Nationals threaten to tear up wind and solar contracts as nuclear misinformation swings polls

National leader David Littleproud has reportedly threatened to tear up contracts for wind and solar farm developments, in the latest broadside against large scale renewable energy from the federal Coalition.

The remarks – reported by the Newcastle Herald – were made in a press conference last week in Newcastle, when Littleproud was campaigning against offshore wind projects and outlining the Coalition’s hope that it could build a nuclear power plant in the upper Hunter Valley.

The Coalition has vowed to stop the roll out of large scale renewables, and keep coal fired power plants open in the hope that they can build nuclear power plants – recognised around the world as the most expensive power technology on the planet – some time in the late 2030s and 2040s.

No one in the energy industry, nor large energy consumers for that matter, are the slightest bit interested in nuclear because of its huge costs and time it takes to build, and because it would set back Australia’s short term emissions reductions.

But the comments about contracts are the most sinister to date, and reflect the determination of a party leader who just a few years ago described renewables and storage as a “good thing”, including the huge wind and solar projects that are being built in his own electorate, to destroy the renewables industry.

The Newcastle Herald quoted Littleproud as saying that an incoming Coalition would undertake a review of all existing government energy infrastructure contracts.

“We will look at where the existing government took contracts and at what stage they are at,” Littleproud said.

“There are some projects on land that we will have to accept, but we are not going to just let these things happen. If that means we have to pay out contracts we will definitely look at that.”

The federal government this week announced the biggest ever auction of wind and solar in Australia, seeking six gigawatts of new capacity that will be underwritten by contracts written by the commonwealth.

This will see at least 2.2 GW of new wind and solar sourced in NSW, at least 300 MW in South Australia, already the country’s leader with a 75 per cent share of wind and solar in its grid, and multiple gigawatts spread over other states.

However, the Coalition’s nuclear plans are already facing delays, having pulled back from a previous commitment to deliver the nuclear policy before the May 14 federal budget. It now only promises to release the policy before the next election, with Littleproud telling Sky News on Monday that the party “would not be bullied” into an early release.

One of the many problems with its nuclear strategy will be finding sites for the proposed power plants. The Coalition has targeted the upper Hunter as one site, but AGL, the owner of the site that houses the now closed Liddell and the still operating Bayswater coal generators, has said it is not interested because it is focused on renewables and storage.

Littlepround, however, said there are other sites in the area that could be used, although the Newcastle Herald said he declined to nominate those sites. Inevitably, they would require new infrastructure.

The campaign against renewables and for nuclear has been based around misinformation, both on the cost and plans of renewables and transmission, and on the cost of nuclear power plants, which have stalled around the world because of soaring costs, huge delays, and because no small modular reactor has yet been licensed in the western world.

That campaign has been amplified by right wing “think tanks” and ginger groups, and the Murdoch media, and largely reported uncritically in other mainstream media. It appears to be having some traction.

According to an Essential Media poll published in The Guardian on Tuesday, 40 per cent of respondents ranked renewables as the most expensive form of electricity, 36 per cent said nuclear, and 24 per cent said fossil fuels.

The poll also found a majority (52%) of voters supported developing nuclear power for the generation of electricity, up two points since October 2023, and 31% opposed it, down two points.

The most recent GenCost report prepared by the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator, like other international studies, says that nuclear power costs nearly three times more than renewables, even counting the cost of storage and transmissions.

However, the Coalition – with the support of right wind media and agitators – have led relentless campaigns against the CSIRO and AEMO, even though their nuclear costs were based on the only SMR technology that has gotten close to construction, before being pulled because it was too expensive.

The push to stop renewables comes despite reports from both AEMO and the Australian Energy Regulator that highlight how the growth in renewables has lowered wholesale power prices, despite extreme weather events and the impact of the unexpected outage of Victoria’s biggest coal generator.

The only state where wholesale electricity prices actually rose were in Queensland, which has the heaviest dependency on coal, although the state has just passed laws that lock in its 75 per cent emissions reduction target and its 80 per cent renewables target by 2030.

South Australia has already reached a 75 per cent wind and solar generation share in its grid, and aims to reach “net” 100 per cent by the end of 2027. It enjoyed the biggest fall in wholesale spot prices in the last quarter, which state minister Tom Koutsantonis said should be passed on to consumers.

“SA’s prices fell the most of any state, and the black coal dependent states of Queensland and NSW had the highest prices,” Koutsantonis said.

“These proven falls in wholesale prices are encouraging signs that we are on the right track. South Australia’s high proportion of renewables – which exceeded 75 per cent of generation in 2023 – is key to South Australian prices being far lower than the black-coal states of NSW and Queensland.

“Retail prices must fall because wholesale costs to retailers are going down.”

Railison,

Anything to delay and dilute the inevitable.

Having said that, the electorate is sick of the climate wars and once the coalition are made to come up with some anctual detail about their plan, there should be an awakening in most voters’ minds about the idiocy of this policy.

hanrahan,
@hanrahan@slrpnk.net avatar

there should be an awakening in most voters’ minds about the idiocy of this policy.

History would seem to suggest the opposite. Or perhaps I am just not the optimist you are ? People voting for the LNP aren’t particularly “woke” to much of anything in my expereince, aside from entitlment and tribalism.

"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative - John Stuart Mill

Railison,

Yeah maybe. Overall, I’d argue Abbott was voted in because Labor imploded multiple times and the “carbon tax lie” was a potent slogan.

Taleya,

The only fcking nuke i wanna see is one landing on the nationals.

TinyBreak,

Bro, think of the collateral damage! Why waste nuclear material when we could just use a swift smack upside the head to knock some sense into 'em.

Taleya,

nah man, nuke 'em from orbit. Only way to be sure.

Gorgritch_umie_killa,
@Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone avatar

I’m so tired of this climate culture war and the useful idiots that deal and lap up the nuclear power propaganda.

I see younger males especially being attracted by the nuclear power campaign. Why? I don’t yet know.

Maybe games like Fallout have romanticised it. Maybe its a danger and risk thing.

Whatever it is, i’ll not be surprised if we find there is a propaganda campaign along the same lines as the Amber Heard debacle being run pushing the line on young mens social media accounts. Maybe even by OPEC+ countries, the Saudis seem to be quite au fait with it.

Just my anecdotal thought.

grue,

I’m tired of all the bizarre nuclear vs. solar/wind infighting that’s been going on for decades when they should be teaming up to stop the real enemy (fossil fuels).

AEsheron,

Yes. Nuclear is a great skeleton of a system where the meat is renewable. The majority should be renewable, but nuclear helps plug up the holes that pop up due to various conditions.

ephemeral_gibbon,

It’s a damn gold plated skeleton though. A skeleton of transmission and storage is cheaper and a really good complement to renewables

hanrahan,
@hanrahan@slrpnk.net avatar

It also allows them to shift blame to The Greens for pushing back againt nuclear when it all falls over. “See climate change and energy prices are The Greens fault” will be a simplistic mantra they can use to keep the outrage alive.

I heard that same thing endlessly after the 2019/2020 bushfires from numpties like Barnanby and every older perons I spoke too about the fires when they found out we’d lost so much in then said “you must be really upset with The Greens”. I’d just look and then say “No, I’m only upset with voters who didnt Vote Green”.

vividspecter,

A lot of it is simply the usual fossil fuel interests, and the right-wing “think” tanks and politicians their endless money goes toward funding. They tell them to push nuclear because they know that the average person won’t accept pushing coal anymore, but nuclear can delay renewable rollouts for as long as possible, both because it takes a long time to build one, but also because there will be a long, drawn out political, legal and cultural shitfight (especially in Australia). Talking up methane (natural gas) as more than just a last resort fuel is also part of the tactic, along with attacking renewables directly, with “throw everything at it until something sticks” tactics with the hope that they can keep coal and gas around for just a few more years.

Gorgritch_umie_killa,
@Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone avatar

To add to your methane point.

I’s listening to the latest Climate Town episode on natural gas. They were talking about only 4% of total US supply of gas needing to leak, (maybe in a year? I’ll have to recheck the stat if you want to know), for the benefits of burning that instead of coal to be wiped out. Bar the sulfur, thats an advantage of gas over coal.

But in terms of global warming, gas is probably not the saviour or transition fuel people are running around saying it is. Including myself in the past.

I reckon a <4% leakage rate would be a hard if not impossible target for the gas industry to hit.

hanrahan,
@hanrahan@slrpnk.net avatar

The bridge was the myth sold by gas, no one was going to get excited by “slightly better then coal if everything goes right and there are no fugitive emissions”

science.org/…/natural-gas-could-warm-planet-much-…

Just have to look at the shitshow mess we’ve made of this with @ZLabe stuff for Berkly Earth (methane chart part way down"

zacklabe.com/climate-change-indicators/

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • environment@aussie.zone
  • PowerRangers
  • DreamBathrooms
  • InstantRegret
  • magazineikmin
  • cubers
  • mdbf
  • Youngstown
  • osvaldo12
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • everett
  • vwfavf
  • kavyap
  • Durango
  • Leos
  • khanakhh
  • ethstaker
  • cisconetworking
  • GTA5RPClips
  • thenastyranch
  • tacticalgear
  • ngwrru68w68
  • normalnudes
  • anitta
  • modclub
  • tester
  • provamag3
  • megavids
  • All magazines