed. Some of this is a bit vague but that is because knowledge about complex systems is often symbolic and points somewhere, rather than finds its object easily..
Refrain from further disrupting an already disrupted system by pushing it towards disruption, unless there is a good reason to believe correction will kick in. Be experimental as such a procedure can be disastrous, without safety back ups
Cultivate diversity and redundancy. We can ask what redundancy might need increase? I suspect that rather than cutting back social security we need to prepare to increase it, to deal with the oncoming flood of disasters that will spiral through the system
Be aware that the system can be maladaptive and adjust it away from that as gently as possible, seeking the fictional balance, stopping imbalance and reducing the maladaptive tendencies. This may not be easy, and will probably take political action.
Be aware of the dynamic contexts of any challenge within complex systems. Boundaries are generally fictions.
Realise that changes will interact with different systems. Systems can only rarely be isolated. It is probable that systemic problems will require many different approaches simultaneously, so that many of the systems involved can change together. I’ve suggested that it is useful to consider seven mutually interactive systems.
Energy systems – as these are fundamental to what can be done, and are also often implicated in power relations
Technology, what is available, how much energy it takes, how much pollution and harm it enables, what it links that was previously separated, how it affects power/economic relations
Illth production: pollution, recyclable waste, harm to workers and users, dispersion of material, physical entropy, destructive extraction
Economics and power. Money and modes of organisation are inseparable from power and regulation.
Information – tells or hides awareness from people.
Psychology, most social behaviour cannot be deduced from psychology, but psychology is implicated in social behaviour.
Small changes can make big differences. Look for tipping points.
Knowledge is fundamentally uncertain and we will be unconscious, or unaware, of some important factors.
Information is always being distorted, by business, governmental and self-confirmation processes. It can never be certain, but we can try and make it as reliable as possible and not ignore all stuff we don’t disagree with.
We live with limited predictability, and inherent uncertainty, so wee need to be ready to find out how experimental policies work, rather than assume the policy must work.
Trends may be predictable, so check your trend prediction.
Try discover what patterns are emerging. They could point to trends.
If a trend going the way you want is establishing, it may be easier to work with it.
Systems cannot always be reduced to their elements. Reductionism can be useful, but is only useful up to a point.
Systems change, so is what you think you know about the system still relevant? What are the new and relevant trends?
Pay attention to the local as well as the global.
What steps can people take locally, and how can they be supported in taking them?
Will these local actions feedback into the main system, and support useful change?
Unintended consequences and ‘disorder’ can tell us useful information about how the system works. Do not ignore them.
Work with natural dynamics rather than just trying to impose willed control.
As systems tend to escape control, we even more need to work our way with the system and feel into it, to gain a sense of what we are working with.
Some general hints(?):
Activating the pattern seeking parts of the mind
Activate the pattern seeking parts of our thought, through quiet immersion and listening and then testing and evaluating that understanding.
Observing natural systems with care, is a good way of building up ideas and senses of how such systems work, how they can be surprising and so on.
Looking at, or listening to great art, (again with care) according to some, may also happen to produce the same kinds of effects. Art is often about patterns and patterning.
This should help in other parts of the world, as well as possibly calm the nervous system and help psychological integration.
Again, the patterns you might observe should be treated experimentally, not as truth.
Climate generosity.
Act without waiting for the situation to be fair.
Don’t expect that others will act first.
If others exploit you, that is ok, keep acting.
Set the example you would like others to follow.
Organise to act generously with others, build a community of generosity and see what happens.
Give people the goods and support they desire.
Compete in your generosity.
Be prepared to experiment and make mistakes.
Don’t expect people to like you for acting.
An example is organising to gift solar panels to public buildings. People in the industry might help for the publicity. The more panels you get out, the less pollution you deal with.
Try and set up community energy as generous community. This can be extremely hard work, but you are doing something.
Try promote circular economies.
Find people, departments and businesses who can help.
Generosity feels good, and if done well builds ties between people. Ties between people helps get people motivated and acting.
This might be easier for old people who don’t have to look after children or hold down a job, but everyone should be welcome.
Experimental Politics
Experiment. only by experiment can you learn much about how a system works.
Try things out. Expect failure. Keep what works.
Climate generosity is an experiment. We test it out to see if works in the situation we are in.
Look to other people and emulate what is working for them.
Change what you take from the ecologies and the ‘waste’ you put into them, if there are issues in your local area.
Look for unexpected consequences, some of them may support generosity, some of them undermine it. How do you engineer more of the support?
What moves local politicians. It may not be what “everyone expects.” See how they and other people react.
Try out new ways of being generous, or persuading others to help.
That people may look out for themselves does not preclude them being generous in some parts of their lives, if there is a perceived benefit for them.
Community
We live in community.
Community adds to resilience as people know and help each other in calamity.
Communities can become generous naturally, if people feel safe that their gifts will be return in forms that are useful to them.
With a purpose, communities can really gather together and act.
We can sometimes find the purpose through experiment. What gets people to act together? Is it better to have small groups working on different projects? or to allow a bigger group to develop to possibly do bigger things?
Communities can be built in niches which are concealed from the main fields of power and convention, and thus be more free to be inventive and not confined by the processes of power. They can also be self-destructive.
Communities can build a “scenius,” (or a culturally creative scene) which also helps invention and builds creativity, in both co-operation and rivalry.
Communities do have factions and rivalries, and there will be disputes, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. Gives more views on life and what is happening.
The factioning gives experience with complexity.
The bonds may force people together to solve the problems, but beware of outsiders boosting factions for their own purposes.
Communities are pattern generating, again they help understand, or to recognise lack of understanding, of how systems work.
The psychologist Adler asserts that building community feeling is part of maturation and developing psychological balance and resilience.
It makes people feel good as well as have more support when needed.
Conversation and cooperation can help build community and mutual recognition. Is it safe to discuss climate change and feelings with each other? Are there forbidden topics and why? (Forbidden topics may be forbidden for a reason).
Community projects can include:
Community recycling projects.
Food composting projects
Community gardens
Community discussions on problems
Trying to restrict harm and ‘illth’
Cleaning rivers or parks
Community Renewable Energy
Communities can organise from the bottom up, responding to local conditions. Normally structured corporations and governments cannot, or more precisely will not, because they want to maintain authority.
The point is that everything you can do together helps, and may help in the future.
Climate, technology and chaos Blog 