Ask Bucko

It appears that Australia is in the grip of a Trumpian wave of post-truth. Of course there is not much resistance being shown, as Peter Dutton storms around the country, spouting what can only be described as errant rubbish, and yet the best the Prime Minister can muster is to call Dutton a fantasist.

This is all about our future energy mix, and suddenly Dutton is a fan of nuclear power. One has to ask whether he had any help in formulating his plan, because the consensus of educated opinion is that it would leave a huge gap in capacity, as ageing coal fired power dies out, and nuclear will take a minimum of twenty years to even look likely.

There is also the ugly question of cost.

Again, the CSIRO has virtually cancelled nuclear power’s ticket, as the most expensive of the options. It has calculated that nuclear power is roughly twice as expensive as renewable, and the analysis includes transmission costs. Peter Dutton, with the combined expertise of the Coalition front bench, has questioned the CSIRO’s figures.

Never forget the calculating power of Angus Taylor and Ted O’Brien. And Sussan Ley must get a guernsey. She apparently has an interest in numerology.

An additional part of Dutton’s masterplan is that several of the sites might need to house multiple nuclear reactors, so the cost will go up exponentially.

The final nail in this particular coffin is that even with the original seven reactors built and firing, it is estimated they would only supply 3.7% of Australia’s energy needs.

What will we do in the intervening years?

So far it seems Australia is largely ‘on track’ to meet its 2030 emissions reduction target. Remember the target is to reduce carbon emissions to 43% of 2005 levels. The other side of this coin is that we also have a target of 82% of 2030 electricity generation be from renewables.

Well, amidst all the hand wringing from the Coalition, we are tracking at 42% reduction so far, so it is a mystery as to why the Coalition has seemingly ‘thrown in the towel’ so soon, and so close to success. Let us hope they discover more ‘ticker’ for what will be a race to the death.

Why are people not throwing rotten fruit at Dutton’s plan?

Anthony Albanese has miscalculated the intellectual laziness and the truly massive disengagement of the majority of Australians. It is not as if we haven’t seen how well a meaningless slogan gains traction in this wide land.

Some colourful examples were when John Howard went on the attack against Kim Beazley, describing him as “lacking the ticker” to be Prime Minister. He then excused himself, suggesting the phrase was not personally insulting, but “one of those sort of endearing Australian colloquialisms”.

Howard telling us about “children overboard” won him an election. Tony Abbott, whether as Opposition Leader or Prime Minister, was a sloganeer of note. “Ditch the Witch” to describe a female Prime Minister must vie with his pithy slogan, “climate change is crap”.

So there are indications that, if Dutton’s ‘fever dream’ is not knocked on the head now, we could see a Coalition government arising from the ashes.

Who can ever forget the Voice, where Dutton’s instruction to the country was, “If you don’t know, vote NO”.

David Littleproud has gone as far as to say that the Coalition will find energy alternatives “so we don’t have to pursue “large scale renewables.”

One can only wonder how the Nationals party room, with the likes of Barnaby Joyce and Matt Canavan shambling along in a denialist haze, will do their very best to unearth some sort of alternative energy source. Perhaps a giant Akubra hat could be raised to keep the sun off our sun-drenched country?

Dutton is wrecking the transition

A large part of our plan to renew our energy grid lies in attracting capital to invest in renewable energy. Not rooftop solar, but in massive solar farms, and offshore windfarms. These are the future of renewables, sited close to industrial centres, and once up and running, supplying power at the cheapest prices available.

With them, aluminium smelting and steel making are possible. Not in twenty to thirty years, but possibly in ten years. And cheap.

Dutton’s kite flying has already caused some investors to question whether they will go ahead. Uncertainty is death to the investment community, and without consistency in our position on the future of our energy mix we will struggle to maintain our momentum.

Dutton likes to use another Trumpism, likening anyone who questions his dodgy suggestions to an inner-city elite. Hopefully there are enough engaged citizens who will see this latest folly as just another sign of the emptiness at the centre of the Coalition, and an excellent way to divert our attention away from the nihilism and the disarray of a fractious group of climate deniers.

You have to wonder how they explain the Canadian and Californian bushfires of recent times, the lack of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice, and the fact that every succeeding year is hotter than the last.

Contrary to Dutton’s simple slogans, Albanese and his government need to sell the transition, and stop with the lightweight witticisms. We all saw how ineffective that approach was with the Voice referendum. Dutton is playing the wrecker, and, like Trump, he has put his political fortunes ahead of the national interest.