Nationals leader David Littleproud says he wants to have an “honest” conversation about Australia’s energy transition. Well and good. But maybe Littleproud himself can help that process by not telling outright lies.

On Sunday, Littleproud did us all a favour by spelling out in detail the Nationals energy policy, just in case it wasn’t already obvious: Stop renewables and wait for nuclear.

It has been, he admitted, the party’s policy for at least the last decade, if not longer.

That’s not surprising, given that its the favoured policy and strategy of Big Oil, Big Gas, Big Coal, and the likes of Gina Rinehart to whom the Nationals appear completely beholden. And it wins support at all levels of the Nationals grass roots through a co-ordinated and quite extraordinary campaign of fear and misinformation.

Littleproud’s train crash of an interview on ABC’s Insiders program on Sunday – well, it might have been a train crash if he had been questioned by someone with the wit to hold his talking points up to scrutiny – highlight the tragedy of Australia’s and the world’s current climate policies.

All these policies are focused on net zero by 2050, or 2060 if you happen to be China. As many scientists fear, it’s a target that is used as a prompt by naysers and do-nothings – such as the Nationals and the fossil fuel industries – to put things off for another day.

It is another excuse for delay, delay, and yet more delay – even though the science tells us, quite clearly, and more emphatically given the summer in the northern hemisphere and tumbling heat records – that what matters most is how quickly we act now.

Littleproud is completely unfazed by the science. In fact, it is a stunning rejection of the science. He wants a “pause” to the roll out of wind and solar and transmission links and a stop to the “reckless pursuit” of the government’s 82 per cent renewables targets.

He suggests that wind and solar has its place, but that solar should be built on city rooftops, not on “prime agricultural” farmland, or in remnant forests. We should wait for nuclear, he says, because “we’ve got time” and net zero by 2050 is the government’s “only commitment.”

He wasn’t asked the obvious question about the Nationals acceptance of climate science, the need to act by 2030, the need to try and cap average global warming to 1.5°C, a target that would require net zero to be reached more than a decade earlier.

Littleproud appealed for “honest conversations”, and then said the federal government’s 83 per cent renewables target requires 28,000 kms of new transmission lines.

Let’s be absolutely clear, that is simply not true.

The Australian Energy Market Operator’s Integrated System Plan suggests that up to 10,000kms of new transmission will be needed over the next two decades under its “step change” scenario, which includes the 82 per cent renewable share that is now the federal government’s target.

That renewables target, by the way, is key to reaching Australia’s modest emissions reduction target of 43 per cent below 2005 levels – a year chosen because of its peak land clearing of remnant forests under the Liberal/National Coalition.

Granted, the preparation work for the transmission lines have been poorly handled, by transmission companies, governments and the likes of AEMO, but it should be noted that most of these transmission lines are considered necessary even in the “slow scenario”, where science is completely ignored and coal hangs around a lot longer.

Littleproud’s number of 28,000kms is only mentioned in the “hydrogen superpower” scenario that imagines huge arrays of wind and solar in remote areas that might need to be connected to the grid. It is of course, his sponsors’ worst nightmare – because it means the end of the fossil fuel industry as we know it.

Littleproud then goes on to mention the prospect of nuclear SMRs (small modular reactors), and even something called “micro reactors”, which are little more than an idea, and probably even further down the pipeline than the SMRs, which are themselves at least a decade away, and not likely to be cheap.

The Nationals leader reckons big industry users like smelters might like the idea of micro reactors because they are modular, and about 3-5MW and can be used to power their facilities, and bring down costs.

It’s a ridiculous suggestion. A smelter draws up to about 500MW of load, so it will need around 100 of these things that don’t exist, and as the former head of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission wrote recently, only ideologues and ‘tech bros” think that nuclear can be cheap. And the Coalition.

The owners of Australia’s smelters, for the record, have already made their views clear. Rio Tinto, for instance, has said that its smelters only have a future beyond the end of the decade if they can convert their power supply to renewables by 2030.

If not, they will not be able to compete with the rest of the world, either on cost, or on emissions. And who is providing the biggest stumbling block to renewables? The Nationals and fossil fuel industry led campaign against wind, solar and transmission.

And therein lies the tragedy, the dishonesty, and the absurdity of the Nationals’ and the Coalition’s stance against green energy.

It will stuff industry in Australia, and the local economy, long before it stuffs the planet and the environment. But by then, they – and the Murdoch media which trumpet their positions, and the mainstream media that refuses to question it – will have found something else to whinge about.

      • SaveComengs@lemmy.federa.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        the problem is the instability of renewable power though, batteries aren’t cheap and arent great for the environment either.

        I am pro nuclear and think that we should start building a fission plant ASAP on somewhere like french island in vic, and switch to that when it’s done after 15 years or so. We should be building renewables in the meantime though

        • Zagorath@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          The truth is that baseload power isn’t nearly the problem for renewables that the right would like you to believe it is.

          Nuclear is insanely expensive to build. Maybe one day new nuclear tech will eventually deliver the promised reduction in price, but it’s not there yet. Renewables have been the cheaper option in Australia for years, and are only continuing to come down. I was relatively pro-nuclear myself, until I learnt that.

          • vividspecter@lemm.eeOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Agreed. Australia is pretty much the perfect location for renewable energy. We have an absurd amount of solar and wind resources (both onshore and offshore), and a large install base of rooftop solar to help in the transition. The only real challenge is transmission lines, but we are going to need to replace and upgrade them regardless of what we do, and some of that challenge can be reduced by putting more batteries out there in the right places, and using the existing lines more efficiently during the transition.

            • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              some of that challenge can be reduced by putting more batteries out there in the right places

              “The right place” in my opinion is “in your carport”.

              Australia has finally started seriously transitioning to EVs, with the number more than doubling in the last 12 months, and most EVs have a battery large enough to provide overnight power for several households.

              Add a simple toggle switch to the charger for your household EV charger - in one position it fully charges the battery as quickly as possible. In the other position it charges quickly until the battery has maybe 200km of range. Above that, it only charges if the grid has excess capacity. And if the grid is short of capacity then it will actually drain your EV battery (paying the EV owner just like you get paid for solar feed in right now) again guaranteeing you’ll still have 200km of range.

              If enough people also charge their EV during the day, and we have other overnight power sources (hydro, wind), I think that would easily provide baseload power for the entire grid. If necessary more EV owners can be incentivised to contribute by simply increasing how much they get paid.

              At this point, I think clean energy is a solved problem. It’s just a matter of how long it takes to implement the system… but really we should be moving on to more difficult problems. Like methane. And helping less wealthy nations with the transition.

              • vividspecter@lemm.eeOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I was thinking community batteries as well, but EV batteries will certainly be a big contributor.

              • No1@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                And to add, some EVs, eg the Aptera, are putting solar cells on the car too. So you don’t charge them, you move them outside 😀

                The Aptera claims it can harvest up to 4kWh/day, which is good for ~60km range. In Aptera’s case, it’s more than the average US daily mileage.

                Of course, a massive SUV EV could harvest more, but won’t be anywhere as efficient…

                It’s all a bit trickier for renters and apartments though…

          • SaveComengs@lemmy.federa.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Baseload isn’t the problem right now, but we can make it the problem instead.

            If we have a solid foundation of baseload, we can incentivize more use of power in low demand times. This could be through water heaters heating household water at night, insulating more houses and using their internal temperature as energy storage, and with the increasing amount of EVs we could also mandate them to only be charged at night.

            These measures would all flatten the curve of electricity consumption and increase the base demand in relation to the peak.

            Nuclear is ofc really expensive to build, but it’s also expensive to build a million solar cells. And although we don’t know how expensive it would be because we don’t have nuclear power in Australia, in many countries it’s even cheaper than wind and solar per kwh.

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      The only thing they can come up with as a downside is that “prime farmland is being covered in solar”. This is ridiculous, nobody’s doing that. There’s agrovoltaics, where the shade panels provide are an addition to the growing process, but that’s about it.

  • Marin_Rider@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    its pretty disheartening to see comments like this. what exactly do they propose to do in the 20 odd years it will take to get reactor 1 online, given their favourite source coal will be progressively shut down regardless? no matter what your opinion on ‘base load’ power is, its clear renewables have at the very least a vital role in filling the gaps if not more

    • vividspecter@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s just a delay tactic. Keep making profit on coal and gas for as long as possible while pretending nuclear is viable in Australia. And as a bonus, they get to oppose something that is supported by the left, which their supporters will love.

    • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      what exactly do they propose to do in the 20 odd years it will take

      I expect they will do everything in their power to make sure it takes longer than 20 odd years.

      Seriously, the Nationals plan is backed by some of the biggest oil/gas/coal industries which tells you all you need to know about how genuine it is. Renewable or Nuclear, either way this is an existential threat which they have no answer for except to slow it down.

      Nuclear is a lot easier to slow down than solar/wind/hydro - since those are so cheap people will just do it on their own and disconnect from the grid if the grid continues to cost as much as it does right now. If we do go Nuclear they will support the “not in my back yard” issue just as hard as they already are for wind/solar/hydro. And while I think it’s ridiculous to complain about living where you can see a wind turbine off in the distance… even I would be sympathetic to someone who doesn’t want to risk living near a potential future Chernobyl or Fukishima.