Nationals' dummy spit hands Labor an even sweeter victory

I heard today it was $60,000 in entitlements. I bet Barnaby wasn’t happy…not that he’s in it for the wrong reasons or anything…uh huh sure.

Hold the phone, it looks like the Libs are considering caving to the Nats rather than taking the opportunity to reset.

It will be a huge mistake for the Liberals to pass on re-establishing themselves as the centre right conservative party but that’s what happens when you listen to the circus clowns on Skynews rather than the electorate.

Hold the laughter, now talking to yourself 🤣

Clearly I’m not if you’re replying.

Genius stuff as always Penfold.

They’ve been together for 80 years, the just lost an election on the policies the Nats are refusing to let go, how is fracturing an 80 year old relationship over failed policies anything other than a dummy spit?

By more responsible spending you mean creating a $600 billion white elephant that would commit the country to underlining the profits of multinational construction companies for generations? Selling off public assets to your donors at ridiculously low prices? Allowing private corporations to harvest Australia’s mineral wealth for private profit only?

Sound democracy needs a thoughtful opposition, a viable alternative government, not a bunch of oppositional flakes.

I hope that sound alternative will eventuate from Liberal reviews, this time.

Funny that i know lots of people that changed their votes and only on two issues Dutton and nuclear. Put them together and you have a poison chalice that most will not go near.

People lie on polls, i got polled just a few weeks before the election and the ansers i gave where so vague they could have been taken in the negitive or positive.

Well clarkea you’re welcome to lie on polls, can’t say I ever do. But the primary vote issue suggests otherwise, as does Lowy polling. 14 years ago 62% opposed nuclear, now it’s 37%.

https://poll.lowyinstitute.org/charts/australia-using-nuclear-power-to-generate-energy/

Comically delusional.

“Dutton launched it a year or so ago and the Coalion primary vote climbed to 40% before the election was called.”

How did the Coalition’s primary vote climb before the election?

You’re claiming a slight bump in some polling (because there are no primary votes before an election) is > the decrease in primary votes at the actual election. And pretending this delusion is a win for nuclear.

I’m not sure who you are trying to con, people reading your nonsense or yourself.

Meanwhile you can make nonsense claims about a scare campaign and a rise in support for nuclear but the facts are the Energy Generators & Retailers had already rejected nuclear, as had the QLD LNP government.

If nuclear was actually popular Dutton wouldn’t be out of work right now.

@Penfold
There’s only one poll that counts … and not even the voters in Dutton’s own electorate bought his nuclear offer.

Be sure to tell that to the Lowy institute too JS, clearly their polling means nothing.

Now remember we were discussing yesterday that evidence you don’t like you refute. A fine example here 🧑‍🎓

“Be sure to tell that to the Lowy institute too JS, clearly their polling means nothing.”

Thanks for linking that poll Penfold, the findings on support for action on climate change and renewable energy are really comprehensive.

87% supported Providing subsidies for the development of renewable energy technologies.

72% supported Committing to a more ambitious national emissions reduction target

66% of Australians think our renewable energy targets are about right or not ambitious enough.

57% said that climate change is a serious problem and we should do more even if it comes at a significant cost.

Well done.

@Penfold
LMAO – given the accuracy of polls, particularly in predicting election outcomes, are you serious? A fine example of gullibility 🤪

Thanks chewy, that’s awesome. Everyone should be committed to a cleaner environment. Some great cherry picking again, isn’t it great how Aussies are now supporting nuclear.

How much do you think all that support would drop if people knew the real cost of renewables ?

Oh JS are you now discrediting the entire polling industry ? Now that is funny. 🤣

“How much do you think all that support would drop if people knew the real cost of renewables”

https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/news/2024/may/csiro-releases-2023-24-gencost-report

Any reasonable person reading this report would conclude that renewables are the cheapest, cleanest and quickest form of energy to build.

@Penfold
No, Penfold, the polling industry serves a purpose for the media to have something to speculate over elections; like “Polling shows Labor will be the first one term government since …”. I’m sure that had you salivating like one of Pavlov’s dogs. But, as I said, there’s only one poll that counts.

Penfold,
Just quoting from the polling you provided, sorry if want to ignore the actual evidence you don’t like when it’s put in context.

“How much do you think all that support would drop if people knew the real cost of renewables ?”

Probably higher support, it being cheaper than the alternatives like nuclear and all.

I’d also guess that the supposed support you’re claiming for nuclear would significantly drop if they asked if you’d like to have a plant near where you live.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/may/01/australians-support-for-nuclear-power-ban-rises-despite-duttons-best-efforts-to-sell-atomic-future-survey-finds

Once again, thanks for providng the polling showing much higher levels of support for renewables compared to nuclear.

@Penfold
“How much do you think all that support would drop if people knew the real cost of renewables?”
But why is that relevant, Penfold? Aren’t the polls infallible?

chewy, that’s a fascinating find. I’m always circumspect when someone quotes anything from the Guardian especially on climate so i dug a little deeper into your link. Push polling is always an issue with polling by mobs like ” National Climate Action Survey”. It turns out they claim:

“In 2023, the survey showed 51% of people supported Australia’s ban on nuclear energy. But in 2024 that rose to 59%.”

Yet when you go to the actual 2024 data we get “Year 4 (2024) reports – Coming soon”. So they refuse to publish he data but claim support has risen. Sorry mate, that’s called a croc. Fake news.

Have you got any actual evidence ?

JS, you’re struggling in the past couple of days buddy. You did better when you pushed evidence and not ideology.

Don’t you think reality of costs is important ?

Penfold,
“Now remember we were discussing yesterday that evidence you don’t like you refute. A fine example here 🧑‍🎓”

You seem to be very selective in the polls you believe based on whether they support your own position, perhaps you should take up your concerns with the pollsters themselves.

Once again though, thanks for providng the polling showing much higher levels of support for renewables compared to nuclear, which I’ve supplemented with further evidence showing people don’t want nuclear anywhere near their own homes.

Just as a check in, you know there’s many helplines that can assist you deal with loss, this election result and coalition divorce seems to have hit you bad.

No matter how many “look over there’s” you want to throw out there chewy, the discussion was about the growing support for nuclear.

But I was having a quiet chuckle at your link and the very shallow analysis of the lightweight Guardian. Notably they’re still begging for money. But I digress ….

Perhaps you could explain how the 30 countries with hundreds of nuclear power plants being developed have it wrong.

Pengold,
I like how anything you dont have the ability to discredit with evidence, you simply attack the source. It shows the white flag has definitely been raised.

“But I was having a quiet chuckle at your link and the very shallow analysis of the lightweight Pengold”

You know the Guradian were simply reporting from polling/survey results and you’re free to read the methodology that hasn’t changed?

How’s that rotten cherry farm going?

“Perhaps you could explain how the 30 countries with hundreds of nuclear power plants being developed have it wrong.”

Like how it’s been explained to you numerous times before when you asked the exact same question?

Perhaps you can explain how the hundreds of countries installing renewable energy orders of magnitude higher than nuclear have it wrong?
How on nuclear industry figures themselves, the share of nuclear energy is not predicted to increase despite your claims?

Thanks for showing with your own evidence how Australian support for renewables is significantly higher than that for Nuclear.

No matter how many “look over there’s you want to throw at it.

Sounds like that post went straight over your head chewy. That laughable Guardian link you provided made a claim but didn’t provide the evidence to back it up. I even quoted the problem above. So yes indeed I’m criticising the source.

Perhaps you should apply similar critical analysis before posting such waffle 🧇

It did provide the evidence because you clearly clicked on the link in the article to that source.

The Guardian isn’t the source genius, they are merely reporting research findings.

That being a regularly run longitudinal survey, with the methodology supplied.

Your one complaint being that they’ve released initial results for 2024 whilst they work on the overall yearly report to be released in September this year.

But of course you’re too lazy to ever read the source material before posting your waffle.

You keep lapping up the Guardian stuff chewy and their good mates the greens and laughably named Australia Institute. You’re dealing with the hard ideological left of Aussie politics there.

Maybe get back to us if you’ve got something more credible to offer. 👀

@Penfold
You lambasted me for suggesting the poll results may not necessarily be totally credible, then you suggest that a particular result may not be credible (because you can’t handle the reality that renewables are cheaper) and I am the one who’s struggling, Penfold? Hmmm – what was that you said about hypocrisy?

Geez JS, trotting out the old “renewables are cheaper” fantasy. Not sure what that’s got to do with the price of coal in China but it is the most ridiculous comment floating around the world over the past 20 years.

No doubt it’s escaped you that the countries with the highest share of renewables have the highest power prices. Must be a coincidence.

“Maybe get back to us if you’ve got something more credible to offer.”

This guy up the thread provded a link to a poll completed by the Lowy Group, you may have seen it?

https://poll.lowyinstitute.org/report/2024/climate-change-and-energy/#report

Shows how Australians comprehensively support renewables at higher rates than alternatives like Nuclear.

Thanks for that.

Well isn’t that wonderful chewy, so renewables are more popular than nuclear. What a shame they’re far more unreliable, expensive and barely last 20 years. And I wonder how much slave labour is involved too, though presumably the ends justifies the means hey.

@Penfold
There you go again, with your unsubstantiated claims, Penfold. I don’t believe renewables are cheaper, therefore they are not. I won’t bother to ask you for evidence as you’ll just come back with a reply that avoids the question entirely.

Penfold still beclowning himself with nonsense statements about renewables. It’s as tedious as it is predictable.

Renewables are perfectly reliable (the grid is 40-45% renewables now, so where are the blackouts) and cheap (see the Gencost report). Intermittency is solved by firming technology and a distributed grid.

Tier 1 solar panels are rated for 25-30 years.

And so the falsehoods from Penfold continue:
– Rapid, continuous, and repetitive
– Lacking commitment to objective reality
– Lacking commitment to consistency
all of which are demonstrated in this thread, with a repeated set of completely unevidenced claims in Penfold’s 12.05 post, not merely unevidenced, but contrary to evidence.

There is nothing to distinguish “Penfold” from a unit in a troll factory, be it a State level, private right wing, or any other propaganda group.

Germany, Denmark, Ireland, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands – all top 10 solar and wind producers, all top 10 power prices on the planet. On that, the science is very much settled. But as they say, ignorance is bliss.

Ignorance is bliss but the misdirection here is that correlation is not causation…

All those countries as developed nations have high energy demands and are still very reliant on fossil fuels. It’s the fossil fuel part of their energy mix that’s expensive. The same as it is here.

The usual misleading drivel from Penfold.

Neither Germany nor the UK are in the top 10 renewable energy users as a proportion of their energy consumption. Germany is ranked 12, UK 18.

Denmark and Ireland are not even in the top 50 energy users let alone renewable proportion.

Australia has cheaper energy than any of those, and it will continue to stay low as cheaper renewables are rolled out.

This is obvious to non-deniers, such as a majority of the Australian population which rejected the LNP’s nuclear absurdity which was to be a taxpayer cost because the private sector knew a crock when it saw it.

Struggling with the maths again Axon. Help is at hand.

Now remember, hydro is the nice renewable. It provides baseload consistency and uses nice pure water. Solar and wind, well they’re expensive, unreliable, short term and in the scheme of things, dirty.

In the top 10 prices and renewables share (non-hydro). Drumroll …. the winner is Germany, with the world’s highest power prices and 49% nasty renewables. Great move closing all those coal plants down.

The silver medal …. Ireland, 2nd highest power prices and 42% dirty renewables.

Up to the podium the United Kingdom, 45% bad renewables.

Honourable mentions – Denmark, Australia, the Netherlands, Uruguay.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_production#Renewable_production_(percent)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/263492/electricity-prices-in-selected-countries/

Now before the cherry picking starts again chewy, Axon, cosmonaut, JS, you’re going to have to do some sorting and comparisons. Go slow, think hard. Don’t show yourselves again to be mathematical numpties. You can do it.

@Penfold
Yes, Penfold, those countries are considered to have relatively high domestic energy prices, but linking power costs to renewables alone isn’t the whole story is it?

Tell me, would energy be cheaper in these countries if they relied solely on nuclear? After all, we are talking about nuclear being cheaper than renewables.

Let’s say, as an example in the UK, the Hinkly Point C nuclear power plant – originally estimated to cost £18 billion and be completed in 2027. Latest figures are a cost of £46 billion to £48 billion (approx A$96 billion), with it coming online sometime between 2029 and 2031 and have a total capacity of 3.2 GW.

The Western Green Energy Hub renewable energy project in Western Australia, projected to be among the most expensive of its kind, at US$74.7 billion (approx.A$116 billion) aims to produce up to 50GW of energy … over 15 times the capacity for about 1.2 times the cost.

So, your “science” may be settled but the sums just don’t add up.

Well luckily JS, maths is maths and science is science. The maths is always settled. As for science – more renewables, more cost. Please feel free to find historic – actual – evidence that more renewables mean lower prices. Not what some mouthpiece says will happen in the future, what has actually happened. I’ll wait ….

The WGEH you say. Hadn’t heard of it and there isn’t much information about it, but apparently it’s getting delivered in 5 years time. Sure. Green hydrogen, isn’t that the stuff Twiggy has abandoned and only Chris Bowen still sprouts ? And as always with you JS it’s about nirvana in the future, never proven or based on facts.

I see Penfold is masking his BS with arrogance he hasn’t proven that the energy prices in the countries he highlights are the result of renewables or fossil fuels or other factors.

Who needs expert analysis when you can put two disparate facts together and imply any old nonsense you like.

Obviously this sort of stuff works for dopes who watch Skynews uncritically but not for sensible people, who unfortunately for the culture warriors, vote in Australia.

In Australia renewables are the cheapest form of energy and it’s not even close, if it wasn’t renewables our energy prices would be much higher.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-01-25/wholesale-power-prices-pushed-down/103386062

“Now before the cherry picking starts again chewy,”

You mean like the person who just selectively redefined what renewable energy means and avoided any country that didn’t fit his selective criteria. Even when his mountain of picked cherries doesnt even say what he claims it to?

Shame you didn’t point out France being in the top 10 for electricity cost. You know the country with the highest proportion of nuclear energy

But there’s no real need to respond to the level of ignorance from Penfold that has made such a ridiculously simple correlation as if it’s some big gotcha.

Check out the pea brain on Pengold.

Science, bahahahahaha.

@Penfold
PS I am going to have to admit to an error – well a typo … the Hinkly Point C nuclear power plant was due to be operational in 2017 – not 2027.

Love it chewy, nothing debatable to come back with again. Presumably you now accept renewables = astronomical power prices.

And isn’t it fun when you resort to name calling, the white flag gets waved.

@Penfold
I see, Penfold, you are channelling another of your idols and former Liberal leaders, who was also sacked by his own electorate – J W Howard. I’m sure you will remember you praised his “Interest rates will always be lower under a Coalition government than a Labor government” as being clever, because it can neither be proven nor disproven.

Similarly, you cannot prove “more renewables, more cost”, just as I cannot prove “more renewables mean lower prices”.

Here’s two thing we do know:
1. The price of energy is impacted by many factors – irrespective of the source; and
2. Under your democratically elected government, supported by your democratically elected parliament, nuclear power plants in Australia are dead and buried, and the move towards renewable energy sources to replace fossil fuel sources will continue.

So, the future is not nirvana, it’s renewables. But, hey, keep bleating your quixotic opposition; at least you know you’ll always get obsequious support from Capital Retro

Well you may be right there JS but let me make a future prediction – as we get more renewables in the system, prices will continue to sky-rocket.

Despite the bleatings of blackout Bowen and his $275 price drops, 20 years of experience has shown us more renewables, higher prices.

Are you bold enough to predict otherwise ?

@Penfold
That’s not a ‘future prediction’, it’s just nonsensical blithering.

1. Define ‘sky-rocket’ in relation to prices … like most of your unsubstantiated comments – it’s just hyperbole; and
2. “20 years’ of experience has shown us more renewables, higher prices” Really? Have you looked at the comparative price of solar panels over the last 20 years? If you do, you’ll find that a production cost influencer – called ‘economies of scale’, may have impacted solar prices in a downward trend.

Unlike you, I prefer to stick to reality, not crystal ball gazing. However, one thing I will happily predict – we haven’t seen the last of your nonsensical blithering.

Pengold,
what’s there to debate? Your illogical cherry farming argument that you aren’t even smart enough to understand has holes as big as a nuclear power plant?

Your argument assumes that:
– retail power prices in every country are open market and not subject to government controls/subsidies/limits.
Hint: They aren’t
-That retail power prices are set largely by electricity generation costs in each country.
Hint: They aren’t

And even then, to even attempt to put forward the argument you are weakly attempting, you’d have to look at all countries, not just the ones you think support your position. To find a simple correlation that wouldn’t even prove your argument anyway.

You’ve also been provided direct assessment of generation costs using real industry data and actual research above, which as per usual you’ve just ignored. Because we’ve already seen you can’t debate actual research completed by experts and people who actually know what they’re talking about.

Nice wikipedia link too, it’s a great touch for your comments. You’re a really good Scientician.

“Despite the bleatings of blackout Bowen”. Where. Are. The. Blackouts.?

“Are you bold enough to predict otherwise ?”…there’s no point predicting anything with you, or taking you seriously when you’re just making it up anyway.

Well enjoy your reality JS, it clearly comes with large quantities of kool-aid.

Power prices have surged over 20 years, mostly when Labor have been in power. Check out the ABS CPI stats, column AD of dataset 6.

Do you actually think they’re coming down ? Goodness me, perhaps you could nominate when.

And can you tell me where I can get some of that kool-aid, it’s obviously really good stuff 🤣🍾

I know you are struggling with the maths again, Penfold, not to mention anything to do with analysis. You really are burning over being shown previously, by several people, to be wrong on mere percentages aren’t you.

Anyone not unintelligent knows that hydro is a renewable. Have you noticed Tasmania or the original Snowy scheme? For the rest of the country, Australia is not Norway which has practically endless hydro (+ wind) and an electricity price about 40% lower than here, despite Norway being in higher cost Europe.

A further Penfoldian fatuity is the notion that hydro is only the baseload phantom. Have you noticed Snowy 2.0? Precisely its advantage (and smaller pumped hydro projects being built) is that their production can be switched on and off at short notice, and the pumps to lift the water are powered by solar and wind. Part of the failure for nuclear and fossils is their inflexibility as well as high cost.

Critically, despite our relative lack of hydro (and thanks to zero nuclear), Australia’s electricity prices are lower than all of your mouldy cherries. That will continue.

According to Statista, 2022 marked the lowest electricity index since 2012. Must be all that nuclear we added, oh wait, we added solar and wind in that time, and businesses will keep doing so because they know it is optimal so none of them cared for the Nats/Dutton/Penfold economic fantasy of nuclear.

“Do you actually think they’re coming down ? Goodness me, perhaps you could nominate when.”

Sure thing, Penfold, anything for the terminally dim:

Jan 24 to Jan 25 : -11.5% (that is minus eleven point five percent, given numbers are hard for you)

The fall is the weighted average of eight capital cities.

Renewables increased by 7.5 GW. in 2024

Fortunately, nuclear did not increase from zero, now or in 20 years.

Now answer Seano’s question you just avoided again: What blackouts?

You’re a hoot Axon. Maybe read my comments.

But surely your right, having multiple ignoramuses all nodding heads in agreement must mean you’re correct. Except for those pesky facts of course.

@Penfold
It’s always a good indication that you are struggling to formulate anything remotely resembling a cogent argument when you resort to puerile pejoratives. Seriously, kool aid?

“Power prices have surged over 20 years, mostly when Labor have been in power.”
OK – so energy prices have risen. So what? Have you actually looked at the price of -non-renewables, such as gas, in relation to the price of electricity?
Check out the graph on P4 of this report:
https://4473860.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/4473860/No.2022-06-Gas-Price-and-Electricity-price-Relationship.pdf
Two things you will note:
1. The undeniable link between gas prices and electricity prices; and
2. Surges in electricity prices in June 2016, Nov 2016, Dec 2018 and June 2021 – when, *checks notes*, the Coaltition was in government.

As several people on here have commented, but you conveniently (ignorantly?) ignore, is that there are a number of impacts on the price of electricity – none the least of which, is the price of gas.

And, yes, for those people who have home solar, their bills do, at times, go down – particularly with feed-in tariffs, etc. Do you need me to find references, or can you actually grasp the context?

Try disputing my facts, Penfold. You do not.
Try answering Seano’s question, Penfold. You do not.

Australia’s energy is cheaper than Europe’s. They are very different places.

Addition of renewables in Australia has lowered the electricity index from 2012-2022. This will continue.

The CPI item for electricity fell 11.5% in 2024, during which a further 7.5GW of renewables were installed. This will continue.

You are so easily left throwing out wild attacks. because you cannot deal with the knowledge.

Speaking of knowledge, I have noticed for a while that your English is quite error-prone. Educational standards in troll factories must have really gone downhill.

Axon – what “facts”. You made this completely evidence free claim that:

“Jan 24 to Jan 25 : -11.5% (that is minus eleven point five percent, given numbers are hard for you)”

Go and read the ABS numbers and get back to us. There’s an interesting story in there. Then give us the numbers without Albo’s $6.8 billion in handouts. Hopefully that English is clear enuf.

JS – i’m confused again mate. In one breath you argue that me predicting continuing power price rises is “not a ‘future prediction’, it’s just nonsensical blithering.” – despite all evidence to the contrary. And in the next breath “OK – so energy prices have risen. So what? “.

What are you adding to the kool-aid and can you share some ?

Oh JS i noticed your comment on the price of solar panels decreasing.

Any comments on this article ? It’s about Chinese slave labour being forced to produce solar panels.

Fyi “slave labour” means they don’t pay them wages.

“The global production of solar panels is using forced labour from China’s Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang province, an investigation has found.”

“Xinjiang produces about 45% of the world’s supply of the key component, polysilicon, the research by the UK’s Sheffield Hallam University says.”

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-57124636

“Go and read the ABS numbers and get back to us. There’s an interesting story in there. Then give us the numbers without Albo’s $6.8 billion in handouts. Hopefully that English is clear enuf.”

Oh, so subsidies can affect power prices now can they?

But of course only when you think the cherry picked argument suits.

But what about your (very) simple correlation argument?

Falling to bits arguing against your own comments again.

And once again resorting to puerile name calling when you’ve lost the argument, tut tut, Pengold raises the white flag.

How can you tell Penfold is losing? Besides all of the time because he’s constantly out of his depth it’s when throws in the red herring fallacy where he goes for a misdirection, he doesn’t care about slave labour in China (or the exploitation of workers anywhere) any more than he cares about being shot down misrepresenting statistics to baselessly claim renewables as the cause of high energy prices. Pathetic.

@Penfold
Yes … I imagine that’s why, last year, the Fed’s announced the $1 billion Solar Sunshot program:
https://www.pm.gov.au/media/1-billion-solar-sunshot-program
I hope it does lead to a reduction in imports of solar panels from China.

But, why is your “moral outrage” limited to solar panels, Penfold?
https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/china-83-major-brands-implicated-in-report-on-forced-labour-of-ethnic-minorities-from-xinjiang-assigned-to-factories-across-provinces-includes-company-responses/
and
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/reports/child-labor/list-of-goods-print?items_per_page=10&combine=china

Any comments on the companies and goods mentioned in those articles?

@Penfold
Yes – everything we purchase goes through price rises, Penfold … so yes, limiting it to power price rises is nonsensical – particularly when you seem to thinks it’s all down to renewables.

Perhaps, in your schoolboy quest to imbibe kool-aid, you forgot to address the link between electricity price and gas price.

The ones you failed to counter, Penfold.

You will find the -11.5% on the ABS site under CPI.

Your proposition is that increased renewables has increased prices. It did not happen 2012-2022 (Statista index) nor in 2024-2025 (CPI electricity), so your “prediction” is a crock. Remove the known subsidy and still there is not your predicted massive rise.

What is your evidence for blackouts? Question avoided as usual

By the way, there is no law against building a new coal-fired power station, but nobody is agitating for that any more than they did for nuclear. It is expensive and inefficient compared with renewables with firming.

Businesses and investors know that. It is beyond Penfold.

So chewy you’re bereft of facts. Oh well, you couldn’t get back to us, yet again. Maybe go to the ABS numbers and perhaps even provide a quote. Show you’ve at least tried to find some evidence.

JS – is that a confession that yes, solar panel slavery is bad ? Because slavery extends to “electronics, textiles, and automotives” it’s okay ? My comment was to directly challenge your comment that solar prices were coming down. Without even investigating your claim, the reason that would be the case is slavery and free labour.

That high ground is proving very wobbly underneath isn’t it.

@Penfold
Why do I need to “confess” that slavery of any kind is bad, Penfold?

Your faux moral outrage, over “solar panel slavery”, is just an example of your ideological hypocrisy. If you were truly outraged, then you would rail against products coming out of any country, where human rights abuses are equally well known; and that is not limited to China. I am sure you don’t source your petrol from only those stations, which don’t use petroleum sourced from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Qatar and so on.

Yes, you are right – your moral high ground is very shaky, when it is obviously just a grab at furthering your ideological prejudices, rather than a true concern for human rights abuses.

Nevertheless, revelation of the exploitation of the Uighur Muslims and other minorities in China is abhorrent. Initiatives such as the Solar Sunshot program plus the Modern Slavery Act 2018, which came into force on 1 January 2019, are definitely a step in the right direction to reduce the market for goods sourced from exploitative suppliers.

In all your excitement JS, you’ve ignored that most of our solar panels – the ones you were crowing were getting cheaper – come from China. Now that’s what you’d call “selective”.

As for the Chinese government, well no doubt they’ll treat the MSA the same way they’ve treated the Paris agreement. But it all sounds so dreamy doesn’t it. In nirvana at least.

LOL at Pengold,
What a comprehensive beatdown for the incoherent and evidence free cherry farmer.

D minus trolling.

@Penfold
Yep – most of the solar panels imported into Australia come from China.

However, thanks to the aforementioned Modern Slavery Act 2018 (MSA), and similar legislation across Europe and North America, the dependence on polysilicon (the foundation material for semiconductor chips and solar cells) from Xinjiang province is now, as you say, down to 45% – as other provinces in China, including Ningxia and Inner Mongolia, are now becoming major sources of Chinese polysilicon production.

So MSA is having an impact and it should move a lot quicker, but like many initiatives, such as action on climate change, commercial interests often override remedial action.

Nevertheless, you continue to avoid the matter of other products/companies from Xinjiang province, and other countries which have a record of human rights abuses. Let’s even throw microchips, which also use polysilicon sourced from Xinjiang.

Does your ‘moral outrage compass’ have you avoiding any device which has a microchip? Mobile phone? Smart TV? Modern vehicles (both ICE and EV)? … and so on.

Your pretense at sanctimony over inputs to renewables, while ignoring other equally damnable instances, only further highlights your ideological hypocrisy.

Oh – and your continued insistence that the reduction in solar costs is solely due to exploitative practices, ignores other factors, such as economies of scale in manufacturing, technological advancements, and supportive government policies (including subsidies). So while there is no excuse for the mistreatment of the Uighur Muslims and other minorities in China, there are also economical factors which have led to the decline in cost of solar. Perhaps, instead of making grandiose generalisations, you should actually try “investigating the claim”.

Nice try JS. Well, not really. By your argument we should also be discussing global slavery products including conflict minerals, coffee, fishing and textiles amongst others. They’re all disgraceful. But we’re not discussing them, we’re discussing solar panels. Stay on topic JS.

Even the Clean Energy Council have been forced to come clean on the issue:

https://assets.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/documents/resources/reports/Addressing-Modern-Slavery-in-the-Clean-Energy-Sector.pdf

And speaking of investigations, perhaps you could point out where i claimed the solar panel cost reductions you mentioned were exclusively due to forced labour. Nice strawman there.

chewy – still waiting for that ABS evidence. Clearly you can’t provide any, consistency is a real theme.

Oh, in other energy news, Canada is going to build their first Small Modular Reactor.

According to plans, it will be online by 2030, cost $15 billion USD and power 300,000 homes.

Hands up who believed Albo’s lies about the cost of nuclear which clearly had an impact on the election result.

https://world-nuclear-news.org/articles/what-is-the-budget-for-canadas-first-smr-project

$15bn USD (left that bit out)….and 300,000 homes….uh huh….and there’s a bridge in Sydney I can sell you cheap.

There are only two commericalised SMRs running in the world, both massively subsidised in totalitarian states. The problems with SMRs include that the cost is not significantly less than full sized reactors, they produce more waste due to electron leakage and they don’t generate enough power to justify the cost.

Anyone dumb enough to believe Canada will build an SMR for $15bn to power 300,000 homes without issues when…*checks notes*… no other country has should log off and go for a walk.

BTW all this SMR talk in Canada has been going on for awhile and it’s still only in the “strategy” stage…I wish them the best but it’s puerile to point to unrealised strategy in Canada and suggest because they’re maybe going to do something that may turn out to be an expensive failure (because it has for everyone else so far) that we should do it too.
https://theconversation.com/are-small-nuclear-reactors-the-solution-to-canadas-net-zero-ambitions-217354

@Penfold
Oh I see – your moral high ground only applies to matters which you wish to discuss, Penfold? No morality there – just hypocrisy.

Penfold 7:01 pm 23 May 25
“My comment was to directly challenge your comment that solar prices were coming down. Without even investigating your claim, the reason that would be the case is slavery and free labour.”
Now play worm and wriggle off the hook!

@Penfold
Who cares what Canada is doing with small modular reactors? In ongoing energy news, Australia is still not going nuclear!

Given the time and budget blowout for the Hinkley Project in UK, it’s reasonable to expect the cost/schedule quoted for Canada’s first foray into the field will be somewhat short of the mark.

Oh and Dutton’s plan included building 7 traditional large nuclear plants – he never got to saying how many small modular reactors would be built or their location.

So perhaps Albo’s $600B figure, wasn’t far off the mark – given the single Hinkley Project is probably going to come in at around £46 billion to £48 billion (approx A$96 to A$100 billion).

JS – you’ve got me there, i should have used the word “partially”. But before you gloat “gotcha”, just remember that how morally bankrupt the claims of wonderful solar energy are. Even your favourite Guardian can’t hide behind their virtue signalling:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/29/evidence-grows-of-forced-labour-and-slavery-in-production-of-solar-panels-wind-turbines

It’s not just China, but kids in the Congo and in the Amazon, all these wonderful renewables have some seriously unethical problems. Keep defending them though.

“NSW’s anti-slavery commissioner, Dr James Cockayne, said urgent action was needed to address “the severe modern slavery risks in Australian renewable energy supply chains and investments”.”

Has anyone told the teals ?

@Penfold
Interesting that you provide that quote from the Anti-slavery Commissioner as if it proves something that wasn’t already known.

This media release from the NSW government:
https://dcj.nsw.gov.au/legal-and-justice/our-commissioners/anti-slavery-commissioner/news-and-media/nsw-anti-slavery-commissioner-clean-energy-council-renewables.html
reports that the Commissioner is working with the Clean Energy Council to “develop a Code of Practice on managing modern slavery risks in renewable energy value-chains”.

Nevertheless, more needs to be done and is being done, to ensure that the renewables market shuns products which ride on the suffering of others.

However, as I’ve pointed out on a number of occasions, your crusade against renewables, while ignoring other industries/products which also benefit from the exploitation of others, is the height of culture war hypocrisy.

Any slavery/exploitation is deplorable, but your sanctimonious rebukes are guided by your jaundiced ideoology, not compassion, which is a perfect indication of your level (or lack thereof) of decency.

Any price conscious Australian should be rallying against renewables JS, as today’s >10% price rises confirms.

But it’s a bit silly having a go at me when the NSW anti-slavery Commissioner himself has specifically mentioned renewables. Perhaps direct your question to him. Here I’ll help:

antislavery@dcj.nsw.gov.au

You’re welcome 😊

@Penfold
Fair enough – I’ll accept your white flag, Penfold … your hypocrisy wasn’t taking this thread anywhere anyway.

White flag JS, you’re starting to sound like Seano. Not a compliment i’m afraid.

@Penfold
A compliment from you? That would be hypocritical. Mind you …. 🤔

lol you won’t even reply to my evidence based comments pointing out your logical and informational flaws in culture wars arguments….talk about a white flag Penfold.