The war against renewable energy

Remove this Banner Ad

It's hilarious to read everyday the shrill anti-renewable bull s**t in the Murdoch gutter press. What must happen is that the ALP must be returned at the next election, whether people like them or not because if they are, then the ranting and carrying on from the Bolts et al. will be nothing more than the hysterics of those in the throws of death.

The "me-me" generation and the "now-now" lot need to be patient just a little while longer because the revolutionary transition to renewable and net zero does not come about by just snapping ones fingers as the Greens political party seem to think happens.

It has to be done in an orderly, systematic way as to cause a minimum amount of disruption to whole communities and areas that have been captives of fossil fuel production and energy generation, for generations.

Another 3 years or so and the Bolts of this world will be ridiculed for the morons they are.
Not just Murdoch, AFR, SMH etc, are all going really, really hard against the government 'Sun Shot' proposal. I suspect some of these folks have money invested in fossil fuels or Chinese solar providers. AFR dislike is as irrational as their love of 3x more expensive and very dirty nuclear. The word dinoaurs comes to mind. Strange times.
 
Not just Murdoch, AFR, SMH etc, are all going really, really hard against the government 'Sun Shot' proposal. I suspect some of these folks have money invested in fossil fuels or Chinese solar providers. AFR dislike is as irrational as their love of 3x more expensive and very dirty nuclear. The word dinoaurs comes to mind. Strange times.
Yes, the reaction by all the mainstream media is, well, reactionary and that is because if one looks at the owners, the "principles" of these media organisations, one soon realises that they are just not media businesses.

When I worked for a small mining company in Adelaide that was taken over by CSR, (yep, the Colonial Sugar Refineries), in the mid 1980's, across my desk came all manner of exploration title leases in that SA/NSW/QLD area and on nearly all those exploration leases, News Pty. Ltd had small shareholdings. This was obviously due to the new tax arrangements put in place by the Hawke/Keating Government and with a little more digging, (this is before the internet) I found out that Murdoch hade huge mining interests in WA.

Gina Rinehart tried to take over Fairfax Media in the 2010's but sold her stake in Fairfax when she refused to sign their editorial independence charter and therefore was denied a seat on the board. Doesn't matter much now because Fairfax merged with Nine Entertainment Co (Chairman Peter Costello) who are connected with WIN Corporation which has affiliations with Foxtel which sees Sky News broadcast to the country and regional areas on the eastern seaboard and where Kerry Stokes who owns channel 7 has a major shareholding in Foxtel as well as having Gina Rinehart as a major backer of his online newspaper and and and ....... very sordid and incestuous and wielding great power.

There is also the IPA where Murdoch and Rinehart are the chief financial backers and which Bolt, Abbott, Costello(a former member but still very "in") Henderson, Mundine, Howard, etc etc ...... and we have one all mighty fossil fuel/ant-renewables lobby group in Australia.
 
Australia is at heart a great big company mining town. Democracy is an illusion. Another distraction along with sport and great beaches.

It’s one thing I learned in lockdown, when the true power structures were there to see.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Yes, the reaction by all the mainstream media is, well, reactionary and that is because if one looks at the owners, the "principles" of these media organisations, one soon realises that they are just not media businesses.

When I worked for a small mining company in Adelaide that was taken over by CSR, (yep, the Colonial Sugar Refineries), in the mid 1980's, across my desk came all manner of exploration title leases in that SA/NSW/QLD area and on nearly all those exploration leases, News Pty. Ltd had small shareholdings. This was obviously due to the new tax arrangements put in place by the Hawke/Keating Government and with a little more digging, (this is before the internet) I found out that Murdoch hade huge mining interests in WA.

Gina Rinehart tried to take over Fairfax Media in the 2010's but sold her stake in Fairfax when she refused to sign their editorial independence charter and therefore was denied a seat on the board. Doesn't matter much now because Fairfax merged with Nine Entertainment Co (Chairman Peter Costello) who are connected with WIN Corporation which has affiliations with Foxtel which sees Sky News broadcast to the country and regional areas on the eastern seaboard and where Kerry Stokes who owns channel 7 has a major shareholding in Foxtel as well as having Gina Rinehart as a major backer of his online newspaper and and and ....... very sordid and incestuous and wielding great power.

There is also the IPA where Murdoch and Rinehart are the chief financial backers and which Bolt, Abbott, Costello(a former member but still very "in") Henderson, Mundine, Howard, etc etc ...... and we have one all mighty fossil fuel/ant-renewables lobby group in Australia.

If you go to the global level , you might think that some political powers will like the effect that renewables will have on OPEC.
 
Did I hear correctly - Malinauskas wants to look at nuclear options for SA / is open to discussing it?

That’s a funny way to interpret ….

Peter Malinauskas says the nuclear debate has been hindered by “unpragmatic ideology” as he warned adopting nuclear power would be a “burden” on consumers.
 
That’s a funny way to interpret ….

Peter Malinauskas says the nuclear debate has been hindered by “unpragmatic ideology” as he warned adopting nuclear power would be a “burden” on consumers.

“We are going to have a nuclear industry in South Australia, and it's one that my government supports, and I certainly embrace, because only a few kilometres (from) where we are right now we're going to be building nuclear submarines (AUKUS) which is the most advanced of the technology as far as the nuclear fuel cycle goes,” Mr Malinauskas told host Chris Kenny.

“In terms of the civil power question, which is what the Coalition federally are supporting, I think for me, I don't want to see a nuclear debate around civil purposes being driven by ideology.

“The simple fact is we need nuclear power globally to decarbonise the energy sector and that's good for South Australia because we're home to a significant uranium mine. So, it's going to play a role.”

Premier Malinauskas, when asked if his government would greenlight the legislation required to build such reactors in SA, said he would do so only if it was cost effective and did not translate into higher electricity prices for the consumer.

“Someone's got to pay... and we've got a privatised power market in the national electricity market, which means the people who pay are the consumer. They pay down the cost of the infrastructure, they pay down the cost of the capital,” he said.

“I don't support a proposition that makes power more expensive.”

Look, I know you like to go a little crazy when it’s brought up, but why didn’t you quote all of it? clearly not a good option for SA.
 
Last edited:
“We are going to have a nuclear industry in South Australia, and it's one that my government supports, and I certainly embrace, because only a few kilometres (from) where we are right now we're going to be building nuclear submarines (AUKUS) which is the most advanced of the technology as far as the nuclear fuel cycle goes,” Mr Malinauskas told host Chris Kenny.

“In terms of the civil power question, which is what the Coalition federally are supporting, I think for me, I don't want to see a nuclear debate around civil purposes being driven by ideology.

“The simple fact is we need nuclear power globally to decarbonise the energy sector and that's good for South Australia because we're home to a significant uranium mine. So, it's going to play a role.”

Premier Malinauskas, when asked if his government would greenlight the legislation required to build such reactors in SA, said he would do so only if it was cost effective and did not translate into higher electricity prices for the consumer.

“Someone's got to pay... and we've got a privatised power market in the national electricity market, which means the people who pay are the consumer. They pay down the cost of the infrastructure, they pay down the cost of the capital,” he said.

“I don't support a proposition that makes power more expensive.”

Look, I know you like to go a little crazy when it’s brought up, but why didn’t you quote all of it?

Sorry …

“Every single objective, independent analysis that has looked at this has said nuclear power would make power more expensive in Australia rather than cheaper,” he told ABC News.
“Why we would impose that burden on power consumers in our country is completely beyond me. Maybe one day in a hundred years time nuclear technology might evolve.
 
Sorry …

“Every single objective, independent analysis that has looked at this has said nuclear power would make power more expensive in Australia rather than cheaper,” he told ABC News.
“Why we would impose that burden on power consumers in our country is completely beyond me. Maybe one day in a hundred years time nuclear technology might evolve.

SA is the last place that needs it.
They are already getting most of their electricity from renewable sources.
Getting rid of the gas will get them to 100% but the cost of nuclear that you won't use 90% of the time is ridiculous.
 
SA is the last place that needs it.
They are already getting most of their electricity from renewable sources.
Getting rid of the gas will get them to 100% but the cost of nuclear that you won't use 90% of the time is ridiculous.

I thought it seemed strange also. Sounds like he thinks it’s required globally but wouldn't be financially beneficial in SA?
 
I worry about your comprehension. ….. maybe stop watching Skynews.

Explain this quote directly from Peter then :

“The simple fact is we need nuclear power globally to decarbonise the energy sector and that's good for South Australia because we're home to a significant uranium mine. So, it's going to play a role.”
 
Explain this quote directly from Peter then :

“The simple fact is we need nuclear power globally to decarbonise the energy sector and that's good for South Australia because we're home to a significant uranium mine. So, it's going to play a role.”

That’s not looking at nuclear options is it????!? They already having a mine… that’s not part of the debate.
You made out he was open to debating more options, which he clearly isn’t ….. we know they have a mine, we know they are going to be getting nuclear subs…
So what your point?
He definitely isn’t suggesting that nuclear is going to play any part in the transition from fossil fuels to renewables in AUSTRALIA…. Which this thread is about…. Or is it not?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

That’s not looking at nuclear options is it????!? They already having a mine… that’s not part of the debate.
You made out he was open to debating more options, which he clearly isn’t ….. we know they have a mine, we know they are going to be getting nuclear subs…
So what your point?
He definitely isn’t suggesting that nuclear is going to play any part in the transition from fossil fuels to renewables in AUSTRALIA…. Which this thread is about…. Or is it not?

Stick to what you posted and what you attacked me on.

My post:

I thought it seemed strange also. Sounds like he thinks it’s required globally but wouldn't be financially beneficial in SA?

Your reply:

I worry about your comprehension. ….. maybe stop watching Skynews.

What exactly did I not comprehend correctly here? He did say it’s required globally to transition.

I asked the question initially because I heard a snippet of it on radio and hence asked the question as it surprised me (as they are killing it with renewables).

People aren’t here to only discuss points that you want.
 
Last edited:
Did I hear correctly - Malinauskas wants to look at nuclear options for SA / is open to discussing it?

This is your post I started responding to!!!!!!
What nuclear options does he WANT to look at for SA???? Other than the mines, which they already have and subs, which they are already getting????

ZILCH…. He sees no other future in SA for nuclear power … it would be a burden on the people!!!!

So I’ll ask you what options are you talking about????
 
This is your post I started responding to!!!!!!
What nuclear options does he WANT to look at for SA???? Other than the mines, which they already have and subs, which they are already getting????

ZILCH…. He sees no other future in SA for nuclear power … it would be a burden on the people!!!!

So I’ll ask you what options are you talking about????

Miscommunication.

I asked the question (was a question, not a statement) as I heard a snippet of it on radio. Hence my comment about being surprised.

I then accepted your answer, being no.

Not sure why you had to have a dig at my comprehension or bring up sky news but I guess that’s the default line these days.
 
Last edited:
Miscommunication.

I asked the question (was a question, not a statement) as I heard a snippet of it on radio. Hence my comment about being surprised.

I then accepted your answer, being no.

Not sure why you had to have a dig at my comprehension or bring up sky news.

Miscommunication is what the corporate MSM in this country thrives on…

 
Blah blah blah.
200km limit on towing your boat yeah?

Wonder if there is a charging station at Tamboon inlet.

I agree that most people would be able to use an electric vehicle but that isn't putting myths to rest , its just one person blabbering.

At a guess, less than 1% of cars are towing boats. And in most cases, it would be for less than 100km each way.
 
As long as the floor pans are watertight for the boat ramp.

For caravans etc the trailer can have a battery and be a driven slave from the towing car. You can do stuff like that with motors

Caravan to powered campsite recharge problem diminished
 
Last edited:
Blah blah blah.
200km limit on towing your boat yeah?

Wonder if there is a charging station at Tamboon inlet.

I agree that most people would be able to use an electric vehicle but that isn't putting myths to rest , its just one person blabbering.

I think it addressed the landfill and rare earth materials myth well…
 
Govt easing up on emission standards for commercial/ utes.

Some of these things are belching pollution 8 plus hours per day not smart environmentally but smart politically
 
Australia is at heart a great big company mining town. Democracy is an illusion. Another distraction along with sport and great beaches.

It’s one thing I learned in lockdown, when the true power structures were there to see.
Democracy is not an illusion in Australia. The problem in Australia is that we are inhabited by dumb as shit people or racists or both - the Voice referendum showed what dumb c***s and racists 60% of us are.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top