Guest essay by Eric Worrall
As the center right Australian Coalition staggers towards likely defeat in the next Federal Election, rich green investors are trying to wreck any possibility climate skeptic former Aussie PM Tony Abbott might stage a comeback.
Climate of change looks a windfall for Steggall in bid to oust Abbott
EXCLUSIVE
BRAD NORINGTON
ASSOCIATE EDITOR
@BradNorington
12:00AM MARCH 4, 2019
Zali Steggall has scored the backing of wealthy investors who want immediate action on climate change and could reap big financial rewards in a shift away from coal to solar energy and other renewables.Ms Steggall, the barrister and former world champion alpine skier campaigning as an independent to oust Tony Abbott from his blue-ribbon Liberal seat on Sydney’s northern beaches, is making climate change a key part of her campaign pitch.
Her claim that Mr Abbott is out of step with Warringah voters because he supports coal has helped rally support from individuals with the potential to be generous campaign donors.
Well-heeled local backers of Ms Steggall include Angus Gemmell, Rickard Gardell and Mark Kelly. Alex Turnbull and Simon Holmes a Court are among outside supporters with a deep interest in climate change and investment in renewables.
…
Read more (paywalled): https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/climate-of-change-looks-a-windfall-for-steggall-in-bid-to-oust-abbott/news-story/eb695d642ee162994f8d4e10e72c6280
Tony Abbott was toppled as Prime Minister in a party room putsch in 2015, after leading the Coalition to a blockbuster win in 2013 on an anti carbon tax platform.
Since then Abbott has not challenged any of his successors to regain his old job, instead he has devoted most of his time since he was removed as Prime Minister to his district, and to good works, such as trying find solutions to the long term problems afflicting marginalised Australian Aboriginal communities.
But even Abbott on the sidelines appears to be too much of a risk for the green blob. So they are providing a massive war chest for independent Zali Steggall to challenge Abbott for his seat, in the hope of eliminating the possibility Abbott will ever be Prime Minister again.
What is ironic is how Australia sits on the world’s largest uranium reserves (by a long ways), yet it is sending itself into energy poverty and economic decline to eliminate its CO2 emissions.
You’ve probably never seen a true cost & energy balance for the production of nuclear energy.
I mean one that lists the real costs of the whole chain, i. e.
– construction, maintenance and dismantling (*) of the power plants, plus the associated enrichment and reprocessing plants;
– nuclear fuel enrichment, use and reprocessing;
– secure disposal for centuries of waste coming from operation and dismantling of all equipment.
Then you would understand why even a country like Australia renounces the use of nuclear power …
(*) Yes: I mean ‘dismantling’ and not ‘decommissioning’.
The cost for decommissioning is built into the price of electricity being sold.
Cost of enrichment and reprocessing is built into the price of fuel rods.
There is no need to secure the waste from operation for more than a few years, as you have already mentioned reprocessing. The cost of securing the core until it cools down is built into the cost of decommissioning, which is built into the cost of operation.
Looks like the one who has never done any real research is you.
Mark, maybe I’m misunderstanding but isn’t the startup cost the issue? Wouldn’t all that be worked up into the original plans?
I don’t know but I’ve already heard how expensive nuclear is
Matthew, nuclear is cheaper than wind and solar power in the long term, as found in a recent study. The study hypothesised the cost difference between nuclear and renewables for both California and Germany, which are both heavily invested in renewables. The outcome was astonishing, as it found that if both states had spent the same amount of money on nuclear as they had on renewables, both would now be getting all of their electricity from nuclear. As it is, both are currently getting just over 50% from fossil fuels.
MarkW
“Looks like the one who has never done any real research is you.”
Aha.
1. “The cost for decommissioning is built into the price of electricity being sold.”
I repeat:
(*) Yes: I mean ‘dismantling’ and not ‘decommissioning’.
2. “There is no need to secure the waste from operation for more than a few years, as you have already mentioned reprocessing.”
Wow. You do not seem to know that reprocessing consists of extracting at best 5 % of the used fuel (U235 left unburned, Pu239 born out of U238, and a few other guys).
The rest, MarkW, is highly contaminated material.
I’m loosing my time here.
Decommissioning includes taking the unit apart.
Your knowledge is very lacking in regards to reprocessing.
Interesting.
A trollop typical attack on a commenter instead of a factual response.
MarkW has the price and process described perfectly.
In spite of the alleged expense to opening, running and closing a nuclear plant, their electricity is far cheaper than even fossil fuels.
Unfortunately, a major portion of nuclear facility cost is directly because of rigid 1960s era government conceptions constraining design and construction of nuclear facilities. Revamping government regulations to accept modern efficient designs would reduce costs substantially.
You mean like those broken windmills that litter the landscape?
I completely agree with honest real cost analysis and honesty and full disclosure of safety issues, however, your comment concerns pressure water reactors which are not the optimum thermal spectrum reactor design.
There currently is no solution to CAGW, so we need ‘out of the box solutions.
The molten salt reactor is the theoretically most fuel efficient thermal spectrum reactor possible and it is the only thermal spectrum reactor that can be used as a breeder reactor. The molten salt reactor is six times more fuel efficient (so it produces six time less waste) than a pressure water reactor and in addition it produces six times less long life radiation products as the uranium and fission products remains in the reactor for seven years as opposed to roughly 2 years for a PWR. The longer resident time in the reactor and continual convection mixing brings material in and out of the core of the reactor which burns most of the plutonium.
Comment: There are two types main types of fission reactors. So called thermal spectrum reactors which slow down the fission neutrons, using what is called a moderator (water or carbon), to roughly the speed of the fissionable material atoms which greatly increases the probability of absorption in the reactor so they are called thermal spectrum reactors. The maximum legal enrichment limit for commercial reactors is 5% U235.
Fast spectrum reactors do not slowdown the neutrons and hence need more neutrons to start fission. Fast spectrum reactors use highly enriched uranium (20% U235) and plutonium. The problem with fast spectrum reactors is a failure of the coolant system can result in a core meltdown which can produce a small fission explosion which per text book estimate is roughly as powerful as 700 kg of explosive.
The molten salt reactor (thermal spectrum) has almost no ‘dismantling’ costs. It’s carbon core has a lifetime of 7 years. The molten salt reactor is just a small vessel with six heat exchanges and six small (couple horsepower) stir type pumps.
The molten salt reactor is run for seven years and then a new reactor which can be delivered by truck to the site is installed connecting to the existing piping.
The old molten salt reactor is drained after a reactive cool down period and then moved via a crane to planned storage in the reactor complex. The old reactor graphite core is slightly reactive. Disposal of the drained reactor is not difficult.
The molten salt in the reactor after seven years operation in a reactor is drained and then stored in smaller thick wall vessels that are air cooled and suitable for transport.
This compares to storing 50,000 thin wall control rods in water as the zircon cladding endothermically reacts with moisture in the air to create hydrogen gas when exposed to air. If water in the containment pool is lost there is a chance of a hydrogen explosion.
To reprocess the used molten salt the salt is just melted and the mixture elements can be chemically separated.
There is no problem with CAGW, so it doesn’t matter that there is no solution.
The problem with CAGW is our politicians are so stupid they will force us to spend trillions of dollars on green stuff that does not work to fight it.
William A, politicians are not acting stupid when they authorize the expenditure of trillions of taxpayer dollars to ensure that the benefactors of said expenditure “funnels” hundreds-of-thousands of political payback dollars to said politician’s re-election campaigns.
The best out of box solution to the existential threat of “climate change” is to identify it for what it is, a massive social mania that has no basis in reality. To end all restrictions on fossil fuels, to help Africa get up to world standards in energy production and use. And to tear down and uproot nearly all wind turbines.
Bindidon,
When you’re cold and hungry, and your family is starving, those nuclear costs will become quite reasonable.
And if CO2 is the global existential threat they claim, they should embracing nuclear over unreliable wind and solar. Australia has the expertise and human capital and vast open tracts of land to put in a dozen or so reliable modern reactors to power the entire country, just like France and Sweden.
But you don’t because like here in the USA and in Germany, the propaganda paid for by the USSR and now Russia on nuclear fearmongering has been effective.
Today’s anti-nuclear Greens are the @RealPutinStooge.
Bindidon
If heavy water atomic power was not a clear winner in terms of EROI Ontario Canada would not be the economic powerhouse it has been for the past fifty years.
Unlike wind turbines made in China and Germany, it was constructed with nearly no electricity from coal.
Similarly France (85% atomic power plants) has a vast energy surplus from its fleet of light water reactors so both systems are energy-positive. They generate enough to supply wind-mad Germans and Brits.
The systems which appear to have negative returns are Solar PV and concentrating solar, while wind has barely enough power generated to make another turbine, with a return of about 4/3 on energy invested.
Wrong.
Costs were known in great detail when I was first involved in the nuclear fuel cycle in 1970.
Some cost categories were later inflated by the specific actions of people we call green, but I am talking engineering costs and relativities, not social costs.
Was France a failure with its nuclear program? No, it was a great success that others could enjoy emulating. Geoff
Perhaps you can enlighten us then and show us the numbers. You do have numbers, right?
Meanwhile, we’ll maintain our position that nuclear is one of the cheapest, safest, cleanest and most reliable forms of electricity production, as the actual real-world data for France clearly shows: https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&solar=false&remote=true&wind=false&countryCode=FR
Tipping you don’t either mate.
The complete lifecycle cost analysis: http://pages.hmc.edu/evans/LamThorium.pdf
And yes, the “decommissioning” costs includes dismantling.
Binfion,
Typical green troll attack is to make claims and then run away when your claims are found to be fact free.
Just as you are doing it nuke power.
It is called the “Sir Robin” strategy
https://youtu.be/BZwuTo7zKM8
One thing for sure – we need more cheap energy in this world. It truly is required for civilization to exist at this stage. Nuclear would be great if the nuclear engineers could build a reactor without going over budget by 200% and blowing the schedule. I hope the present R&D for the small factory built reactors is successful but we have to wait and see.
Renewables are a rent-seeking enterprise, so this sort of thing should be expected.
Tony Abbott was well known as the best attack dog that the Australian Liberal Party had.
As with all political parties the Labour Party in office will make mistakes, especially as they will tend to favour their 50 % backer, the Trader Unions.
While Bill Shorten will not push the Green agenda too hard, he is a realist, he will get a lot of pressure from the left of his party, who are almost Greens.
Its possible that with the near total wipe-out of the Liberal Party, that Abbott, if he survives, could rise to the top. Juts look at John Howard, he got knocked back so many times from within his party, but he always bounced back.
MJE o
“Tony Abbott – 2010” by MystifyMe Concert Photography
They must be good. He sure looks mystified.
TA may just be the only hope the coalitions got left.
scomo isnt the worst option..but hes not got the support he needs in house.
lotta retirements/leavings this last week isnt helping.
Nationals need to get their bums into gear also.
could well end up a lot of indys on deck, and not many of them are so greentinged luckily.
Meanwhile, here in WA, another green energy looks like losing some tax payer funds…this time wave energy.
.https://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia/mcgowan-governmentbacked-wave-energy-company-carnegie-suspended-from-australian-securities-exchange/news-story/18c63a1a6b74c8a3643d76e3b51112ad
Surely wave would be more consistent than wind and solar and yet it appears not viable. The director pulled out in time though.
The same low-IQ mentality that is fine with wind turbines killing countless numbers of migratory birds and raptors is the same mentality that thinks destroying coastal ecosystems for wave energy harvesting is okay.
Oh yeah, that IS the Greens’ mentality.
Anyone remember the Greens campaigning against wind power in South East Victoria many years ago? The main objections was a claim that they would kill birds, in particular an Orange Bellied Parrot. What has changed so that bird kill no longer offends the Greens?
They’ve discovered that the high cost of energy from these things kills people. They’ll gladly exchange the lives of a handful of birds in order to kill more people.
They’ve forgiven themselves for things they haven’t even thought of yet.
One of the personality requirements is absolute certainty of one’s position on the moral high ground – that’s ALWAYS the first rationalization.
What makes the waves? ( A: wind)
Why would an energy source which is secondary to wind be any more reliable?
Wave energy extractor concepts have been around for over 40 years, and to date there are no viable concepts that achieve the goal.
Macha
The oceans just seem to to be too unpredictable, violent and corrosive to make wave energy practical. Been trying it in Scotland for decades now and, whilst small scale stuff works for a while, when it’s scaled up it seems to encounter too many problems.
Successful countries more often commit suicide than suffer conquest from the outside. Yet another example.
When Australia finishes doing itself in, the Chinese can buy all significant assets, and continue their climb to global dominance.
The Russians got much of America’s uranium. The Chinese are eyeing Australia’s uranium.
Successful countries fall victim to espionage. Nowadays hostile foreign governments don’t declare war and send in an army to attack. Instead you get ‘cultural’ Marxists white-anting your universities, schools, politics. Takes longer but the effects last longer. Venezuela, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Australia, UK. Why send in a air force to bomb coal power stations when you can pay corrupt politicians to blow them up for you?
I wish we skeptics had even 1% the funding the alarmists claim we do.
I’d make a comment about how stupid Aussies were to get rid of Abbott, but my Prime Ministers name is Justin Trudeau.
We in the US almost had Al Gore and Hillary Clinton, either of which would have made Justin Trudeau look competent.
And just look at the upcoming crop of hopefuls who want to replace Trump.
I cannot, thankfully, bring myself to visualize HRC or Gorebal dancing.
Not that dancing is a major competence marker.
Which is a good thing.
Otherwise, trying to decide who is most/least competent of the bottom dwellers is a fruitless exercise. At the end of the exercise, all three candidates are still dismally ranked with morons, felons and loons. Leaving all of us suspicious to how they got wealthier while we all became poorer.
Couldn’t be worse to watch than climate crisis May dancing with communists in South Africa.
Aussies didn’t get rid of Abbott, his own party did because they couldn’t hold their nerve against the media, green blob..etc…
I gather hes in a bit of deep cack at the moment?
you might get a lucky change of leader soon?
I cannot understand why Oz would elect a warmunist government after having suffered as much as they have from effort to “save the planet” with green policies.
I guess they take to heart the admonition of depression era Alberta premier William Aberhart – “If you have not suffered enough, it is your God-given right to suffer more”.
And they will.
Because a majority of voters have been convinced that all the problems are being caused by greedy power companies who don’t want the world to have clean, renewable power.
And besides, the other side is going to take away your free stuff.
Art, as a Sydneysider, I do not believe that a Labor government will be elected in May. Their policies are to tax everyone and to destroy coal powered thermal power stations that provide 100% of Australia’s affordable. available and reliable electricity. I’m confident my fellow Australians are smarter than the left leaning labor Party think.
Well, they sold the same line to my fellow Oregonians.
I hope your people are smarter than mine.
Ssssh.
Steggall has Tim Flannery as climate advisor. A lunatic who thinks we can sequester carbon by growing lots of seaweed. I kid you not!
Well, don’t be too harsh on the man, his first degree level qualification was English lit. ideal for a Govn’t climate adviser. What’s that you’re saying Timmy old boy? The dams will never be full again?
yeah i heard that interview too.
I also hear today that WWF has been outed using mercenaries to kill poachers
however theyve killed local villagers who may/may not have been actual poachers
Flannerys on their team, hes faffing about it, others have pulled support
might get a bit “interesting”
An ex-olympian skier as PM! Now there’s a gal who knows how to go down hill fast.
Eerie moment recently watching a Christopher Monkton video on Youtube warning Aussies to beware of plots to oust Abbott before the Paris talks. Sure enough he was out. Our Tony was a bit loose with his words and was often held up to ridicule for his habit of wearing Budgie Smugglers. (Look it up if you don’t know what Budgie Smugglers are. However he is out of power and several PMs later we might have another change coming on.
Of course what is often forgotten about the entire Budgie Smuggling thing Tony was guilty of, is that he wore them in his role as a surf lifesaver, something he was involved in when he wasn’t being an active member of the Country Fire Service or in the middle of nowhere helping out with remote communities.
Yup, like the Love Media kept reminding us, the man was and is an Absolute Monster…
Such a monster in fact that he continues to use his evil powers from the back bench to remain the most powerful man in Australian Politics.
Also he once bit an onion!!!
(seen him speak twice but only shaken his hand once. A MONSTER I tell you 😛 )
Australian politics is so wierd.
Its the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, we don’t yet have a republic.
Yes, but with the added nonsense of preferences that most people do not bother to work out for themselves.
How much waste paper do they generate? Generally I select my preferred candidates and least preferred candidates and then fill in middle in some sort of sequence. It is impossible to work out how all the preferences go, but with my way at least someone has to count every line. More employment for the workers. In theory at least, I am sure it does not work out that way. But I am afraid most go down the party line or vote informal. In our recent state election one of our independent candidates, a popular mayor of the town actually received less votes than the informal (invalid) vote
Yes,
I do the same thing when I vote. Finding candidates to put below the Greens can be difficult, but there are a plethora of GetUp candidates to place below the Greens. The Science party, Kerryn Phelps, Zali Stegal-they have the backup of GetUp, which is funded by Nazi collaborator, George Soros. For the electoral Commission to declare that GetUp is not a political organisation shows there is something very fishy .
How convenient that Kerryn Phelps throws her hat in the ring and instantly has a couple of fully trained “grass roots” activists to do the leg work, hand out how to vote etc. NOBODY that is a genuine grass roots Independent would get that .
Went to a function with the Liberal candidate, Dave Sharma last week. He was dribbling on about climate change. He was not at all happy with my question, nor did he look enthusiastic about meeting up with the climate realist group in Sydney. Hell, we can even take him there and back!
The Zali Stegal situation is the same- how convenient that click the fingers and there are hundreds of fully trained activists out to do push-polling. How convenient it is only Conservatives that are being targeted. How convenient that the co-founder of GetUp in Australia was Bill Shorten. How convenient.
I have been voting Informally for some time, scribbling CO2 doesn’t cause global warming.
Australia is fast becoming a one party pseudo Marxist state, only Morrison can stop that happening.
Moderator:
Not sure if my last comment disappeared like some of the others, or if it was snipped. I hope it wasn’t.
High Treason said:
“which is funded by Nazi collaborator, George Soros.”
Really? Regardless of what anyone thinks of him, is this place really going to be allowed to be used to push that sort of disgusting rubbish?
The multi bote system actually disenfranchises the majority.
It is a profoundly bad innovation.
No, not at all. Laughable more like.
You’ve probably never seen a true cost & energy balance
——;——
Wind and solar both make enough energy over their lifetime to manufacture their replacement, but without any surplus.
Thus, adding wind or solar can only increase CO2, because they don’t actually produce any surplus power.
Right now it takes about 1 barrel of oil to produce 8 more barrels. When it takes 1 barrel of oil to produce 1 barrel, oil will be finished as an energy source.
But right now it takes 1 windmill 25 years to produce 1 windmill. And 1 solar panel over 25 years to produce 1 solar panel. There is no surplus. So where is the energy going to come from to make anything else?
Did part of this discussion just disappear? An interesting paper looking at the EROI of different power generation systems was posted.
This one?
http://pages.hmc.edu/evans/LamThorium.pdf
No, this one:
“Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested),and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants”
http://homepages.uc.edu/~becktl/shaka-eroi.pdf
Unfortunately there has been some strange disappearing of large chunks of discussion recently.
ferd berple said:
“Wind and solar both make enough energy over their lifetime to manufacture their replacement, but without any surplus.
Thus, adding wind or solar can only increase CO2, because they don’t actually produce any surplus power.”
That paper says that buffered wind takes 1 years to produce as much energy as it costs to build, and unbuffered wind takes 5 years.
“But right now it takes 1 windmill 25 years to produce 1 windmill. And 1 solar panel over 25 years to produce 1 solar panel. There is no surplus. So where is the energy going to come from to make anything else?”
Not according to those figures. Even for unbuffered wind it would produce 5 times the energy it took to build it.
“Well-heeled local backers of Ms Steggall include Angus Gemmell, Rickard Gardell and Mark Kelly. Alex Turnbull …”
Malcolm is using his position of serious wealth and his son (About AU$200mil, don’t ask old Turncoat about how he turned AU$500k in to about 60 million just before OneTel went bust) to get back at Abbott. Australia pantomime politics at it’s best.
Someone suggested that Alex may be facing legal action after another one of is bile filled Twitter rants last week.
Not heard anything else.
So much hate from a man who doesn’t even live or work in Australia.
Basically the plan is to oust Abbott or at least keep him very busy in his electorate so he does not go about campaigning in marginal seats.
This was the tactic that caused John Howard to lose his seat when he was Prime Minister.
Just as happened in the US and UK elections, big data and AI will be used by the ALP to direct soft policy, feeling good, saving, caring etc unlike Abbott, misogynist, crazy planet destroyer old white man, Catholic, you name it.
Funding in the anti Abbott campaign extends to bumper stickers,’Dump Abbott’, and a lot of Liberal infighting.
The Liberals are not so much a way of life as a civil war.
Now if the Libs fought hard in Queensland and western suburbs of Sydney,they may end up with talent and be a good opposition.
The media, especially the state owned, is dead set against Abbott, Catholics, luke warmers and carefull analysis.
The ABC supports ‘The Consensus’ that the planet is warming, that we are the cause and that reducing our greenhouse CO2 will save us.
It has not caught on that all the ‘Big Emitters’ are going about things very differently and burning fossil fuels with abandon and are non believers.
Abbott thinks we could just plant trees, sequester carbon in soils and manage our forests better.
He would again put marginally employed into cleaning up bush and revegetating trashed soils.
Abbott probably is skeptical of the consensus, thinking that CO2 is a driver, but so is natural warming, all we best do is harvest CO2 to improve our croplands and forests.
So rational yet so against the media.
He may have to go ‘Trump’ and use social media, just as his opponent already has done.
It was interesting that when Petersen appeared on Q @ A on the ABC I did not, like many, bother to watch.
However I note he made it on youtube with now over a million hits.
Australia is going through a difficult watershed.
Most of our institutions are seen to be compromised.
The spotlight has moved to the police system in Victoria.
https://www.9news.com.au/2019/02/15/13/19/news-australia-lawyer-x-informant-victorial-police-royal-commission
We are yet to find out fully what the agenda was in the Victorian police.
We need people like Abbott in parliament who think through problems and are committed.
Abbott comes from the same stem as a new force in the country
https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/member/files/2237/Joe%20McGirr%20Inaugural%20Speech.pdf
This one being very worried about climate change.
McGirr and Abbott need to talk.
As CO2 and adaptation are the only ways foreward, we Aussies need some resolution of the climate war before our industry leaves and we cannot cool our houses because of the exponential cost of electricity.
The socialists in The Greens and labour are terrified that they will win the next election Morrison will resign and Abbott will again become the leader of the opposition and then slaughter the socialists being labour and greens at the following election that is why they want him out of parliament.
Regarding the Pros and Cons of using Nuclear Energy, while I am in favour of Nuclear, its a fact that we here in Australia should stick to using coal. . Why because we have 1000 sods of years of the stuff, and most is right on the surface, so mining it is easy and cheap. Even Brown Coal, hated by the Greens, is a good fuel for power stations.. Yalong was closed down by the French owners because Andrews and his fellow Greens in the State of Victoria virtually Taxed it out of existence.
So until Nuclear is perfected, best to stick to coal. Of course it oil and natural gas, they all produce CO2, but so what the plants love it, even if the nutty Greens hate it.
MJE
agreement
we have enough coal to power us into a long future and get industry back running with affordable power.
IF we can halt the co2 stupids.
we dont need nuke power, and the risks and disposals, while it earns its also a long term disposal problem.
we dont need to frack eiher just conventional on land or offshore and STOP flogging it dirtcheap to China etc and ripping us off a home with huge prices.
we need some pollies with gonads enough to tell it true and stop the gutting of our nation.
Got a source for that?
≠========?=
Divide the all in price of the panel/windmill by the wholesales price of power.
For example: approx: a 100 watt panel at $100 at 3¢ kWh @20% cp delivers 1.5¢ a day worth of power or $5 a year of power. It takes $20 years energy to produce a new $100 panel with 0% interest. As interest rates are not zero, it takes more than 20 years to make a new panel.
So unless you increase the price of electricity there is no surplus to run the grid beyond simply making new panels.
On a similar theme, there was a study by Stamford University in 2015, that concluded as at 2015, the deployment of solar panels worldwide had not resulted in the reduction of any CO2.
Hard to see what is likely in the upcoming election here in Sunny Australia.
The polls say the Liberals (Australia for ‘Right Wing’) are going to lose, but the polls are basic, use a limited sample size and are covered by all sorts of things like ‘If an election was held today’ and ‘assuming uniform distribution across the country’ blah blah blah.
Thing is an election ISN’T being held today and the rules of the game here in Oz are not 50%+1 of the vote, but 50% +1 of the lower house seats.
So… dunno… all the lingering Turnbull supporters (Bishop et al) are also leaving at this next election so what we might see is Prime Minister Morrison being able to take the party back to the right and win back the voters who protested away when Turnbull back stabbed Abbott.
What needs to be remembered is that Abbott was very unpopular… with the people who would never vote for him. The core ‘conservative’ base generally regarded him well. Turnbull, by comparison, was very popular… with the people who would never vote for him. The Left liked him as they saw him as an agreeable and controllable sort who wouldn’t make trouble and would be a great opposition leader when they retook their rightful (leftful?) place of power.
Turnbull upset a LOT of traditional right wing voters and with him and his supporters gone or leaving… dunno… Ask me again in June when I can be wise in hindsight and play the ‘Told You So’ card.
According to this paper …
http://homepages.uc.edu/~becktl/shaka-eroi.pdf
… the energy return on energy invested, allowing for ‘unreliability’, renders solar PV and wind below the ‘economic threshold’:
http://rameznaam.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/EROI-of-Solar-Wind-Nuclear-Coal-Natural-Gas-Hydro.png
“center right” – for heaven’s sake. They are in lock-step with the Left on education, law and order, taxation, spending, mass immigration, debt, welfare, justice, policing, energy, AGW, political censorship and so on.
My understanding was that Tim Flannery was a Ëxpert” ” on the tree Kangeroo of PNG.
Of course that would make him a expert on all matters concerning the climate come weather.
MJE
MJE,
Why is your spelling so terrible?
School truancy?
English not your first language?
Genuine impediment?
You need to spell better to carry your points. Geoff
Alex Turnbull and Simon Holmes a Court are among outside supporters with a deep interest in climate change and investment in renewables. –>
Alex Turnbull and Simon Holmes -da- Court are among outside supporters with a deep interest in climate change and investment in renewables.
/ ?
Ms Steggall, the barrister and former world champion alpine skier –
more often on the ski slope than in the lecture hall.
But with medals suma cum laude Jura studies degree.
One could suspect.
Abbot’s problem is that he is practising conservative Catholic at a time when most Australians baptised Catholics do not go to Church or listen to the clergy.
That makes him extremely old fashioned in many many ways.
It is hard for most modern day Australians to understand him never mind sympathise with his political perspective.
But Abbot is also a very strong local member who has fought hard for his local electorate as local member for over 20 years. Thus the voters there know what they are getting with Abbot. But have absolutely no idea with this Steggal woman who until a month ago, no one had ever heard of. Skying is a very marginal sport here with a very low following
Net conclusion : I think Abbot will be re-elected.
Tony Abbott might have lead the Coalition to [a blockbuster win in 2013 on an anti carbon tax platform] but that was in the House of Reps (lower house) – unfortunately the Coalition was a Lame Duck Govt from the start because the Senate was a fractious mess and to this day the situation has only got worse as Turnbull nearly lost the 2016 double dissolution election which reinforced Lame Duck status and the Coalition has lost subsequent byelections putting them into minority Govt now I think the Duck is lame in both feet.
Ok, let’s see.
Interesting and a provoking blog post.
My intention in this comment is plainly to be engaged in a argument or conversation.
But only if Eric or Nick do take the consideration to do so.
My point of approach may be unorthodox or controversial or even “weird” in appearance, but got to make it.
It will be in a form of a simple question.
Not my question, as not me been the originator of it, and also not me claiming that the meaning and proper intention by the originator or the origin of this question meant as in the way put here by me.
Only in consideration of value of utilisation in prospect of adding support to the point of me trying it.
Ok, there it comes:
“How can a bridge be repaired without closing it down (for traffic utility).”
In the context of this comment the above question stands as a rhetorical one, with the point that it can be answered with another question.
Again all this in the prospect of making a point about the AUS position of “saving the world” by destroying it’s one main life line support of energy sector.
Any comment will be appreciated in this aspect but only will be responded in context of that either Eric or Nick Stokes care to engage in a conversation about it, first.
Thanks, and sorry for any sign of “weirdness” there…
cheers
Great as great it could be.
Really really sorry for wasting the time… my time……not yours!
cheers
Tony Abbott is loved in the Warringah electorate. All the money in the world won’t stop him winning. Only a major scandal will uproot him.
Geoff, when you get to 92, if you do, you will find that one’s eyesight is not as good as it used to be. And re, your other query, I am half Irish and half Scots , which probably means that way back it would have been a bit of French and a bit of German.
As for schooling I in common with most persons of my age, I left school at 14, there was a war on, so of course I went to work in a factory. Despite that I did reach the rank of Superintendent of Police
Today my wife and I are happy in a retirement village.
MJE