In 2013, I wrote a piece titled, “Climate Change: A layperson’s Dilemma” in which I pointed out the debunked theories of people like Andrew Bolt, Prof Ian Plimer, Tony Abbott, Alan Jones, Barnaby Joyce, Pauline Hanson, Malcolm Roberts, and others who insisted that climate change did not exist.
Science won the day, proving beyond doubt that it indeed did.
Now, Australian conservatives and their media supporters seem to have changed tact. While softening their stance on climate change “almost” to the point of a pretence of acceptance, they are now promoting nuclear energy as the answer to Australia’s energy problems.
On the surface, this is a reasonable proposition except for a) the cost to build, b) the time it would take, and c) where to build the reactors.
Cleverly, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has started a debate that he hopes will become as clear as mud and confuse further those already so in the hope that he opens another option that isn’t one supported by Labor but one that gives him creditability in the debate.
Former Liberal leader John Hewson, writing for the Saturday Paper says, “The climate wars may be over, but the battle continues. Now, the climate deniers have become renewables deniers.”
And may I suggest an argument that appeases those on his backbench, like Senators Rennick and Antic, who still believe that climate change doesn’t exist and that Coal is the answer to our energy problems?
For those who want to think a little deeper, it guarantees old and new power companies an extra twenty years to dig up the dirty stuff, given the 20-25 years it would take to build the power stations.
Within the conservative nuclear argument is a bluff to appease the conspiracy nutter mentalities who gain prominence by being controversially stupid, the coal companies and the sceptics in the general public. Such as Peter Dutton:
“I’m strongly in favour of renewables, but we need to keep the lights on, and we need to keep our prices down.”
How could you possibly trust those first six words?
From the ABC:
“The opposition is pushing for the development of small modular nuclear reactors across Australia and, more recently, for large nuclear reactors to be built on the sites that close coal-fired power stations.”
The ‘GenCost’ report [which is produced annually by the Australian Energy Market Operator] considered the cost of new energy generators – including small modular reactors but not sizeable nuclear power plants – with and without associated ‘integration costs’ such as transmission and storage.
Even when those integration costs were considered, variable renewables’ cost range was still the lowest of all new-build technologies, with small modular nuclear reactors and hydrogen peaking plants being the most expensive.”
All Peter Dutton has to do is convince the punters that we cannot live without nuclear power. He can do this with his party’s renowned brand of negativity, lies, and scare campaigns. But remember, they couldn’t even build a few car parks.
What occurs to me now is that I’m faced with the same layperson’s dilemma as I had back in 2015: In the days of Tony Abbott’s “climate change is crap” lie. (Abbott interview with Kerry Obrien).
Upon introspection, I couldn’t help but wonder how could Abbott possess such an astute understanding of climate science to the extent that he could disregard it as nonsense when it was apparent that his knowledge of internet science was so minimal?
This, in turn, prompted me to question my own comprehension. I had to admit that although I followed the debate rigorously and considered myself well-informed, I needed to learn about climate science. Ask me about literature, art, political and religious philosophy, music, and sports, I can handle myself adequately, but science, no.
If asked about these complex topics, many people would need help explaining the splitting of an atom, carbon dating, space exploration, medical advancements, mobile phone systems, DNA, AI, genetics, or electricity production. The average citizen may need help understanding them.
So, as a layperson, where does this leave me? Whom do I believe? Well, for me, it is a no-brainer. I support science.
In the last few years, I have undergone several operations. I have had a heart attack (2 stents) and bowel cancer. Of late, it has been eye problems, another heart issue and a prostate issue. When confronted with these matters, I never questioned the specialists. I acknowledged the depth of scientific research that had given my doctors the knowledge to perform any necessary procedure.
So, why should I question the ‘good’ science of nuclear physics? There is no reason why Australia shouldn’t have it. It’s the cost and the time that are against it. Is the government going to foot the bill or private enterprise? Are they just pulling a swiftie in support of Coal?
In short, the nuclear debate began like this.
It’s been over a month since Mr Dutton criticised the CSIRO for their research on nuclear power, calling it Australia’s most expensive new energy source, and claimed that the estimates of the cost of renewables are unreliable. However, the CSIRO’s chief executive, Douglas Hilton, stood by their General Cost report and warned that it’s crucial for our political leaders to trust and support science. Despite this, the opposition leader repeated his incorrect claim that the report doesn’t accurately cost renewables and required transmission to integrate them into the grid.
On the other hand, Ted Obrien, the opposition spokesperson on energy, recently appeared on 7.30 to support nuclear power. Sadly, his argument was ineffective and lacked substance. I thought his main point, deceptively, was that “coal would last longer” if it took twenty or more years to build nuclear power stations. They plan for large reactors in disused coal mines and smaller reactors in locations yet to be named. How long it would take to build them is still an open question.
It’s essential to consider the long-term effects of our energy choices. By supporting renewable energy sources, we can create sustainable and affordable energy systems, reduce our carbon footprint, and ensure a better future for future generations.
There are better ways forward than disparaging science and spreading misinformation. Our leaders must prioritize science and make informed decisions to protect our planet and its people. A spine-tingling question, that one.
Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull explained that:
“Nuclear reactors do not ‘firm up’ renewables. Solar and wind are intermittent – depending on sunshine or wind to make electricity. But we have them in great abundance. To firm them we need flexible, dispatchable sources of zero emission energy such as pumped hydro, batteries or green hydrogen. Nuclear reactors cannot turn on and off, ramp up and down like hydro or batteries can. Nuclear reactors generate continuously.”
While Tony Abbott was proclaiming that climate change was crap, and the coal companies donating to the Liberal Party were given a reprieve. It set in place a decade of science denial that made Australia a laughingstock around the world. Now, the same fools are wanting, despite all the evidence that says it is too costly and would take too long, to impose nuclear energy on us.
The problem for lay people like me is that nothing has changed.
How does a layperson like me reach a view on such matters without formal training? It’s simple: do as I do. There are many areas (medicine, for example) in which, as an individual without an extensive analytical background, I, like many others, rely on experts, common sense, observation, and life experience to form my understanding. While theories, such as the theory of evolution, may be easily comprehended, many assume that theories need to be proven. However, it is crucial to note that theories are not merely conjectures or untested hypotheses. Instead, they are rigorously tested explanations supported by a vast body of evidence. As such, theories provide a framework for understanding complex phenomena and play a critical role in advancing knowledge across various disciplines.
In the scientific world, a theory has evolved to fit known facts.
Conversely, those who deny climate change and the overwhelming scientific consensus seek to justify their belief by attaching themselves to a minority of science deniers with obscure qualifications or, worse, to right-wing shock jocks and journalists with no scientific training whatsoever.
These people cannot evaluate the volume of data produced by the various scientific institutions.
So, for the layperson, the choice is to approve the science or default to the opinions of the Duttons and Bolts of this world. Good luck with that.
[textblock style=”4″]
My thought for the day
“We should all read with an openness to the possibility of being radically changed.” (Author unknown).
[/textblock]
[textblock style=”7″]
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
[/textblock]
