Did this article get close: "Australia planned to buy US nuclear submarines, Peter Dutton says."Interesting today I thought I heard mention of nuclear on the radio, I can't find mention of it in the media, does anyone have an update?
Ah the "Subs", another of those self resolving issues, let's see if the new Government cancels them, if not problem resolved.Did this article get close: "Australia planned to buy US nuclear submarines, Peter Dutton says."
I think we can hook them into the grid - @Smurf1976 can help work out to do it. Or, maybe park a few in Talbingo Reservoir where all the wiring will be in place by 2026.
I am all for firming capacity as it's essential to energy transition.Funny that considering many say Snowy 2.0 isn't required, including one on here.
Go back and read this thread.Then you will have to move on to find yet another lost cause, as is being proven with Snowy 2.0, which you staunchly argued isn't required. Obviously those that matter don't agree with you, yet again. ?
Totally agree but I'll point out that the policy in question isn't confined to either side of politics.The previous "pricing" policy was always going to be a disaster waiting for opportunity. And here we are!
What's even funnier is we now have AEMO as a player in the game - buying gas - rather than just the umpire making sure the game was fair.
Totally agree but I'll point out that the policy in question isn't confined to either side of politics.
As someone who's seen quite a bit and who's asked enough questions and read enough reports to fill in the blanks, the genesis of the current situation goes back a lot further than most seem to realise.
If I were to take it to the extreme then the earliest relevant decision I'm aware of was made in 1963 with a series of decisions over the next 45 years making today's situation inevitable. Politically, the list of shame is a long one indeed.
This has all been a very long time coming and could be compared to someone who's in poor health, obese and so on. It didn't happen overnight, the loss of fitness took years to occur with successive poor choices.
From there I'll simply point out that any effective fix at this point requires some pretty drastic measures. On that I think it's too early to judge the new government but I'll note that anyone would need to be pretty strong minded to withstand the political pain it'll come with.
I heard Ted O'Brien, the new Shadow Minister for Energy and Climate Change, on the radio some tme last weekend arguing for small nuclear generators.Interesting today I thought I heard mention of nuclear on the radio, I can't find mention of it in the media, does anyone have an update?
The basic problem is that in the short term, we have:Would you like to detail the drastic measures required ?
Get more gas either by means of LNG imports, local production or redirection from exports in Qld.
"They weren't laughing at me," he said of WA's quite singular Australian state policy of quarantining 15 per cent of gas for its own market."During my travels as premier I had governments internationally — and I'm talking about national governments — just basically laughing … that Australia is crazy not preserving some of its gas," Mr Barnett said.
"During my travels as premier I had governments internationally — and I'm talking about national governments — just basically laughing … that Australia is crazy not preserving some of its gas," Mr Barnett said.
"The gas belongs to Australian citizens through their governments.
Well some Australians agree with the companies, but that is usually the reason we end up in a mess anyway, way too much butt kissing and palm greasing goes on in Australia."The gas doesn't belong to the companies," Mr Barnett said.
"The gas is not owned by the companies – that's the bottom line.
"Some of them behave as though it is..
The ownership of resources and minerals is not arguable, its part of the constitution.
'Stupid' gas policies led to energy crisis in eastern states, say former premiers
For former Western Australian premier Colin Barnett the reaction at international meetings first came as something of a surprise.But pretty soon he began to expect it.After a while, he could even see the dark humour involved.
"They weren't laughing at me," he said of WA's quite singular Australian state policy of quarantining 15 per cent of gas for its own market.It is a stance that saw WA labelled hillbilly by the east coast press, and saw another WA premier labelled "a wrecker" by former Liberal minster Ian Macfarlane — now chief executive of the Queensland Resources Council — at energy forums.Mr Barnett, who served as a Liberal premier between 2008 and 2017, cast his mind back to the discussions with global leaders as debate raged this week about Australia's lack of gas security.He was joined by the architect of WA's domestic gas reservation policy, former Labor premier Alan Carpenter, in a display of political unity between the two former rivals.Amid warnings that spiralling gas prices on Australia's east coast could send some manufacturers broke and spur an outbreak of food price inflation, Mr Carpenter and Mr Barnett decried what they labelled the "stupid" decisions of successive governments.
Companies 'don't own the gas'Under WA's policy, 15 per cent of gas reserves within the state's jurisdiction are quarantined for the local market where the fuel makes up more than half its energy needs, including about 40 per cent of its power generation.Mr Barnett said Mr Carpenter "quite correctly" formalised the policy to look after the interests of the people who ultimately owned the gas."The gas doesn't belong to the companies," Mr Barnett said.
"The gas is not owned by the companies – that's the bottom line."Some of them behave as though it is."Australia has got every right to expect some of that gas to be preserved for the Australian economy."According to Mr Barnett, gas projects were often majority foreign-owned, including by sovereign governments and major gas users such as Japan and China.He said this often placed an inherent tension between the gas producers and Australia's interests because the companies wanted every molecule available for export.While supporting foreign investment in Australia's natural resources, he said the eastern states' experience showed what can happen when safeguards for domestic consumers were not built in.
More on the link below...
Absolutely that is why it has to be negotiated at stage where exploration, becomes agreement to extract the resource, as happened in W.A.The ownership of resources and minerals is not arguable, its part of the constitution.
The question is , how much does the government contribute to the exploration and setting up of all the infrastructure required to extract the minerals and petroleum products.
There have been far more non productive wells spudded than have been gushers.
It seems governments are happy for private enterprise to do all the dirty work, and then wait for the royalties, and now insistence that some of the output be kept local.
The time frame for these projects can be years if not decades, so the entities may need some sort of assurance that the rules wont change half way thru.
Can see both sides of the argument have merit.
Mick
An issue is the mentality of getting the gas out of the ground ASAP.The time frame for these projects can be years if not decades, so the entities may need some sort of assurance that the rules wont change half way thru.
Can see both sides of the argument have merit.
To highlight that difference in how different groups will see it (not actual quotes from anyone but to illustrate):The real economic benefit comes from using the gas, not from simply extracting it and loading it onto ships.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?