Posts

Real Vision for Genuine Prosperity vs. Empty Promises

,

When the Prime Minister talks about ‘Future Made in Australia,’ he really means unworkable renewable projects made in Australia but owned by mostly foreign multinational corporations. There’s no national pride in this; it’s simply a cash cow for the PM’s renewables mates.  The money is election fairy floss and not much more. 

In this speech, I highlight projects that are genuinely made in Australia and involve mostly Australian companies and will grow the wealth and prosperity of our beautiful country. This includes the Iron Boomerang project, which will create a rail crossing across the top end, benefiting Aboriginal communities, grazing, and mining. It will also drive the Capricornia steel project at Port Hedland and Abbot Point, which will generate 40,000 breadwinner jobs, add $100 billion to our GDP and contribute $25 billion in government revenue. 

One Nation builds, while the Albanese Government delivers press releases. 

Transcript

The Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 provides a legislative framework for parts of the government ‘s Future Made in Australia policy. This provides for an investment of $22.7 billion over the next 10 years to ‘help Australia become an indispensable part of the global economy as the world transforms to net zero emissions and undergoes the most significant changes since the industrial revolution’. The government talks about maximising the economic and industrial benefits of the move to net zero and securing Australia’s place in a changing global economic and strategic landscape. Specifically, the following claim is made by the government: 

Given our critical and abundant natural endowments and skilled workforce, Australia is well positioned to strengthen priority supply chains and become an indispensable part of the net zero global economy. 

One Nation are big supporters of the first part of that statement. Australia is blessed with abundant and substantial mineral resources, and it’s our obligation to share those with the world so other countries can enjoy the standard of living we have. That is, we used to have it. Now our economy is in a race to the bottom, with the Greens, teals and Labor in a race to see how many wealth-generating projects they can shut down. 

The Future Made in Australia agenda includes broader investments in the government’s growth agenda, including critical technologies, defence priorities, skills in priority sectors, a competitive business environment and reforms to better attract and deploy investment—in particular, projects where some level of domestic capability is necessary for efficient delivery of economic resilience and security and the private sector will not deliver the necessary investment in the sector in the absence of government support. That’s an important point. I have been working with the project sponsor of Capricorn Steel, a steel park project in northern Queensland, which I will speak more often a moment. This project, known also as Project Iron Boomerang, includes a railway, port and new energy efficient ships. This is a $50 billion project, initially, which is to be entirely financed through private equity, who have the money ready to go but will not commit it, because they don’t trust the Australian government. After watching a litany of cancelled projects—like Adani, where a billionaire from India wanted to invest $17 billion in Australia, and we did our best as a country and as the state of Queensland to keep him out—long legal delays and general incompetence, financiers are taking their money elsewhere. 

This is why the government is now creating an investment pathway to get things built again. It’s the government or nothing. The prime function of the government is to build infrastructure projects that allow private enterprise to grow the economy and raise the wealth and prosperity of all Australians; to improve productivity in a way that protects the natural environment. This bill adds a layer on top, which is that the development must be net zero friendly. 

One Nation doesn’t believe in the United Nations’ globalist net zero agenda. There is no empirical scientific data, no logical scientific points and no policy basis. We’ve seen that repeatedly. We believe it involves a massive transfer of wealth from everyday citizens into the pockets of the world’s predatory billionaires—billionaire parasites sucking solar and wind subsidies. It forms a highly regressive tax on the poor using electricity. We wonder when the Left signed on to a crony capitalist agenda that hurts everyday Australians for no environmental benefit. That’s a separate issue. One Nation does agree the national environment should be protected. We are stewards of the most fragile ecosystem in the world, and we must act with care. This bill doesn’t actually mention good stewardship of the natural environment, but it’s okay; One Nation does that as part of our core party values. 

The Future Made in Australia policy includes the following broad stated aims: firstly, attracting investment in key industries through the national investment framework, streamlining approval processes for investment and encouraging private sector investment in sustainable industries; secondly, investing in net zero industries and increasing the demand for Australia’s green exports; thirdly, strengthening resources and economic security by investing in resources and critical mineral supply chains, as well as investing in manufacturing of clean energy technology; and fourthly, investing in new technologies and capabilities, reforming tertiary education, providing a training and skills pipeline for Future Made in Australia priority industries, strengthening defence capability and increasing drought and disaster resilience, among other things. 

The bill establishes the National Interest Framework, to be used for sector assessments which will determine which sectors of the economy are ones in which Australia could have a competitive advantage in a net zero economy and that require government investment, or where some degree of domestic capacity is required for the economic resilience and security. The government’s stated guidelines in this section include a community benefit test which includes promoting safe, secure and well-paid work; developing skilled and inclusive workforces; working with communities to achieve positive outcomes, in particular First Nations communities and those affected by the transition to net zero; and strengthening domestic industrial capabilities, including local supply chains. This sounds like socialism—government wanting to control. 

One Nation agrees with the intent. In particular, the industrial and mining sectors are being hollowed out through net zero measures to the detriment of the workers, unionists and their families. If the government is telling the truth, they will be able to rectify what they’ve already done in hollowing out the bush and the mining and manufacturing. Otherwise, fine Australian workers will join the tent cities that have sprung up under this Labor government. It should be pointed out that local supply chains are in fact part of the United Nations 2030 sustainability goals. It is more commonly called short supply chains. This goal encourages local supply of all goods and services, especially food. This may seem fine until you realise that, under this goal, anything which can’t be supplied locally will not be available at all. That’s the design. Except it will be available to the nomenklatura who can afford the carbon dioxide tax on long supply chains. If Australians want to live in a world that even vaguely resembles the world we grew up in, then local manufacturing is essential. 

This bill seems to represent a newfound realisation by the Albanese Labor government that their union bosses and union members are running out of jobs, the economy is tanking and the next election is moving way out of reach. One Nation can get on board with making things here again. We can’t, though, get on board with all the net zero nonsense in this bill. The bill is written generally, allowing the minister wide powers to completely stuff things up. I don’t see this as any different to the general stuffing-up the Albanese government is already doing. Giving it more ways to make mistakes seems like a bad idea. 

The bill has some good qualities. The economic resilience and security stream relates to sectors where Australia requires a degree of domestic capacity and resilience for domestic, economic or security reasons, and there’s an absence of private sector investment with that government support. The provisions around this section are quite extensive and seem to be a genuine attempt to provide for Australia’s sovereign industrial capacity—without using the word ‘sovereign’, of course! 

Let me give you an example of a project that fits the economic resilience and security rules like a glove and provides breadwinner, family friendly, secure jobs for tens of thousands of Australians. Capricorn Steel is a project to create an Australian steel industry using new, zero-emission steel plants located at Abbot Point near Townsville and Port Hedland in Western Australia. Boomerang ships would take beautiful Queensland coking coal around to Port Hedland in Western Australia, where it’ll be used with their iron ore to produce Australian steel. This will be the world’s highest-quality steel, produced at 10 to 15 per cent less than China—the cheapest quality steel in the world. 

From Port Hedland this steel can be exported to markets in the subcontinent—India and Europe. The development crescent of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia will become the world’s largest steel market over the next 20 years; Australia is perfectly placed to capitalise on that. Those ships will return to the Port of Gladstone carrying iron ore which will be combined with Australian coking coal to create a second steel park at Abbot Point. From there, Inland Rail can take this steel anywhere in Australia to help meet Australia’s steel needs—steel that is critical to net zero, housing, construction and our modern lifestyle, steel that is critical to Australia’s defence capability. Abbot Point, or the Port of Gladstone, is perfectly situated to export this steel to Asia, China and the United States. 

Development of a railway across the Top End to open up areas currently served by road as well as new port facilities and new high-efficiency shipping are all projects that satisfy the development criteria in this bill—plus a water pipeline, plus a communications link to open up Central Australia and northern Queensland, the Northern Territory and northern Western Australia. Capricorn Steel and Project Iron Boomerang will add $100 billion to Australia’s gross domestic product, provide 40,000 secure breadwinner jobs and provide $25 billion in government revenue every year. Capricorn Steel will be emission free, for those who believe this global warming nonsense. Every ton of steel produced in the zero-emission steel plants to be constructed at Port Hedland and Abbot Point will save two tonnes of carbon dioxide from steel produced elsewhere. That’s a reduction in carbon dioxide production of 88 million tonnes a year. 

There is no net zero without steel. Yet all the messaging coming from the government around this bill is nothing but net zero, which is nonsense. I get it: even net zero carpetbaggers are running out of interest in this failed net zero scam, so the government has to steal taxpayers’ money to keep net zero going. 

One Nation has no confidence this bill will achieve anything positive for Australia. If the government wants to move the provisions around economic resilience and security into a new bill, with Infrastructure Australia in charge, One Nation would be delighted to support those measures. 

/2 Comments/by

Net Zero Policies Fuel Rising Cost of Living

,

The cost of living continues to skyrocket out of control.

This government is pouring fuel on the fire with its net zero policies making everything in the economy more expensive. The true scale of how crazy their plans are is apparent with some simple figures. Yet this government is ignorant to the damage they are causing.

Fix the cost of living and bring down inflation – ditch the net zero plans.

Transcript | Part 1 – Question Time

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator McAllister. For every 100 megawatts of installed coal-fired power station capacity, the production of electricity average is around 95 to 98 megawatts. For every 100 megawatts of installed solar and wind generation capacity, though, the actual production of electricity average is just 23 megawatts, with wind itself being just 21. This means that to achieve design capacity, more than four times the installed rated capacity is required—almost five times for wind. Minister, is this included in Labor’s transition costs?

Senator McAllister: Thanks very much for the question, Senator Roberts. In terms of costings, we take the advice of the experts. We’ve had this conversation more than once, in fact, in the context of estimates and in other forums. AEMO works through a range of scenarios and configurations for the National Electricity Market and makes an assessment of the optimal pathway to meet our energy requirements at the optimal cost. They do consider, of course, the capacity factors of the different options that are available to us. There’s actually quite a lot of work to do. The truth is that we inherited a mess in the energy system. When we came in, the average wholesale energy price was $286 a megawatt hour—

The PRESIDENT: Minister McAllister, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts?

Senator ROBERTS: Point of order on relevance: standing order 72(3)(c) says that answers shall be directly relevant to each question. Can we get on to whether or not Labor is aware—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, as I’ve reminded other senators in this place, make your point of order but don’t follow it up with a statement. The minister is being directly relevant to the points of your question. Minister McAllister, please continue.

Senator McAllister: Thanks, President. As I was saying, we came to government with a lot of work to do because the previous government had 22 energy policies, all of which failed. None of them landed. During the period when they were in government, four gigawatts of dispatchable capacity left the system and only one came on. We actually need to take steps to sort that out, because the previous government was repeatedly warned by the market operator that a failure to deal with the impending closure of coal-fired power stations was going to cause a reliability problem. We have sought advice from the experts at the market operator to help us design the policy settings that will actually allow us to replace that exit in capacity. It’s a lot more than anything that was ever delivered by the people opposite. The very great shame is that, for a person who I know seeks to represent people in Queensland, you show an odd lack of interest in the opportunities that come about as a consequence of making and facilitating these investments, which have the potential to bring jobs and new industry to the communities that you claim to care about.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: During morning and evening peak hours, for every 100 megawatts of installed solar and wind generation capacity, the actual production of electricity averages just 10 megawatts. This means that achieving design capacity requires 10 times the installed rated capacity. Minister, what impact does this massive additional cost have on solar and wind installation capital costs and on electricity prices?

Senator McAllister: Senator, your question actually omits a really important part of the advice that we received from the market operator. The advice that we received—and it’s based on very significant economic modelling and engagement with a whole range of market participants and experts in the energy system—is that the optimal configuration of technology for a future grid involves renewables, firmed by storage, including batteries, and supplemented by gas. That’s the plan that has been recommended to us, and the policy settings that we’ve put in place are designed to allow investment in those kinds of technologies to be brought forward. As I indicated in my answer to your primary question, there is a problem because there was an extended period
when the lack of certainty in the policy settings of the previous government meant that the necessary investment didn’t take place, and we are taking steps to remedy that problem.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: A modern coal-fired power station is expected to last 60 years. Solar panels and wind turbines are expected to last 12 to 15 years—at most, 20. Over the 60-year life of a coal-fired power plant, the combination of wind and solar cobbled together to replace a single coal plant will need to be replaced four times. Minister, when will Labor release its system cost of the 2050 grid system?

Senator McAllister: As the senator would know if he’d examined the Integrated System Plan, it does include a costing for the capital costs associated with building the grid out to 2050. So the answer is: it is released and updated on a regular basis by way of the Integrated System Plan. That’s the basis on which we establish our policies to deal with the transition that’s underway in the electricity system. The truth is that it is underway, Senator Roberts. I know that that is a proposition you don’t agree with, but in just two years we’ve seen a 25 per cent increase in our national grid in the cheapest and cleanest form of energy that there is, which is reliable renewables, and we’ve ticked off enough reliable renewables projects to power three million homes. Those things matter. Establishing a clear pathway for the electricity supply that’s necessary to meet the needs of households and businesses is an absolute priority for this government and should be for every other government as well.

Transcript | Part 2 – Take Note

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy (Senator McAllister) to a question without notice I asked today relating to the cost of the net zero wind and solar transition.

With this so-called transition, both major parties are artificially increasing the cost of energy, pouring fuel on the inflation and cost-of-living crises. Labor and the Liberals planning to run the grid on net zero is trying to smash a square peg into a round hole.

In question time I used simple, proven facts and figures to show these plans are ridiculous. It comes down to something called ‘capacity factor’. That describes how much electricity we actually get from various types of power stations. A coal-fired power station runs at nearly a 95 per cent capacity factor or higher. That means, if we install a 100-megawatt coal-fired power station, on average, including downtime for maintenance, we get about 95 megawatts out of it over time.

Wind and solar are far lower. Their average capacity factor is just 23 per cent. That means that to replace 100 megawatts of coal-fired power we need to build 400 megawatts of wind and solar. Even if we do this massive and costly overbuild, it’s not guaranteed that wind and solar power will be available when we need it. At peak hours, morning and evening, when most people turn on devices and appliances, the capacity factor of wind and solar is just 10 per cent. We’re up for 1,000 megawatts of wind and solar to replace each 100 megawatts of coal-fired power, plus the billions of dollars in batteries and the tens of thousands of kilometres of transmission lines.

A coal-fired power station lasts 60 years—four times longer than wind and solar, which must be replaced after 15 years or so. That’s another four times the expense for solar and wind, making it a total of 4,000 megawatts to replace each 100 megawatts of coal power—40 times more expensive.

This supposed plan is not a plan; it’s lunacy. It’s costing trillions of dollars. This insanity and deceit are driving up the cost of living. Only One Nation will stop subsidising large-scale wind and solar to bring down power bills for all Australians.

Question agreed to.

/by

The Australian Climate Scam: Global Control and Wealth Transfer

,

This article is based on a speech I delivered at the Environment and Energy Forum, held at the Dee Why RSL Club on June 2, 2024.

Every major climate and energy policy in this country was introduced by the Liberal National Party. Every one of them. Labor then came in and ramped it up.

Australia once had the world’s most affordable and reliable energy and now household electricity costs have trebled.

The Light Australia: Issue 13 – August 2024 | https://thelightaustralia.com/

Every major climate and energy policy in this country was introduced by the Liberal National Party. Every one of them. Labor then came in and ramped it up. Australia once had the world’s most affordable and reliable energy and now household electricity costs have trebled.

The debate on net zero has devolved into a debate about the details. This will only increase support for campaigns opposing the massive industrial wind and solar projects encroaching on the doorstep of regional Australia, the impact of which is killing our nation.

But who is to blame for this situation? Every major climate and energy policy in this country was introduced by the Liberal National Party only to be subsequently ramped up by Labor.

Australia’s energy costs are among the highest in the world, despite being the largest exporter of hydrocarbon fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas. While other countries benefit from our resources, we can’t seem to do it. Low and affordable energy is vital for human progress and economic competitiveness, impacting all sectors of the economy. When energy prices rise, the cost of goods and services increases across the board.

Our competitive advantage once lay in attracting aluminium smelters into the Hunter Valley due to its cheap coal. Now, those smelters are shut down. Just 170 years ago, we used whale oil for lighting at night and later coal became the whales’ best friend by replacing whale oil. We also used to rely on trees for heating and cooking, but coal, oil, and natural gas have taken over those roles and as a result, hydrocarbon fuels have become the forests’ best friends. Today there is 30% more forested area in developed continents compared to 100 years ago and polar bears are doing fine.

The high cost of energy is killing disposable income and lowering living standards. This is hurting families and households, costing jobs that are going to China, where we export our coal and import solar and wind components. This situation is driving investment from our country, damaging manufacturing and agriculture, and killing innovation. It’s killing our future, security and lifestyle. We are killing the environment in an effort to save it!

The man responsible for the basic solar and wind projects we see today was John Howard and his government. He introduced the national electricity market, destroying our electricity sector. He introduced the solar and wind renewable energy targets and was the first to adopt a policy on carbon dioxide emissions trading.

It was John Howard who also stole farmers’ property rights to comply with the United Nation’s Kyoto climate protocol back in 1996. Six years after being voted out of office, having laid the groundwork for the destruction of our energy sector, he gave a public lecture in London where he admitted to being agnostic on the topic of climate science, acknowledging that he lacked scientific evidence. Yet, he implemented all those policies in the name of science.

Barnaby Joyce was initially the strongest voice against the climate fraud. Then in 2016, Malcolm Turnbull, as Prime Minister, gave his electorate, New England, New South Wales $400 million to build wind turbines, which Barnaby Joyce accepted. Senator Ian McDonald from the Liberal Party in Queensland told me back in 2015 (and I’ve seen the speech) that Senator Matt Canavan once gave a speech advocating for reducing carbon dioxide from human activity.

When people like this, who were once sceptics and openly admitted it, change their stance, it destroys the credibility of the climate realist movement. It destroys truth. Fortunately, with the exception of Howard, who remains agnostic and refuses to take responsibility for his actions, Senator Matt Canavan and Barnaby Joyce are now aligning with our perspective. David Littleproud, the leader of the Nationals and a committed globalist, is pushing for funding of carbon dioxide “farming”, which is immoral. We’re now prematurely closing coal-fired power stations, claiming that large quantities of solar and wind will supposedly replace them.

Some large solar and wind turbine complexes are not even connected to the grid, yet they are collecting money because they’re supposed to be producing energy. Eraring Power Station in NSW will no longer be shut down as of next year. On the first night of the Minns’ government taking power in New South Wales, on election night, the incoming energy minister announced they would reconsider closing Eraring Power Station. They knew about this and yet still continued their pretence of funding the net zero agenda.

As expensive as wind and solar are now, the real cost is only beginning to reveal itself. We haven’t yet seen the full picture – the pumped hydro station mega project – Snowy 2.0 in NSW initially had a budget of $2 billion, which has ballooned to $14 billion and is likely to reach $20 billion. We said this from the start.

The net zero transition is a complete mess. We haven’t even begun to address the transmission lines, which will incur enormous costs. We’re looking at 15,000 kilometres of transmission lines crisscrossing Australia to transport power from sunny and windy areas to cities where it is needed. 15,000 kilometres of environmental devastation, carving out a 75m wide path through national parks, remnant forests and productive farmland. What a disgrace – and an act of environmental vandalism.

All of these policies were introduced by the Liberals and then Labor takes over, intensifying the effort, turbocharged by the Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).

I have held them accountable. They have admitted to me that they have never claimed there is any danger from carbon dioxide from human activity. They stated that temperatures are not unprecedented. Yet we are constantly told that the globe is warming with unprecedented temperatures. No empirical scientific data or logical scientific points to support this claim have been provided.

We are facing climate fraud, not climate change. CSIRO is now producing GenCost (a net zero economic report) which is filled with fraudulent numbers and bogus assumptions to make solar and wind energy look good.

We have seen no specific effects of human carbon dioxide on any climate factor – be it temperature, ocean temperature, snowfall, rainfall, severe storms, or anything else – ever.

You cannot formulate a policy without it being based in actual science because, without understanding the effects of what you’re blaming (carbon dioxide), you cannot track the effectiveness of your policy. We are essentially flying blind, with the ‘ministry for madness’, led by Blackout Bowen, (Chris Bowen, Federal Minister for Climate Change and Energy) steering us off a cliff. This outcome can be attributed to Liberal/National Party policies – that’s the reality.

Not only is there no scientific basis for their policies and no way to measure their effectiveness, but there is also a lack of cost benefit analysis. They are attempting something unprecedented without any evidence to support their approach. Other countries have seen that increasing reliance on solar and wind power dramatically increases prices and reduces reliability.

Climate Change is nothing but climate fraud. We are funnelling obscene amounts of money – billions of dollars – into the pockets of parasitic billionaires, while simultaneously destroying our economy to the tune of trillions of dollars. When you look at the life cycle of these renewable energy sources, just 15 years, it is clear that we are not only destroying the quality of life for current Australians but also for generations to come. We are subsidising foreign corporations, including the Chinese government, to install these monstrosities that are literally destroying our environment.

Hydrocarbon fuels granted us independence from nature. Coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear energy share a remarkable quality: high energy density. This provides lowcost energy, boosts productivity and wealth, reduces the cost of living and increases the standard of living.

For 170 years, until 1996 when John Howard came to power, we had experienced the benefits of this high energy density and resource efficiency. Power stations can generate all the power needed, requiring a small footprint to generate that power. This results in reduced use of minerals and land, with a significantly higher energy output.

To illustrate, consider the amount of steel needed per megawatt of energy capacity. A coal-fired power station requires 35 tonnes of steel, whereas a wind turbine needs 546 tonnes for the same energy output. Considering the intermittency of wind, its low energy density, and production limitations, the overall cost of wind energy is much higher. Solar energy, meanwhile, demands an enormous amount of land.

Now consider the low-capacity factor of solar and wind energy, which averages around 23% of the nameplate capacity (or intended output). This means that over a 24- hour period, a 1MW (megawatt) wind or solar plant will only produce 230 KW (Kilowatt) of electricity. This limitation is because solar panels can’t generate electricity at night or when it’s overcast (when the sun doesn’t shine), and wind turbines require consistent wind. To achieve the same electricity output, you would need four times the nameplate capacity, meaning you would need 4 x 1MW of generation to produce 1MW.

Even worse, the majority of this generation occurs during the day, which means during morning and evening peak hours, industrial wind and solar are only generating around 10% of nameplate capacity. Consequently, you would need ten times the amount of generation to achieve the expected electricity output.

In contrast, coal or nuclear power plants can reliably generate electricity at their full capacity, meaning you only need 1MW of generation to actually get 1MW of power, with some allowance for maintenance. Importantly, this approach does not require the destruction of the natural environment.

Consider the capital cost of this massive overbuild. This aspect is largely overlooked. Coal-fired, nuclear, hydro, and gas-fired power stations have a small footprint and are typically located relatively close to metropolitan areas, resulting in lower transmission line expenses for both construction and maintenance.

In contrast, solar and wind are scattered, leading to significantly higher transmission costs and increased maintenance expenses. These installations disrupt farming, rural communities, and the natural environment because they are dispersed widely.

The dispersed nature of solar and wind energy not only increases transmission costs but also, when factoring in their low-capacity factor and the need to build extra capacity, up to ten times more, the overall costs become extremely high.

Transmission costs previously accounted for approximately 49% of electricity costs. However, the current breakdown of electricity costs is far from clear, making it difficult to determine the current share of transmission costs.

Backup batteries to store and distribute electricity from daytime generation to evening and morning peak periods will add tens of billions to the overall costs. There are approximately $40 billion in large scale pumped hydro projects proposed or under construction, further increasing costs. Gas-fired power stations are also being considered as backup, essentially resulting in two forms of power generation in case the primary source fails.

This situation is absurd and nonsensical. The instability of solar and wind energy stems from their asynchronous nature, while coal, oil, natural gas, hydro, and nuclear energy sources are synchronous and inherently stable. Solar and wind’s instability leads to increased complexity of management and more breakdowns. It’s like going back 170 years to when our energy was dependent on the weather.

As Henry Kissinger stated years ago – whoever controls energy, food, and money controls the nation. With the current trajectory, they are on the way to controlling all three.

Most importantly, hydrocarbon fuels have been the greatest driver of human progress and lifestyle improvements throughout history, significantly enhancing standards of living. This progress is now at risk of being smashed, with human progress being the biggest loser.

One Nation embraces coal and nuclear energy, with the cheapest option prevailing.

We possess 25% of the world’s uranium reserves and approximately a century’s worth of thermal coal. Although coal is still cheaper than nuclear energy, the need to discuss both options is required. We should lift the ban on nuclear energy.

Additionally, we must address the national electricity racket, which has become a bureaucratic nightmare that unfairly favours wind and solar energy. This system allows bureaucrats to set prices rather than letting the market determine them, leading to a situation where consumers are being conned.

I’ll conclude with one final point. The late Professor Bob Carter, a wonderful paleoclimatologist, once remarked to me that this must be the biggest scam ever. I replied, “Bob, it’s not even close.” The primary issue here is the anti-human agenda, aiming to control humanity. We are facing an anti-human apocalypse, staring right down the barrel of it.

One Nation believes in the primacy of affordable energy. We advocate for honest, practical solutions based on data to address this issue. The UniParty, consisting of both Liberal and Labor, must be called out because they are the ones pushing this agenda. Together, they are working towards a global plan of control and wealth transfer, and it’s the people who pay the price.

Australia has the world’s best resources, people and climate. We have the capacity to excel in mineral resources and agriculture.

All we need is a government that believes in Australia’s potential.

Issue-13-The Light AustraliaDownload
The Australian Climate ScamDownload
/by

Government HIDES Secret Ute Tax Report

,

Labor wants to punish diesel and petrol car makers so that you’ll be forced to buy an electric vehicle despite the diesel powered Ford Ranger, a dual cab Ute, still being Australia’s most bought car last year. They continue to claim their new tax won’t impact the car you drive, but that’s nonsense. The DCCEEW has a report sitting in a filing cabinet – a cost-benefit analysis that would likely expose their lies and do not want made public.

So much for transparency and accountability from the Albanese Labor Government. Ditch the ridiculous United Nations/World Economic Forum net-zero targets and let Australians buy and drive whatever car they want.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll tie up some things. Going back to the new car regime, could you please produce the document Fuel quality standards implementation: cost benefit analysis by GHD and ACIL Allen on notice? 

Ms Rowley: You might recall from discussion in this committee at the last round of estimates that, in the committee relating to transport and infrastructure, a public interest immunity claim was made with respect to that modelling. Both with respect to the fact that it speaks to cabinet-in-confidence deliberations and because it includes modelling of market impacts and market outcomes—commercial-in-confidence arrangements—that public interest immunity claim stands, so we are not in a position to table that document.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re required to produce to this committee any information or documents that are requested. There is no privacy, security, freedom of information or other legislation that overrides this committee’s constitutional powers to give evidence, and you are protected from any potential prosecution as a result of your evidence or producing documents to this committee. If anyone seeks to pressure you against producing documents, that is also a contempt. If you wish to raise an immunity claim, there are proper processes.  

Mr Fredericks: A public interest immunity claim has already been raised—  

Senator ROBERTS: Has it been accepted by the Senate?  

Mr Fredericks: by the transport minister. As I understand it, it hasn’t been resolved, and we as public servants are bound by that minister’s current claim of public interest immunity.  

Senator ROBERTS: So it hasn’t been resolved yet?  

Ms Rowley: Senator, apologies. It might be that I misunderstood which document you were requesting because you opened this with reference to the new vehicle efficiency standard. Is it the modelling related to that, or is it about liquid fuels?  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s the document entitled Fuel quality standards implementation: cost benefit analysis by GHD and ACIL Allen.  

Ms Rowley: Apologies. I was referring to a different document. I misunderstood because of your reference to fuel efficiency standards.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s fine. We all make mistakes.  

Mrs Svarcas: Senator, Fuel quality standards implementation: cost benefit analysis is publicly available and presents the modelling without the commercial information.  

Senator ROBERTS: Where is it?  

Mrs Svarcas: It is available online. We can give you the link for that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, if you can.  

Senator McKENZIE: Have you put the ACIL modelling up?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, that’s what we’re talking about.  

Mrs Svarcas: The cost-benefit analysis is up, without the commercial information.  

Senator ROBERTS: This may have been the document you were talking about, Mr Fredericks. I’d also like you to produce the document Modelling and analysis of a regulated fuel efficiency standard: stage 1 report by ACIL Allen.  

Mr Fredericks: Yes, that’s the one I was referring to.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s still in the hands of the minister, who’s claiming immunity.  

Mr Fredericks: My understanding is that the minister for transport has made a public interest immunity claim against the publication of that report. I think it is still unattended to by the Senate, so we’re bound by that for the time being.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Senate hasn’t attended to it yet?  

Mr Fredericks: That’s my understanding. It’s in another department.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on. If you make the claim that your car carbon dioxide tax won’t make cars more expensive, Minister, or take away choice, why won’t you produce the reports you have about the costs and benefits? Why the secrecy and the lack of debate? Why the secrecy about the data you have in your possession right now about the effect on Australian cars, four-wheel drives and utes? These are vehicles fundamental to our economy and to many people’s livelihoods.  

Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, what question are you actually asking?  

Senator ROBERTS: Why won’t you produce the documents? Senator McAllister: I think, as the secretary has already explained, Minister King has indicated that she claims public interest immunity over the documents. It’s not my claim— 

Senator McKENZIE: You don’t get to say, ‘PII—we win.’  

Senator McAllister: Senator—  

Senator McKENZIE: You’ve got to actually have a reason.  

CHAIR: Senator McKenzie— 

Senator ROBERTS: Why are you afraid of people knowing?  

CHAIR: We’re talking about a PII claim in a different committee, doing something different. That’s their business. We can prosecute it after the event if it has some relevance to this committee; otherwise, I think we’re just going to go round in circles here.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, let’s move on.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts has the call for another five.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Coomera Connector 2 in Brisbane—can you please provide an update on any progress of a referral or any conversations in relation to Coomera Connector 2 in Queensland, the extension of a freeway?  

Mr Fredericks: I’m looking at a lot of blank faces behind me. We might need to take that one on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: If you could, please. Let’s come to water. I’ve been told in two different sessions in the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee that this is the spot for my water questions, so here we go. Is your department working with the Queensland government on the $20 billion Pioneer-Burdekin Pumped Hydro Project, and, if not, have they asked for federal assistance in planning or financing?  

Mr Fredericks: I can tell you that that question belongs in water day, which is—  

CHAIR: Friday week.  

Mr Fredericks: Friday week. I lose track.  

CHAIR: On 2 June. Come on down! Mr Fredericks: I suspect there will be a number of questions along those same lines. That’s on water day, Friday week.  

Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, is the Coomera Connector a road transport project from Loganholme to Coomera?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Mr Fredericks: I think that’s why we got a lot of blank faces.  

Senator McAllister: What was your question in relation to that?  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you please provide an update on any progress, because there are serious environmental factors involved there. That’s what I want to know—if you’re involved or not.  

Senator McAllister: I see. So your question is: is the department involved in any regulatory process associated with this project?  

Senator ROBERTS: My question is: can you please provide an update on any progress of a referral or any conversations in relation to Coomera Connector 2?  

Mr Fredericks: Okay. We’re onto it. Do you mean under the EPBC Act?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I just want to know any environmental aspect at all. Mr Fredericks: All good—that is on tomorrow, in outcome 2, and my officials from that part of the department will be ready to respond to your question. Then the water question belongs in the cross-portfolio water day, which will be held on Friday week.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s come back to an earlier answer that one of your staff gave me.  

CHAIR: Two minutes—Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: As to freedom of information request LEX 76280, in relation to the Powering Australia tracker, you redacted a single measure on page 6 of that document. I want to know what the measure is. I was told—I think, by this lady—that that’s cabinet in confidence.  

Ms Geiger: That’s right, and I understand we have replied to your request with an explanation about why that information can’t be revealed.  

Senator ROBERTS: How can one of six topics—just a title—be cabinet in confidence? Was it supplied because it needs to be in confidence, or was it supplied as part of the package to the cabinet? 

Ms Geiger: The individual measure was considered by cabinet, and therefore it’s covered by the cabinet requirements.  

Senator ROBERTS: So anything that goes to cabinet is cabinet in confidence?  

Senator McKENZIE: [inaudible] supporting any decision that they may or may not discuss.  

Senator ROBERTS: You are required to produce to this committee any information or documents that are requested. There is no privacy, security, freedom of information or other legislation that overrides this committee’s constitutional powers to gather evidence, and you are protected from any potential prosecution as a result of your evidence or producing documents to this committee. If anyone seeks to pressure you against producing documents, that is also a contempt. If you wish to raise a public interest immunity claim or a cabinetin-confidence claim, there are proper processes around that, and it is up to the Senate whether to accept that, not you or the minister.  

Mr Fredericks: That’s fair. So we will take that on notice because at the moment that issue of disclosure is being considered in the FOI context. That can be different to—  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m requesting it as part a Senate committee now.  

Mr Fredericks: I’m helping you here. That can be a different answer when it’s asked in a Senate estimates context, so we will need to take on notice our capacity to provide you that material, under your request from the Senate committee.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That wasn’t any different from what I asked before. But thank you.  

CHAIR: We’re going to rotate now—  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. 

/4 Comments/by

Ravenshoe: Join Us for a Q&A Session!

,

This is YOUR chance to have your voice heard! Bring your questions, share your concerns, and hear directly from Brenda Turner, who is seeking to be your representative in the Queensland parliament after this election.  Let’s dive into the key issues shaping Queensland and Australia, and other matters of concern.

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

Margaret Mead, American cultural anthropologist, author and speaker

📅 Thursday, 5 September 2024  

🕒 6 pm to 8 pm

📍 Ravenshoe Hotel, 34 Grigg Street, Ravenshoe

👉RSVP today and secure your spot! https://qld.onenation.org.au/q-a-in-ravenshoe

Plan on dining in? Please book your meals direct with the Ravenshoe Hotel on (07) 4097 6136

/by

Government’s Net-Zero Push Threatens Economy

,

The government wants to drive us off a cliff as we speed towards Net-Zero dictates from the un-elected United Nations and World Economic Forum.

None of it is based on proper data and all the evidence we have is that it will destroy our energy grid and our economy.

With inflation re-emerging, we have to put a stop to the billions being poured into climate policy making Australians pay more.

Transcript

Every time you see a wind turbine or an industrial solar complex, think one thing: your energy prices are going to increase. That’s what those things mean. We’ve been promised that energy prices will decrease, but wind turbines and industrial solar complexes mean higher prices for people, for families, for small businesses, for larger corporations and employers, for the whole community. And they mean trillions of dollars in waste in our economy. In every country around the world, as the percentage of solar and wind has increased, the cost of electricity has increased. That’s a fact—everywhere, consistent. And now, after nearly 30 years of pushing solar and wind, which started with John Howard’s renewable energy target, we see the ridiculous situation of the Labor government offering energy price relief. Why? Because they’re driving up the cost of energy to make it unaffordable; that’s why. So let’s have a look at why. Let’s see why killing the environment in the name of supposedly saving it is costing us so much. Let’s turn to the terms of the motion for an inquiry. So many people want us to have an inquiry, not just rural people but urban people, because they’re worried about the cost. This is what the inquiry is looking into: 

… the importance of ensuring that the National Electricity Grid has the capacity to provide a reliable and secure supply of energy to Australians as the economy transitions to new and more dispersed— 

and we’ll talk about that— 

methods of generations and storage, and acknowledging that transition will necessarily transgress on agricultural, Indigenous and environmental lands and marine environments … 

The environment and our productive capacity are suffering. 

I’ll cover some key concerns that are key to the inquiry because the uniparty has not thought about this—from when John Howard, the Liberal Prime Minister, started the renewable energy target to this ridiculous situation we’re in now. By the way, John Howard started that and did three other things, which we might have time to discuss, that laid the foundation for the crippling of our energy supply in this country. Six years after he was booted from office, he admitted that, on the matter of climate science, he is agnostic. He didn’t have the science. This whole thing is based not on science; it’s based on contradictions of science. 

Let’s start with solar and wind. The amount of steel needed per megawatt of electricity from a coal-fired power station is 35 tons. For wind turbines it’s 542 tons of steel. That’s 15 times as much. Straightaway, wind is suffering a cost penalty. It’s a huge cost burden. Then, when you look at the energy density of coal, it’s very high. It’s not as high as uranium, but it’s very high. For solar and wind, it’s very low. 

Secondly I see the government throwing barbs at the coalition, and well it should over aspects of its nuclear policy, but the government is accusing the opposition of uncosted policy. Where are your costs, government? Where are your costs on solar and wind? Where are your costs on solar and wind, Greens? We even see some solar and wind complexes, massive complexes in the Kennedy electorate in Queensland and in western Victoria, not connected to the grid. They have been built but not connected. That’s how much thought has gone into this. It’s bloody ridiculous. 

Solar and wind have an inherently high capital cost plus a low energy density, which means low energy production and very high cost per unit of electricity. Plus the amount of land needed for solar and wind is enormous. And then we see that the average capacity utilisation of solar and wind is 23 per cent. That’s less than a quarter of what the nameplate capacity is. Now we see the latest figures just released on wind, which show that it’s 21 per cent. That’s one-fifth of the capacity. What does that tell you? For a given capacity of a coal-fired power station, you’ll need a certain capacity of solar and wind. Multiply that by four, because you’re getting less than 25 per cent. Multiply it by five in the case of wind. Five times makes it prohibitive. Four times makes it prohibitive. Then think about this: at peak hour, when we need maximum electricity, the average utilisation and the average capacity is 10 per cent, which means that, to get the equivalent of that coal-fired power station, we need 10 times the solar and wind capacity—10 times. Then, for sizeable periods, we have the sun not shining brightly because of clouds or we have the wind drought. That means we need a further multiplication to make sure we can store up enough in energy and batteries. But the batteries to store that amount of wind and solar energy have never been thought of, never been considered and never been developed. It’s impossible. The cost if we don’t have them will be blackouts and outages in hospitals, businesses and family homes. 

Plus there are the transmission costs. Transmission costs, many years ago, used to be 49 per cent of the cost of the electricity bill. I don’t know what it is now, but it’s certainly substantial. Solar and wind have to be located a long way from the major metropolitan areas, which means straightaway that transmission costs are even higher than for a coal-fired power station, which can be located close to the metropolitan areas. Then, because of the dispersed nature of solar and wind, we have even more transmission lines. Then, because of the capacity factor that I just mentioned, we have even more transmission lines. This makes it prohibitive, not just in terms of the installation of solar and wind but also in terms of transmission lines. Plus, the transmission lines will barely be used because of the capacity of solar and wind not being utilised. And then we have the 15-to 20-year life, at best—12 to 15 years more likely—of solar and wind industrial complexes. That means that over the life of a coal-fired power station or a nuclear power station, they have to be replaced four times, so multiply the cost again by four. What have we multiplied it by so far? We’ve multiplied the cost by five, then by 10 and now by another four. Yet the CSIRO considers not one piece of that puzzle—not one piece. They say that it’s all sunk cost; just ignore it. 

That’s why solar and wind can compete. And they still need subsidies. Then you’ve got to add batteries and pumped hydro. Pumped hydro itself is an admission of failure. You cannot have pumped hydro without a disparity between peak hour prices and off-peak prices, and that’s due to the failure of the grid and solar and wind. And then we need firming, another cost, because coal, nuclear and hydro are stable, synchronous power supplies. Solar and wind are asynchronous—unstable—so they need firming. And they need backup gas or backup coal because solar and wind are unreliable. There’s a doubling. Look at the multiplication that we have got there. 

None of this is included in the GenCost report from the CSIRO. It assumes no transmission cost because they’ve already been built. That’s rubbish. We need far more new transmission lines. We have an inherently higher cost from solar and wind, plus low capacity, plus regional, plus dispersal, plus backup, plus stabilisation. Think about this: for a business, you need a stable, reliable, low-variation input. When variation occurs, it costs enormous amounts of money. At industrial and manufacturing plants, farmers are using backup, so they have to pay twice for their electricity. We also have a huge footprint in terms of land. Solar complexes and wind turbines use far more land and are far more scattered than a concentrated coal-fired power station or a nuclear power station. They’re taking up huge quantities of resources. The resource footprint of solar and wind is enormous.  

We have agricultural land being sterilised. We have poisons and toxins potentially going into the Brisbane water supply, into their drinking water—lead, cadmium—which feeds Brisbane, Beaudesert, Gold Coast, potentially Toowoomba, Ipswich, Logan and other areas in the south-east of Queensland. We also have the future cost yet to be added—Snowy 2.0.  By the way, when they first did the costings of Snowy 2.0, thanks to Malcolm Turnbull’s prime ministership and poor leadership, they forgot about the transmission lines. They forgot to add the transmission lines. Whoops! We better add a few more billion to that. Now look at it. It was originally slated for $2 billion. We could see this, and I’m not an energy expert. We could see it when Malcolm Turnbull first released it. We told them, and no-one took any notice. Now they’re putting in all these additional costs, and Snowy 2.0 is heading for $14 billion and perhaps $20 billion—if it moves! This is not about having an alternative energy supply; it’s about less energy and control of energy. 

We also have Mr Albanese and Mr Bowen, ‘Blackout Bowen’, talking about us being a renewable superpower. It means economic and environmental suicide, resource sterilisation, and displacement of Indigenous. No costings—a huge catastrophe! We’re talking about billions of dollars and impacts worth trillions of dollars. We must have this inquiry. They’re building in a high-cost overhead and a huge environmental legacy. When some of those farmers who are looking at the money now—some aren’t selling out, but some are selling out because of the money coming in—think about the environmental legacy. No bonds. The energy company owning the wind turbines and the solar complexes can just walk off and leave it. There’s no requirement to fix it. Farmers will pay for that. They’re already paying in many cases, as are rural towns, with the slow thrum, thrum, thrum of infrasound, which is proven harmful to humans. So they’re killing the environment to save it. We’re seeing human progress being reversed. 

The No. 1 message from the last 170 years since the industrial revolution started was that we have a higher standard of living and all the benefits that brings because of a relentless reduction in energy prices. What we’ve seen since John Howard come to power is a reversal of that. As energy prices increase, productivity falls, wealth falls and prosperity falls. We see a reversal of human progress. So what if we spend billions on solar and wind, what if it costs our economy trillions of dollars—and it will—and what if China does not? What happens then? Now do you get what’s going on? Now do you see it? 

I want to turn to two other points. As I said, John Howard introduced all the problems we’re seeing now: the Renewable Energy Target; the stealing of farmers’ property rights to comply with the UN Kyoto protocol; and the National Electricity Market, which is really a national electricity racket. He also introduced an emissions trading scheme as policy—not as fact, but as policy. That’s a carbon tax. He was the first major leader of a major party to have that. The CSIRO has never provided any empirical scientific data and logical scientific points that prove the need to cut carbon dioxide from human activity. The CSIRO admitted that to me when I held them accountable, and they gave me three presentations, each 2½ hours long. In the first presentation they admitted that they had never given the advice and had never said that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger and needs to be cut. In the second presentation they gave me, they admitted that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented; they’ve happened before—many, many times. In fact, the scientific term for periods of high temperature is ‘climate optimum’, because they’re beneficial for humanity, for civilisation and for the environment. The temperatures are not unprecedented. 

The second point is that I’ve asked many government departments in this federal government for their basis of policy. To have a basis of policy you need to have the impact of carbon dioxide from human activity on some climate factor. No-one has given us that. We have amassed 24,000 datasets on climate and energy from around the world, from legally scraped websites and research institutions like the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology, and we’ve never found any change in any climate factors at all, so there’s no basis for policy. You need that quantitative impact of carbon dioxide from human activity on a climate factor so that you can then study the alternatives, if you want to get rid of the carbon dioxide production. You’ve got to have that to track progress, but there’s none of that. There’s no basis for policy. We are flying blind. We’re heading for a cliff. 

Then we see there’s no environmental impact statement for the use of solar and wind—none at all. What impact is the energy we’re taking out of the wind going to have on our climate? What impact is it going to have on the natural environment? Yet they say that 0.03 per cent of the carbon dioxide is coming from humans, and 1.2 per cent of that from Australians. No impact quantified—the absurdity is enormous. And who will pay for all this mess? We, the people. You are foisting this on the people. We need an inquiry now. (Time expired) 

/6 Comments/by

Government Crack Down on Petrol and Diesel Cars

, ,

If you enjoy your petrol or diesel car, the government is trying to make sure you won’t be enjoying it for long.

Looking through this word salad I got from the Department, the reality is the government is placing fines on manufacturers who sell too many petrol and diesel cars. Australians prefer cars that are useful for a weekend of camping, spacious enough to fit the whole family, and capable of doing long road trips without frequent refuelling or needing to stop to recharge.

The government thinks you’re enjoying your cars too much and is going to forces manufacturers to progressively phase them out, leaving only useless electric vehicles available.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Can I turn to cars and utes, as mentioned by Senator O’Sullivan. Car makers must comply with regulations that you are about to introduce. They must also comply with customers’ needs. My understanding is that the demand for sedans—for example, a Toyota Corolla or a Honda Civic—is decreasing, and the demand for the corresponding SUV—which in the case of Toyota would be a RAV4 or a Honda Civic—is increasing dramatically. The SUVs are heavier, they’re more utilitarian, but they’re preferred. But they chew more fuel and they produce more carbon dioxide—which to me is not a problem, but anyway. How does that affect the manufacturer? On the one hand they have a government that says, ‘Decrease the size of the car, the weight and the fuel efficiency.’ But customers say, ‘No, do the opposite.’ The customers don’t think in terms of carbon dioxide because they know it’s crap.  

Ms Purvis-Smith: As I mentioned in a previous answer, manufacturers are able to make commercial decisions as to what their fleet looks like. The standard looks at their whole fleet. There are a range of ways that manufacturers can meet the standard. I think Mr Kathage went through this before. I’m not sure if you were here. He could go through that again. If they get credits in one year they can hold them over to meet debits they may get in a following year. They can also trade credits. They can look at the fleet, change the fleet and make commercial decisions about what they import into the country and offer consumers.  

Senator ROBERTS: Before Mr Kathage does that, perhaps you could tell me: if customers want SUVs over sedans, will that company be penalised? 

Mr Kathage: I can point you to appendix A of our impact analysis, where we set out the sales volumes of various types of vehicles. Your question is actually quite difficult because, as Ms Purvis-Smith mentioned, there’s actually quite a lot of things that vehicle suppliers can do to improve the efficiency of the vehicles they sell and their fleet overall. The first thing I’ll mention is that there are changes to the vehicles themselves that they can make—improving the aerodynamics, changing the drive train— 

Senator ROBERTS: I accept that. But an SUV compared to a sedan—they can make improvements on both but the SUV will chew more fuel and is heavier—full stop, end of story.  

Mr Kathage: That’s right. So one of the features of the policy is to include a few flexibility mechanisms. The first one is to include two targets. One target is for passenger vehicles and a higher target for light commercial vehicles. The second flexibility mechanism in the scheme is to adjust the limit by weight. So you might have a Toyota Kluger, for example, which will have a particular mass in running order. Therefore, the target for that vehicle or the fleet of vehicles—that weight—will be adjusted. The third thing is that in any given year a vehicle supplier might bring in too many vehicles that are too polluting. They’ve got two years after that point to bring what’s called their ‘initial emissions value’ down to zero. So they do have some time. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Looking at electric vehicles, for example, this policy, these regulations, are to make petrol and diesel vehicles less attractive and to make electric vehicles more attractive. That’s clearly what’s going on. But the efficiency of resources in electric vehicles is quite low, because the vehicles are inherently heavier, as Senator O’Sullivan said—needing heavier brakes, more resources; heavier suspension, more resources; heavier components all through, more resources. So we’re actually driving an economy to use less efficient vehicles and less efficient use of resources. That doesn’t make sense to me.  

Mr Kathage: I’m sorry; what was the question? 

Senator ROBERTS: The question is: are you aware that that’s happening? 

Mr Kathage: I’d probably say the purpose of the new vehicle efficiency standard is to improve the efficiency of new vehicles. It’s not to drive a particular type of vehicle or particular type of outcome, except for reduced emissions. That’s the purpose of the policy.  

Senator ROBERTS: You talked about reducing emissions. Have you done any work on the life cycle production of carbon dioxide from a diesel and a petrol vehicle, compared to the electric vehicle— 

Mr Kathage: We have— 

Senator ROBERTS: Particularly right through the mining sector as well, because there are extra resources that need to be mined for an EV. 

Mr Kathage: Yes, we have. We included some evidence in our impact analysis, which is now published on the Office of Impact Analysis website. Section 4.2.1 sets out a range of different estimates that have been made. The first one is from our own Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics, which finds that while manufacturing an EV may produce more GHG emissions than an internal combustion engine, that is more than offset after about one year if the vehicle is charged from renewably sourced electricity—that is, home solar—and two years if charged from the grid using a mix of electricity generation sources. In that section—I won’t read it all out—we do have, I think, four other sources that support the same contention.  

Senator ROBERTS: There’s an assumption there that they’ll be using renewables—solar and wind. That’s a big assumption. Thank you, Chair. 

/5 Comments/by

Coal Still the Cheapest Reliable Power Source

,

The argument about nuclear is overshadowing an inconvenient truth.

Coal remains the cheapest form of baseload reliable power and nuclear is a better alternative compared to wind and solar.

I support nuclear power and believe it should be part of our energy mix, but there’s no need to eliminate coal to make it happen.

Transcript

Labor, the Greens, the paid-off media and climate activists are all fighting tooth and nail against nuclear. You can hear them screaming so loudly because reliable baseload power is a massive threat to the billionaire solar and wind cartel. Both sides of politics have, for more than two decades, mismanaged energy so grossly that we’ve caused an energy crisis that Australia is now facing down. One Nation congratulates the coalition on agreeing with One Nation’s longstanding policy to remove the ban on nuclear energy and have a debate about where it sits in our energy needs. We can only hope that One Nation’s full policy is adopted one day: remove all the subsidies and let the cheapest form of power win so we can put more money back in Australians’ pockets. 

There’s no reason that we need to forcibly shut down coal to put nuclear in the mix. The coalition plan is to forcibly acquire coal-fired power stations, shut them down and replace them with nuclear. Let’s do nuclear, and let’s do coal too. One of those coal-fired power stations the coalition wants to shut down is at Tarong. I visited there on Friday. It sits right on top of a coal mine. Coal is dug out of the ground and put on a conveyor belt straight into the power station with minimal transport costs. What more could you ask for? We’ve got 40 years of real-world costs on the Tarong stations, and it’s as cheap as chips. It uses high-energy-density fuel. Why tear down Tarong and replace it with nuclear based on projections—or worse, solar and wind based on unicorn farts? Instead, just build another coal-fired power station right there at Tarong beside it and use the same power. 

The coalition can’t do that, because it’s fully committed to the United Nations net zero madness, a catastrophic nightmare in the making, and we haven’t seen anything yet. We’ve got these people in the government putting on benefits to energy policy because of the rising cost due to their policy. Only One Nation will say, ‘up yours!’ to foreign unelected organisations telling us what to do and instead use Australia’s coal and uranium resources for the cheapest power possible. 

/by

Shut THIS down for Nuclear? It doesn’t make sense!

,

Converting Coal fired power to Nuclear is a United Nations Net-Zero scam.

I support Nuclear. It’s one step cheaper than the Bowen/Albanese wind and solar pipe dream, we should absolutely remove the ban. But Peter Dutton only wants nuclear because it complies with the United Nations Net-Zero targets, which his party is fully committed to. Now he’s saying he will forcibly acquire Coal Stations, shut them down, and convert it to Nuclear.

Tarong Power Station in South Queensland that I’m in front of here is one of those. It sits right on top of a coal mine and we have 40 years of figures proving exactly what it costs, and it’s cheap.

Let nuclear on our grid, but let the cheapest generators we have, coal, stay. That’s the only way anyone will get cheaper power.

/by

The Truth: Net-Zero Will NEVER Happen

,

40 wind turbines every month. 22,000 solar panels every single day. 28,000 km of transmission lines and 48 gigawatt of batteries. That’s what the Net-Zero pipe dream requires.

These goals will never be achieved, yet the government persists in pursuing them, causing huge damage to our environment along the way. No one will take responsibility for cleaning up these environmental vandals, so Australia is on track for an environmental wasteland, more expensive electricity and blackouts.

Ditch Net-Zero – let’s bring down power bills AND protect the environment.

Transcript

I move: 

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy (Senator Wong) to questions without notice I asked today relating to renewable energy.  

In question time I asked the government how their insane net-zero wind and solar pipedreams were progressing. Here is what Labor’s energy minister Chris Bowen’s plan requires for the next eight years: 40 large wind turbines every single month, each with 100-metre concrete foundations, a massive turbine and huge blades atop a 300-metre tall steel tube; three days to erect the crane on each site; days to install each turbine; two days to dismantle the crane and move it to the next place; 22,000 solar panels every single day for eight years; 28,000 kilometres of new transmission lines carving up national parks, prime farmland and the environment; plus 48 gigawatt hours of batteries. Predictably, the construction of wind and solar is nowhere near these targets. The government’s targets are physically and financially impossible.  

While the targets will never be achieved, this government will do huge damage trying. Farmers and landholders are being conned into having these environment-killing wind-and-solar installations on their land. With the promise of some short-term money, farmers let these predators onto their land. Little do these landowners know, they are now responsible for disposing of the toxic wind turbines and solar panels at the end of their short life when the company that instals them inevitably goes broke or abandons them. 

Every coalmine, however, is legislated to pay a rehabilitation bond for each hectare of land disturbed. The mining company pays upfront. The money is held until the mine ends and restores the environment to its original state. The bond is then returned. Wind and solar companies don’t pay any rehabilitation bond. Thousands of landholders will be stuck with useless wind turbines and solar panels on their property that they will have to pay to remove. Prevention is better than cure. Anyone can see this scandal coming, yet the government won’t take action to prevent it. It just sits there causing this catastrophe. The government protects its billionaire wind-and-solar mates living like parasites off subsidies Australian electricity users and taxpayers will continue to pay. Government screws it up; taxpayers pay.  

/by