Anyone currently trapped in Sydney will be aware of reptile hubris pride and folly, and the danger of believing that a virus gives a stuff about reptile ideology, golden Gladys, and all the rest...
The same applies to climate change, with the United States currently having a come to Jesus moment, or at least come to world record temperatures and searing drought moment for anyone caring to notice ...
But those sheltering in place are in urgent need of distraction, so the pond has arranged for a long, arduous haul through current reptile follies ... because if you make it to the end of this feast, the virus will seem like a trivial detail.
As a bonus, you'll be able to completely forget about the way Scotty from marketing has been routinely dissembling, a polite way of saying lying his socks off ... (sadly the story of vaccine lies and falsehoods is back behind the returning paywall at Crikey).
And so to the divertissements, though perhaps that's too grand a word for the bromancer, when he sets off on a jolly good nuking ...
Ah, the classic bromancer argument, the knockdown reliable proof of purchase: "this is nuts."
If only the pond had a dollar for every time the nutty bromancer pronounced something as being nuts.
But where are we headed with the nutty one? Well, the point isn't to acknowledge climate science, or admit to the climate denialism that has littered the lizard Oz and other Murdochian rags for the past decade.
The pond will bet, a pound to a sixpence, that the conclusion will be "solar panels and windmills won't cut it."
Sure, batteries won't cut it either, and should have been mentioned as not cutting it in the bromancer's nutty nuking world, but more to the point, did the pond just do a spoiler?
Well yes, and those who can't be bothered making the trek with the bromancer to his inevitable conclusion can jump ahead to nattering "Ned" and the war on China ...
Meanwhile it's on with the nutty one, and another spoiler alert, there's a snap of that preening coal-loving, climate science denying boofhead, beefy Angus, in the next gobbet ...
You see how this goes? Celebrate fossil fuels, and then having startled the sheep with talk of them perhaps not being such a jolly good idea, herd them towards a good nuking ... because there's nothing more convincing than a rag dedicated to climate science suddenly discovering that the only way forward is a good nuking ...
Ah yes, little Johnny, of course he's a nukes man, and so is Scotty from marketing, and don't you worry about any minor matters when it comes to safety or cost comparisons or such like ... because there's a bonus coming wherein and whereby the nuke denialists are given a good coating of bromancer-approved thermal radiation ...
Want even a bigger and better proof? Why not wheel in the biggest Labor loon of all, coal-loving Joel ...
Now it becomes clearer what is at the heart of the nutty one's plans. First nuclear submarines, and oh be still beating heart, is it possible to dream of getting hold of nukes and really nuking the Chinese?
The pond apologises for that spoiler about solar panels and windmills not cutting it. It is of course pure orange one speak, and the next refuge for climate denying, coal loving scoundrels who will do anything to undercut green energy ...
And now as a nuke-deprived, uniquely weak, modern nation (please, Bunter, learn the reptile code) it's time to turn to the war on China with nattering "Ned" ...
The story so far ... yesterday the pond got tangled up with some wretched visiting prof who sought to undercut all the arguments going down these past few years in reptile la la land about dealing with the Chinese.
Today the reptiles trotted out nattering "Ned" as a rebuttal, but the best aspect of the rebuttal is the way that "Ned" will surely bore Xi to death, and thereby save Australia ...
Perhaps a break, a kitty kat before starting, thanks to the infallible Pope?
Ah there's nothing like a sub in the harbour and a vision of a pinched gut to make the pond feel good, and now for a jab, not so much in the arm, as in the eye, thanks to nattering "Ned" ...
Another tedious snap from Getty Images? But the pond can't hang about mourning the loss of the cult master each time the reptiles run a wretched opinion piece, it's on with the main game ...
China's madness in replacing seduction with coercion? Ah so it was China that decided it would abandon its belts and roads enticement in Victoria, it was China that banned itself from joint ventures in technology, and so on and so forth ...
But there's no point in quibbling with "Ned" ... a war with China he will have ...
Scotty from marketing talking about national character? But he's a lying incompetent who vanished when the viral heat cranked up and the jabs went missing ... and wags started to make very Sydney jokes ...
Sorry, sorry, it's just that "Ned's" natter is terminally boring and predictable. Who wouldn't want to be distracted by divining the entrails of Red Rooster shops ... but now we must return to "Ned", still boring Xi to distraction ...
Run quietly, run deep, perhaps in a nuking sub ...
And so to the next gobbet, and those who've made it this far will be pleased to see an echo of the bromancer, and a use of the irrefutable, diplomatic and temperate argument: "nuts".
Ah, nuts to you too, because the pond remembers that blather about China abandoning seduction, and suddenly "Ned" has to drag in a dead cat, and remind us that it was the feds who gave that belt and road thingie a bloody good belting ...
Yes, we have a tremendous sense of common purpose. Fuck the Afghanis who helped us during an interminable and futile war, and now stand back, and watch the Chinese dictatorship make hay with military dictatorships and ratbag fundamentalists in assorted areas ... oh, it's going to work out tremendously well ... and so to the final gobbet ...
Oh it's all going tremendously well, but the pond must move on quickly to another tasty serve of reptile distractions.
You see, this was what was at the top of the digital reptile page early this Saturday ...
There's the reptiles suddenly realising that Gladys might not have the golden touch, and the pond has already done its "Ned" homework, so it can tick that box, but what's this, Dame Slap, and she's bunging on a cat fight?
How could the pond resist? Oh sure, only salivating dirty old men are supposed to love a good cat fight, but there's something splendid in watching wet and dry Liberal women step into the jelly-saturated ring for a good wrassle ...
Okay, okay, the pond should have posted a trigger alert early in the piece. The pond should have warned that the reptiles would seize the chance to pad Dame Slap's piece with snaps of Liberal party loons designed to send stray readers right off ... but rest assured, the pond will be a little more vigilant next time it happens ...
There, that's better ... and just for good measure the pond might explain that asbestos reference for those who might have missed it, and who might want to head off to the AFR here ... (sorry, might be paywall affected) ...
It helps explain why the pond is only here for the catfight, and doesn't much care who wins ...
Of course the pond should have noted that Dame Slap has all sorts of crimes to celebrate. She is, after all, as the IPA chairman, helming an organisation which helped keep on killing thousands with tobacco, and is currently devoted to coal and climate science denialism and all the rest of Gina's rich brew, and so has helped fuck the planet in a small but very tangible way, but now we come to a real crunch point.
You see, the pond doesn't much like the Liberal women that Dame Slap clearly loathes, but there's an even bigger problem for the pond with the women that Dame Slap loves ...
Indeed, indeed, what about Amanda Stoker? Come to think about it, what about Mary Whitehouse? What about Nancy just saying no? What about Tipper Gore and lyrics?
Never mind, the pond's main point is that if you cop a favourable mention from the MAGA hat donning, pussy groping orange one loving Dame Slap, you need to take a good hard look at yourself in the jelly wrestling mirror or ring...
Poor Sarah. Did she realise that she'd be getting the Dame Slap nod of approval, for her misanthropic attitude to people? Never mind, there's only a short gobbet to go, and with a bit of luck, Gilbert's reputation will survive a Dame Slap endorsement ...
And with all that to hand, strange that Dame Slap didn't feel the need to include golden Gladys in her panegyric about right-thinking women ... but at least the pond can end by celebrating Scotty from marketing, thanks to the immortal Rowe, with more Rowe here ...
But Bro, our emissions from electricity are less than 1%! Whatever we do with nukes won't affect the climate! And think of the expense, the deficit would be even bigger, we can't afford it!
ReplyDeleteIndustrial grade projection from the Bromancer. "Nuclear energy is the classic case of politics versus national development, of bad politics hurting good policy, of ideological hang-ups and shibboleths vetoing an essential structural reform and making our nation weaker, more vulnerable".
ReplyDeleteLike Dame Slap I often get the sense that some subconscious voice is telling the Bro to rush out and confess his errors.
The Pond is probably right that energy policy is a stalking horse for military use of nukes (he really needs professional help with his submarine obsession), however, it's worth noting that everything he claims to know here is incorrect. Simon Holmes à Court covered most of this in a submission to the Inquiry into Nuclear Prohibition.
https://parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/committees/SCEP/Inquiry_into_Nuclear_Prohibition_Inquiry_/Transcripts/11_September_2020/2._FINAL-Simon_Holmes_a_Court.pdf
"Before a current generation nuclear power plant could be built we would need the following: an owner willing to turn a blind eye to the nuclear sector’s track record of massive time and budget blowouts. We would need a retailer willing to sign a 30- to 40-year power purchase agreement for energy at two to three times the current cost and wait 15 years for the privilege of the first kilowatt hour. We would need a capable builder, but who do we turn to? Westinghouse is bankrupt. AREVA became insolvent and is now part of EDF. South Korea’s Kepco has been mired in scandal. Perhaps we would go with Russia or China. We would need a community, preferably one on the coast, happy to host a reactor, and we would need confidence that the renewable energy sector would slow down and their costs would increase. Ladies and gentlemen, I agree with Dr Ziggy Switkowski, who told last year’s federal inquiry that the window for gigawatt-scale nuclear has closed in Australia."
Oh - SMRs are covered in detail as well.
DeleteSo, the Bro says: "Nuclear energy, along with submarines ..." Well then, how about nuclear energy in submarines of which, supposedly, the USA has 72, Russia has 45, China (PRC) has 14, the UK has 11, France has 10 and India 2. Not to mention nuclear powered aircraft carriers of which the USA apparently has 11. Now with all that highly successful 'small modular reactor' technology sailing around in the seas, you'd think it would be a doddle to build 'em by the dozen on shore. Wouldn't you ?
ReplyDeleteMore Bro: "Australian-flagged merchant fleet of cargo vessels ..." Australia did once have a fleet of merchant ships - admittedly coastal rather than intercontinental - and we could have built on that. ANL (Australian National Line), with HQ down in South Melburne, was formed in 1956 (Menzies, of course) and then sold to the French mob CMA CGM in 1998 (that hyper ecorat, Howard, of course). Now why doesn't the Bro mention that ?
But hey, he mentions this: "Then, when environmental poltics dictated we cut our emissions, we basically shut down our manufacturing industry and exported it to China..." Oh yeah, it was the "environmental politics" what dictated it, wasn't it. Now actually, we'd dismantled our industry long before that - does anybody remember Amalgamated Wireless Australia (AWA), for instance ? I once owned things made by AWA (eg radios and it made tvs too). But we let a dvckhead management destroy it. Or Astor, maybe: made good quality b&w tv sets starting in 1956.
I have a Fischer and Paykel washing machine because the once Aussie maker, Simpson, based in Adelaide for 100 years, now belongs to Swedish Electrolux. That happened when the Aussie company Email was broken up om 1999 and viable manufacturing companies - eg Simpsons - were basically closed. By good old "market forces", not by emissions politics and not exported to China.
So don't come that "environmental politics dictated" crap, Bro, nor the "exported to China" nonsense. We didn't export
the motor industry manufacturers to China because the major companies operating in Australia were American and Japanese. And we just let them close down.
And talking of the Japanese, I recall an enlightening analysis of Japan's success post WWII in three stages:
1. Steal or copy the technology and start making things and selling them cheaply.
2. Work at the manufactured products to improve quality and reliability and undercut and outsell the West.
3. Strike out and do their own thing to outcompete the West (eg Sony Walkman).
And I look around and see another place doing essentially the same but in a much bigger scale than Japan could ever manage. And they've even built their own orbiting space station.
And as to the Bro and his energy delusions consider this from the IAEA (International Aromic Energt Agency):
"There are about 50 SMR designs and concepts globally. Most of them are in various developmental stages and some are claimed as being near-term deployable. There are currently four SMRs in advanced stages of construction in Argentina, China and Russia, and several existing and newcomer nuclear energy countries are conducting SMR research and development."
https://www.iaea.org/topics/small-modular-reactors
Yep, let's rush out and order a dozen for immediate delivery. And some CCS facilities while we're at it.
SMRs are basically vapourware.
DeleteJust one last thought - the only way nuclear would have had any chance would be if a massive price on carbon was introduced. Over to you Greg!
DeleteHi BF,
DeleteGregory has been sitting in the bath, playing with his nautical toys again, one of his favourite pursuits.
However he has found that his favourite bubble bubble diesel submarine isn’t up to par.
What little Greg wants is a big boy toy, a soapy suds Nooclear Attack Submersible.
The problem is that to have nuclear subs, Australia needs to have a way to fuel them.
So The Bromancer introduces his ‘green solution’, that with climate change being a thing (something he barely acknowledges) we need to have nuclear power.
He introduces NuScale as a simple way to go but of course fails to mention just how dodgy the whole operation looks.
Financing from a Ponzi Scheme, and numerous unfixed flaws in its plan.
“This is a case of the public relations driving the science instead of the other way around”
GHunt it here;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NuScale_Power
Sheridan makes no mention of the need to renew fuel rods every two years (wherever they may come from) or the need for the reactor to sit in a huge pool where if the cooling system fails the water in the pool will just ‘boil’.
Also no mention of a uranium refinement program which would be required to get the fuel rods up to 3-5% enrichment for commercial purposes but would have to be ramped up to 90% for a nuclear sub option.
Centrifuges galore!
Where does all the contaminated waste from these processes go?
No mention from the Bromancer.
Evidently not his backyard.
DW
Bro yet again: "...but Albanese and the official Labor Party, in tandem with the Greens, they make sure we cannot ever access the only zero-emissions baseload power on the planet." Well actually, there is a bipartisan project going - with developing partnerships with Japan and Germany apparently - to develop a solar and/or wind powered extraction of hydrogen most likely from sea water - so-called 'green' hydrogen. Convert the hydrogen to ammonia for transport and use the CSIRO developed catalysed membrane to extract the hydrogen again which can then be burned to power generators and which produces, as its emissions, good old water. Or even just burn the hydrogen where it is produced and transport electricity by large-scale grid as we do now.
Deletehttps://www.renewableenergyworld.com/hydrogen/examining-the-emerging-hydrogen-industry-in-australia/
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jun/14/scott-morrison-inks-g7-deals-with-japan-and-germany-to-develop-lower-emissions-technology
And a 'hydrogen economy' is a whole lot cheaper and more realisable than any nuclear "option", largely for the reasons given by DW but also, as Bef says, because SMRs are still largely 'vapourware'. As (still, and will ever remain so) is CCS.
Having read all the way through Ned, and having no idea what he thinks he's saying - or whether he does - it's time for the Weakly Janet. "...the show [Ms Represented] also features a cabal of the women saying the usual things." Now if there was ever a "usual woman" who has made a fine career (if one can indeed call it that) of "saying the usual things", then surely that "woman" is Janet Albrechtsen. The only criticism is that she leaves off the truthful inclusion of "complimentary".
ReplyDeleteThey truly are obsessive about their "attribution and projection", those reptiles, aren't they.
But she passes on Sarah Gilbert's view that "in an ideal world, abortions should be legal and rare." One might be tempted to say that in an "ideal world" there should be no abortions at all; that big-time Trinity gang falling down on the job again ? But it would be good if someone - Slappy or Gilbert - had defined just what they mean by "rare". Maybe 10 per 100,000 women per year ? And does that match health statistics - ie is there ever a legitimate medical reason for abortion ? If so, are they counted in the "rare" or, at least in Gilbert's opinion, are they the whole of "the rare" ?
Trust Dame Slap to not even consider such questions. But Our ABC does:
"Abortion statistics have dived to 30-year lows but no-one seems to have told the medical fraternity.
An ABC investigation has found that Australia has been following international trends and many of the available statistics point to a marked reduction in terminations across the country to a rate as low as 13.5 per 1,000 women."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-13/the-rate-of-abortion-in-australia-is-lower-than-you-think/9250122
Just as well we have a diligent ABC to keep us informed, isn't it.