‘Are we destroying the environment to save the planet’
Welcome to the column where you provide the content. Responding to a column by Judith Sloan, Chris Bowen wrote in The Australian today: “If the country could achieve a 2020 target with a federal government that could be charitably described as lukewarm at best in its support for renewable energy, why would we write off our chances of achieving a 2030 target with a federal government that has support for renewable energy as a signature?” Mary was contrary:
“Are we destroying the environment to save the planet? The earth will be plundered for rare earths. The land is already so polluted by wind and solar, every 20 years they will require replacing and then where do they go, millions of tons of waste? The numbers don’t add up Mr Bowen.”
Neal agreed:
“Renewable energy may be good for the climate however, it is a poor choice for the environment. This coming from someone living in a rural area littered with renewables.”
Ian was impressed:
“Thanks! The best piece I have read in The Australian in memory.”
Andrew asked:
“I may have missed it, but was there an update on the progress in installing 22,000 solar panels per day?”
Achilles probed for weak spots:
”Given that the incredibly high numbers of batteries, solar panels, wind towers, transmission towers, distribution cables, high power switching components, etc, that are required to operate a huge grid are all not manufactured in Australia, and they have definite lifetimes, much of them will have to be replaced before your much vaulted 2030, with the resulting waste of materials and money. Our money.”
Simons said:
“Bowen asserts that an SMR (small modular reactor) would cost $5 billion. Bowen has also stated that rewiring would cost some $20-plus billion. Well that means we could build at least 4 SMRs that would be hooked to the existing grid and generate at least 1GWh of electricity on 24/7 basis for 60-80 years!
“An equivalent solar farm would need to have a theoretical output of 3+GW and would need replacing at least 4 times in addition to the $20+billion for rewiring. These are your figures – nuclear is a bargain.”
Lights out, said Michael:
“I’m looking at some very nice caves this weekend, going to get in before the rush.”
The Eternal Note of Sadness noted:
“Bowen is completely correct.”
Bear growled:
“USA, UK, Russia, Japan, Belgium, Canada, China, France, Switzerland, South Korea, Sweden…..and many other countries use nuclear power. But somehow we know better.”
John wasn’t keen:
“With large reserves of coal, gas and uranium, Australia should have an abundance of cheap electricity which would flow on to all manufacturing and business making us more competitive and helping to dampen inflation. Instead, we have a renewables mess (it has a significant environmental impact) and sell coal to someone else to pollute the air. Leaving nuclear out of the equation is a poor strategy which I believe will put us further behind.”
Sleepy Lizard said:
“When countries like Poland have half a dozen BWX-300 reactors up and running in a few years that argument is going to get very thin. In the meantime Australia may well have the most expensive power on the planet by then. Surely there is someone in Labor who actually understands how electricity is made.”
Trevor said:
“The Extinction Rebellion types who like gluing themselves to roads are right about one thing. It makes no logical sense to rail against coal and gas like Bowen does and yet export it to major ‘polluters’ like China and India. If you truly believe that CO2 will cause a climate catastrophe or global ‘boiling’ then why would you extract and export the stuff to be used by others, while investing $billions (perhaps $trillions) in solar panels and windmills imported from China in particular who has burnt our carbon to make the panels and windmills?
“And why would you cover thousands of square kilometres of our arable land and wildlife habitat with solar panels, windmills and transmission corridors Doesn’t this mean we are actually paying China to pollute and destroy our wildlife and the planet? And if you don’t believe that the planet is going to boil then why spend all that money on Chinese imports when we could just burn the carbon ourselves in our own power stations? Doesn’t this seem mad? The logic of Labor is so conflicted that we are willing to impoverish ourselves for nothing. Indeed it is mad.”
Mark asked:
“Mr Bowen, Can you point to one first world country providing their total electrical power needs based on only solar and wind?”
David despaired:
“What is Blackout Bowen doing signing up to this ridiculous proposal. Destroying our children’s future with expensive power. Obviously can’t see what is happening in Europe.”
Stephen said:
“While nuclear maybe costly to build, given our uranium reserves and the lifespan of the plant, the likelihood is the cost is proportionate but the real advantage is its sustainability verses a weather dependent system.”
Emma added:
“We’ve just had a huge (and expensive) battery installed in SA. The hype was ridiculous and all it’s left us with is power to 75,000 homes for a whole hour.”
Jacques’ request:
“Mr Bowen, please give the facts on both renewable costs & nuclear. It isn’t useful telling us renewables are cheaper than nuclear without the facts.
“As far as I can see, the components of renewables are all made with mega power use from coal-fired power stations in China. Battery manufacturing is a filthy, dangerous industry and I can’t see how they would be good for the environment when they are discarded. How will these solar panels that are spreading over our beautiful landscapes be disposed of, when their components aren’t recyclable?”
Andrew asserted:
“Judith Sloan uses real numbers.”
–
Greg Sheridan reckoned the Republican presidential primary looks just like it did in 2016 – Godzilla and assorted pygmies. The two winners, relatively, in the first Republican presidential debate, were Florida Governor, Ron DeSantis, and businessman/entrepreneur, Vivek Ramaswamy but the elephant not in the room was Donald Trump. Christopher said:
“The most telling moment was when all but two put their hands up when asked who would support Trump if he was found guilty in any of his legal cases. The day when the leaders of the party of law and order pledged their support for a convicted felon for the US presidency is the day when that party loses what’s left of its credibility.”
Michael’s take:
“Trump’s interview with Tucker (Carlson) was incredible. The Republican candidates debate was also very interesting.”
Lynette’s like:
“There are very few women in politics that I like but Nikki Haley was impressive.”
Katherine’s view:
“I thought both Haley and Pence did very well, made strong substantive arguments without slogan speak... Yet neither of them are outrageous enough to win, which shows where the Republican Party is, sadly.”
Luke’s lament:
“A shame to see Greg describe Vivek as radical. Once a upon a time, the policies Vivek is now espousing would have been described as core centre right values. Now they are radical? Heaven help America and the rest of us if that is the case.
“Vivek is exactly what America needs – a visionary leader who is prepared to call a spade a spade (like his views on climate change) and take drastic action where wasteful government spending is not adding value or duplicative (e.g. education). This is how to correct the current malaise of government due to establishment career politicians who don’t government for the mainstream majority.”
James C Campbell said:
“Many previous Presidents have challenged election results. Al Gore was in the courts for months. After the 2016 elections Hillary and her cheerleaders were screaming Trump was an illegitimate President and the list goes on in the history of the US way back to some of the first elections held. Because it is Trump it is somehow worse.”
Zebulon’s analysis:
“The Republicans are in a terrible bind. It is inconceivable that Trump will win more moderate and swinging voters than he did at the last election (even though Biden’s age will be a major handicap). On the other hand, if he is not selected, he will go solo, splitting the conservative vote and destroying any chances of beating the Democrats. Trump is a nightmare Republicans wish will go away, one way or another.”
Caz cackled:
“Vivek does sound like a chatbot. A novice with the potential to make unfortunate decisions and not listen to more wisened heads.”
–
The plane carrying Yevgeny Prigozhin, the head of the Wagner paramilitary group, crashed as the result of an assassination plot but wasn’t shot down by a surface-to-air missile, US officials said. Vladimir Putin, meantime offered condolences for “a man of complicated fate” who had made some serious mistakes. Timothy wondered:
“If Putin is an admirer of the dark arts practised by Lavrenti Beria, I wonder if he ever ponders how Beria ended up?”
Ross reckoned:
“Prigozhin’s one massive mistake was that he turned back on the road to Moscow!”
Bruce said:
“Will be interesting to see what happens to Wagner’s forces in Africa and Syria. Surely Putin has some plan in place to take over the power and money.”
Peter was perplexed:
“Why would you put all your top people on one flight? That is 101 stuff even smaller companies would not do. Unimaginable for a group like this.”
Martin’s flight of fancy:
“It’s hard to say if dictators follow similar paths by instinct or design but this has another eerie similarity with Adolf Hitler’s regime in the 1930s and 1940s. Similarly to Prigozhin’s Wagner Group, Ernest Rohm led the paramilitary ‘brown shirts’ that did Hitler’s dirty work until he got too big for his boots and met the same fate.”
AnthonyR said:
“Well, if Prigozhin thought he was safe enough to really be on that plane, then, yes, the criminal-in-chief is right: he certainly make one big mistake.”
Richard_Bonato wasn’t shocked:
“What’s that saying – You live by the sword, you die by the sword.”
The Commentator’s wife said:
“No surprises with this outcome. Others who have disagreed with the dictator have ‘jumped out of hospital windows’. A violent ending was inevitable.”
Ted1’s theory:
“There was always a simple explanation for the run on Moscow. That was that the war on Bakhmut ran over budget, leaving mercenary pay cheques. overdue. This put Prizoghin between a rock and a very hard place. That run on Moscow probably put enough pressure on Putin to release the funds.”
Last word to John:
“You sup with the devil, you need a long spoon.”
–
Each Friday the cream of your views on the news rises and we honour the voices that made the debate great. To boost your chances of being featured, please be pertinent, pithy and preferably make a point. Solid arguments, original ideas, sparkling prose, rapier wit and rhetorical flourishes may count in your favour. Civility is essential. Comments may be edited for length.
Stop torturing our young on housing affordability
While there’s no silver bullet on housing, we’re finally taking the right steps to build more homes.
Brutal home truths for those marching in support of Palestinians
That slogan ‘from the river to the sea’ is not about real estate. For Palestine and Hamas it is, and was always, what they see as the noble cause of ridding us of Jews. Hitler failed. They and their successors don’t plan to.