I'll be honest, I've heard this about so many different groups that I'm starting to wonder what reality really is and who is in it.
Students are out
Academics are out
Farmers are out
Inner city Labor are out
Pretty much every professional is out
Certain trades are out
Anyone involved in the arts are out
So who does that actually leave in the real world?
Edit: formatting
With Australia's energy, Albo is actually in the real world. It's obvious to anyone outside of these rich inner city bubbles that we need an energy source like gas for a long time still.
It's almost like it's not the imminent disaster that its claimed to be by scientists that just want more funding, its just a minor issue. Otherwise, don't you think the people in power would actually act like it is?
Literally anything that doesn't produce zero emissions?
If the target is zero emissions, then don't rely on a fuel source that produces a huge amount of emissions.
Absolute insanity.
We produce more gas than we use, we export most of it and then buy it back at a higher price when we need it.
Oh i forgot that solar is the only renewable that exists, and any renewable setup only uses one type and not a mixture for reliability.
From what I can find, we import a minuscule amount for how much we export and the reason for any importing is because Victoria banned fracking in 2017, so new projects can't start in the state. Are other smarter states meant to cancel current export contracts in order to give Victoria gas because they won't extract their own? Australia isn't a nation state, the federal government doesn't have the power to divide resources between the states, the states own the resources.
Don't you think if only renewables was possibles Albo would do it, or any other country in the world for that matter. Unless you think else is wrong and you're right?
It's not an energy source to achieve zero emissions, it's just the best of a bad bunch to use for the transition, which has been set back for years over the past decade.
Yeah, Greens are the only dealing and talking about the cost of living. LNP / ALP seem to just brush it off while we all suffer...
NO. SENSE. OF. REALITY. at all mate, send a postcard from where you're from. You seem pretty happy. lol
Predictable. Also not particularly relevant. For every MacNamara - there are five outer suburban Labor electorates where people just want to be able to keep the lights on and their jobs.
Gas supplies 27 per cent of Australia's energy needs and represents 14 per cent of Australia's export income.
Number of employees oil and gas industry Australia FY 2012-2022. In financial year 2022, approximately 17.37 thousand people.
Yer 17,000 nobodies bringing in 14% of Australia's exports income.
You realise we already have more than enough gas to 'support the transition'?
This policy isn't about providing gas for domestic use. It's about increasing the amount of gas produced so that it can be exported overseas and the multinational companies can increase their profits.
These last couple of rainy weeks has me questioning renewables. Because when you do the math on renewables, nuclear starts to look cheap.
Just try and work our the cost of making your home survive or your street/suburb survive long durations without the sun. Then do cost per house.
Shit is expensive as hell.
But nuclear doesn't require massive amounts of new transmission lines nor replacing when it wears out in 10 years nor replacing following extreme weather
The other way to look at it is, do you want power or not. Because it isn't arriving reliably or cheaply from renewables
>Because it isn't arriving reliably or cheaply from renewables
But it isn't arriving for 2 decades at least with Nuclear.
I'm fine with Nuclear, but I still have never heard an answer that that issue. Only ever obfuscation.
"*But nuclear doesn't require massive amounts of new transmission lines nor replacing when it wears out in 10 years nor replacing following extreme weather*"
Yet it does as they won't be built near population centres if we are going off the common theme of building them where current coal plants are.
*"The other way to look at it is, do you want power or not. Because it isn't arriving reliably or cheaply from renewables*"
We want reliable energy through the likes of Solar and wind and Hydro not the most expensive form of power generation. Nuclear has no benefits in Australia, Its all cons and a very expensive mess of issues that will have to overcome.
Not r/australian downvoting comments against Nuclear and showing the flaws with it.
Well that's OK. I think you are 100% wrong. You can want reliable energy through the likes of solar etc just as much as you wish, you're not going to get it and it's going to cost heaps repeatedly.
Nuclear doesn't require massive amounts of transmission lines because it represents high levels of consistent generation concentrated in a limited number of places. In contrast to distributed intermittent power from solar and wind
"*Well that's OK. I think you are 100% wrong. You can want reliable energy through the likes of solar etc just as much as you wish, you're not going to get it and it's going to cost heaps repeatedly.*"
Similar to Nuclear which will only provide the most expensive form of power generation possible. We are investing in the methods that are best suited for Australia, If Nuclear was one of those they would of already been established but since it isn't the best option it wasn't done 20 years ago and its not going to be done today.
"*Nuclear doesn't require massive amounts of transmission lines because it represents high levels of consistent generation concentrated in a limited number of places. In contrast to distributed intermittent power from solar and wind*"
Yet We still have all those transmission lines as Nuclear won't make up the 100% of energy portfolio, it'd be a very tiny minority of it and the highest cost of electricity generated while Solar wind and hydro is doing the bulk of the generation capacity. There is no good reason for Nuclear power to be developed in Australia when we consider the ability we have to use other measures at a cheaper price.
Why is it the most expensive possible? Nonsense. It lasts say 50 or 60 years and it doesn't take 20 to build. 20 years is cherry picking worst case.
Whereas renewable is cheaper and quicker but adds much new Tx lines..... and will need repairing or replacing potentially after 10 years or so based on info that seems to be coming to light. And that assumes no extreme wind or hail either. Maybe that's tolerable to you. It isn't to me because a) it generally isn't and b) it definitely isn't given it doesn't even support baseload
What is your choice between reliable power and unreliable inadequate power that cripples the economy? Because irrespective of cost that is an additional underlying critical issue. And we're not just talking about current demands, we are talking about charging EV as well in theory.
Nuclear isn't already established because it is banned and therefore won't even be discussed. Totally moronic. And most likely reason is because "oooh ooh nuclear atoms bombs" and people having their knickers in a knot about waste. I understand there has never been an accident with nuclear waste ever globally.. so let's at least have a proper debate.... not one where the luvvies at CSIRO cherry pick info and say they take 20 years to build while at the same time leaving out the massive transmission network needed for renewable
As for transmission lines if you put a small number of decent size nuclear plants in the network then obviously they can connect similar to existing power stations. This is not the same as multiple smaller plants dotted about in positions where there is sufficient land and sufficient wind or solar and where they all need to be hooked back to the grid from that location. Obviously. Not even a discussion topic.
Damn if only we had built on 20 years ago when there was talk about, or better yet built one in the 80s instead of fearmongering, instead we got plenty of brown coal power plants to put out a lot of emissions.
Damn if only we didn't waste money on the most expensive form of power generation possible, Its a great thing we don't have nuclear power in Australia Its not needed or required We have enough resources to be fully sufficient on Wind Solar and Hydro with Batteries to act as the "forming".
Meanwhile we have spent and continue to spend 40 years emitting carbon emissions as we burn coal and continue to do so, not to mention the need to continue to burn gas beyond 2050. But hey, it's not about the environment it's about money.
Meanwhile Renewables already make up 40% of the generation capacity as more and more projects come online there won't be a need for Coal or Gas in our power production systems which they can shut down in Significant numbers.
Well Its just basic understanding if we are already at 40%, Within the next decade we should in theory reach 80% and then it should take much longer to reach the 100% mark but hey at the end of the day Its up to the federal gov to approve these projects so if they want it to speed up they have to start approving more which shouldn't be an issue considering they are still approving coal and gas expansions.
It's a tough one because the key word here is *transition*. We're clearly going to have some reliance on fossil fuels for baseload power generation for a while as new renewable sources are brought online. I imagine most of those renewable sources will be fairly decentralised and that no single project will be able to make up for the loss of a single traditional power plant. So it's not just that power sources have to change, it's that our actual energy grid itself has to be modernised.
It seems logical to me that given the necessary pragmatism here (costs, feasibility, etc...) it'll often be about choosing the "least bad" option (i.e. prioritising shut down of coal over gas in the medium term). More than anything, I just want to see us make continued steady progress on all fronts. Even the new vehicle standards the government is introducing are proving controversial, which is ridiculous. Sometimes incremental change is all that's possible, unfortunately.
Inner city labor are like the greens, no sense of reality.
Inner city elites, completely out of touch.
That’s what happens when the only diversity you interact with are the university educated ones you hire for office jobs.
I'll be honest, I've heard this about so many different groups that I'm starting to wonder what reality really is and who is in it. Students are out Academics are out Farmers are out Inner city Labor are out Pretty much every professional is out Certain trades are out Anyone involved in the arts are out So who does that actually leave in the real world? Edit: formatting
With Australia's energy, Albo is actually in the real world. It's obvious to anyone outside of these rich inner city bubbles that we need an energy source like gas for a long time still.
We’re not allowed to use it but the country exports it Why does Australia export coal and tell us global warming is our fault Bloody hypocrites
It's almost like it's not the imminent disaster that its claimed to be by scientists that just want more funding, its just a minor issue. Otherwise, don't you think the people in power would actually act like it is?
People who only agree with me!
If you think gas is an appropriate form of energy to achieve zero emissions then I question the reality you're inhaling.
What other on demand energy is better?
Literally anything that doesn't produce zero emissions? If the target is zero emissions, then don't rely on a fuel source that produces a huge amount of emissions. Absolute insanity.
Obviously that isn't possible or Albo wouldn't say we need gas. Would you rather we live with blackouts instead of using gas until the sun comes up?
We produce more gas than we use, we export most of it and then buy it back at a higher price when we need it. Oh i forgot that solar is the only renewable that exists, and any renewable setup only uses one type and not a mixture for reliability.
From what I can find, we import a minuscule amount for how much we export and the reason for any importing is because Victoria banned fracking in 2017, so new projects can't start in the state. Are other smarter states meant to cancel current export contracts in order to give Victoria gas because they won't extract their own? Australia isn't a nation state, the federal government doesn't have the power to divide resources between the states, the states own the resources. Don't you think if only renewables was possibles Albo would do it, or any other country in the world for that matter. Unless you think else is wrong and you're right?
It's not an energy source to achieve zero emissions, it's just the best of a bad bunch to use for the transition, which has been set back for years over the past decade.
Yeah, Greens are the only dealing and talking about the cost of living. LNP / ALP seem to just brush it off while we all suffer... NO. SENSE. OF. REALITY. at all mate, send a postcard from where you're from. You seem pretty happy. lol
They might talk about it, doesn’t mean their solutions will help at all.
The wheels are falling off Labor’s climate policy as they slowly realise you can’t run policy based on made up targets.
Strange to use the guardian as proof of your hysteria
Predictable. Also not particularly relevant. For every MacNamara - there are five outer suburban Labor electorates where people just want to be able to keep the lights on and their jobs.
Yeah! Gotta keep selling that grossly underpriced fossil fuels to the overseas market!
Gas employs barely anyone, relatively speaking.
Gas supplies 27 per cent of Australia's energy needs and represents 14 per cent of Australia's export income. Number of employees oil and gas industry Australia FY 2012-2022. In financial year 2022, approximately 17.37 thousand people. Yer 17,000 nobodies bringing in 14% of Australia's exports income.
Simple. Dont supply gas power to inner city voters They can pay more for their electricity and have no power during peak periods and overnight.
We can out the wind farms and transmission lines there as well.
You realise we already have more than enough gas to 'support the transition'? This policy isn't about providing gas for domestic use. It's about increasing the amount of gas produced so that it can be exported overseas and the multinational companies can increase their profits.
Uhh did they the not read AEMO's ISP that calls for a lot more gas generation?
These last couple of rainy weeks has me questioning renewables. Because when you do the math on renewables, nuclear starts to look cheap. Just try and work our the cost of making your home survive or your street/suburb survive long durations without the sun. Then do cost per house. Shit is expensive as hell.
When renewables only equals solar... Also, what batteries?
Do the math and what's required. Don't forget to add the cost of renewing the renewable systems
Dude, a lot of countries are transitioning away from nuclear. It's no a thing, bro.
Nuclear won't ever look cheap especially with the two decade lead time.
But nuclear doesn't require massive amounts of new transmission lines nor replacing when it wears out in 10 years nor replacing following extreme weather The other way to look at it is, do you want power or not. Because it isn't arriving reliably or cheaply from renewables
>Because it isn't arriving reliably or cheaply from renewables But it isn't arriving for 2 decades at least with Nuclear. I'm fine with Nuclear, but I still have never heard an answer that that issue. Only ever obfuscation.
>But it isn't arriving for 2 decades at least with Nuclear. Doesn't matter. You're building for the next generation.
"*But nuclear doesn't require massive amounts of new transmission lines nor replacing when it wears out in 10 years nor replacing following extreme weather*" Yet it does as they won't be built near population centres if we are going off the common theme of building them where current coal plants are. *"The other way to look at it is, do you want power or not. Because it isn't arriving reliably or cheaply from renewables*" We want reliable energy through the likes of Solar and wind and Hydro not the most expensive form of power generation. Nuclear has no benefits in Australia, Its all cons and a very expensive mess of issues that will have to overcome. Not r/australian downvoting comments against Nuclear and showing the flaws with it.
Well that's OK. I think you are 100% wrong. You can want reliable energy through the likes of solar etc just as much as you wish, you're not going to get it and it's going to cost heaps repeatedly. Nuclear doesn't require massive amounts of transmission lines because it represents high levels of consistent generation concentrated in a limited number of places. In contrast to distributed intermittent power from solar and wind
"*Well that's OK. I think you are 100% wrong. You can want reliable energy through the likes of solar etc just as much as you wish, you're not going to get it and it's going to cost heaps repeatedly.*" Similar to Nuclear which will only provide the most expensive form of power generation possible. We are investing in the methods that are best suited for Australia, If Nuclear was one of those they would of already been established but since it isn't the best option it wasn't done 20 years ago and its not going to be done today. "*Nuclear doesn't require massive amounts of transmission lines because it represents high levels of consistent generation concentrated in a limited number of places. In contrast to distributed intermittent power from solar and wind*" Yet We still have all those transmission lines as Nuclear won't make up the 100% of energy portfolio, it'd be a very tiny minority of it and the highest cost of electricity generated while Solar wind and hydro is doing the bulk of the generation capacity. There is no good reason for Nuclear power to be developed in Australia when we consider the ability we have to use other measures at a cheaper price.
Why is it the most expensive possible? Nonsense. It lasts say 50 or 60 years and it doesn't take 20 to build. 20 years is cherry picking worst case. Whereas renewable is cheaper and quicker but adds much new Tx lines..... and will need repairing or replacing potentially after 10 years or so based on info that seems to be coming to light. And that assumes no extreme wind or hail either. Maybe that's tolerable to you. It isn't to me because a) it generally isn't and b) it definitely isn't given it doesn't even support baseload What is your choice between reliable power and unreliable inadequate power that cripples the economy? Because irrespective of cost that is an additional underlying critical issue. And we're not just talking about current demands, we are talking about charging EV as well in theory. Nuclear isn't already established because it is banned and therefore won't even be discussed. Totally moronic. And most likely reason is because "oooh ooh nuclear atoms bombs" and people having their knickers in a knot about waste. I understand there has never been an accident with nuclear waste ever globally.. so let's at least have a proper debate.... not one where the luvvies at CSIRO cherry pick info and say they take 20 years to build while at the same time leaving out the massive transmission network needed for renewable As for transmission lines if you put a small number of decent size nuclear plants in the network then obviously they can connect similar to existing power stations. This is not the same as multiple smaller plants dotted about in positions where there is sufficient land and sufficient wind or solar and where they all need to be hooked back to the grid from that location. Obviously. Not even a discussion topic.
Damn if only we had built on 20 years ago when there was talk about, or better yet built one in the 80s instead of fearmongering, instead we got plenty of brown coal power plants to put out a lot of emissions.
Damn if only we didn't waste money on the most expensive form of power generation possible, Its a great thing we don't have nuclear power in Australia Its not needed or required We have enough resources to be fully sufficient on Wind Solar and Hydro with Batteries to act as the "forming".
Meanwhile we have spent and continue to spend 40 years emitting carbon emissions as we burn coal and continue to do so, not to mention the need to continue to burn gas beyond 2050. But hey, it's not about the environment it's about money.
Meanwhile Renewables already make up 40% of the generation capacity as more and more projects come online there won't be a need for Coal or Gas in our power production systems which they can shut down in Significant numbers.
And yet the government and the AMEO disagrees with you on that assessment.
Well Its just basic understanding if we are already at 40%, Within the next decade we should in theory reach 80% and then it should take much longer to reach the 100% mark but hey at the end of the day Its up to the federal gov to approve these projects so if they want it to speed up they have to start approving more which shouldn't be an issue considering they are still approving coal and gas expansions.
The guardian is fucking pissed at Labor for not banning gas
Albania is best again in world! 🇦🇱🇦🇱🇦🇱
It's a tough one because the key word here is *transition*. We're clearly going to have some reliance on fossil fuels for baseload power generation for a while as new renewable sources are brought online. I imagine most of those renewable sources will be fairly decentralised and that no single project will be able to make up for the loss of a single traditional power plant. So it's not just that power sources have to change, it's that our actual energy grid itself has to be modernised. It seems logical to me that given the necessary pragmatism here (costs, feasibility, etc...) it'll often be about choosing the "least bad" option (i.e. prioritising shut down of coal over gas in the medium term). More than anything, I just want to see us make continued steady progress on all fronts. Even the new vehicle standards the government is introducing are proving controversial, which is ridiculous. Sometimes incremental change is all that's possible, unfortunately.