Higher petrol and electricity prices, and no nuclear

Look at Labor rhetoric on carbon dioxide emissions and contrast that with their actions. State Labor governments in New South Wales and Western Australia have decided to build new coal-fired power stations. What happened to gas, never mind renewables or - God forbid, in the eyes of some Labor and particularly Greens members - nuclear power?

This seems to be a pattern: a lot of whingeing about problems when in opposition but nary a solution when in government. We have news, however, of a new baseload gas-fired power station in New South Wales which effectively puts the carbon cost at two cents per kilowatt hour for coal-fired power stations. This will make electricity prices far more expensive and make nuclear power extremely cost-competitive. Think what this carbon price will do to petrol prices.

The Labor Party promised in the election campaign to put maximum downward pressure on petrol prices, but is now slugging hard-pressed motorists with far higher petrol prices. We put downward pressure on petrol prices. Indeed, the proportion of tax take from fuel has gone down from 6.6 per cent to 4.8 per cent in the last six years. That is real downward pressure.

Perhaps when Labor were saying “working families” they were actually saying “walking families” to prepare Australia for this very crisis. This will no doubt be explained away as a measure to solve another crisis that Labor will no doubt bring forward when they are next under pressure: the obesity epidemic. Not being able to afford petrol will clearly assist in that regard - irony intended.

An opposition that promised a long-term plan for the future has mutated into a government scrambling desperately for ideas, throwing up short-sighted, ill thought out policy that exacerbates the very problems that Labor promised to solve. Where is the long-term coherent policy and strategy? Nowhere to be seen in this budget. There are just a lot of punitive measures, slush funds and spin.

Let’s have a look at the future and what we can do. In my electorate of Tangney, I have heard people express concern that they see no light at the end of the tunnel regarding petrol. Not only do they worry about increasing fuel prices, they worry that there will not be any fuel at all for their vehicles. What is the government doing? These are issues of sovereign risk and sovereign energy security, which are clearly critical for our long-term future. What the government is doing is nothing more than attempting to wallpaper over gaping cracks in its policies.

I have already spoken at length of the necessity to consider nuclear energy, so I will not dwell on it. I would just urge the government to fully examine and analyse all potential electricity generation methods. We need a comprehensive national energy strategy. This is something that is clearly not on the cards with this government.

But what about petrol and other oil-based products? It may shock you to learn that there is an essentially Third World nation that obtains a third of its fuel synthetically and has done so for 50 years. The country is South Africa, and the process is Sasol.

Sasol is an oil-from-coal process that uses the Fischer-Tropsch process, developed prior to World War II. Germany produced synthetic fuel during the war using this process. It was further developed in South Africa, and Sasol fuels began to be sold 50 years ago. This process was largely ignored elsewhere due to the expense but from South Africa’s perspective, in the apartheid days, it was essential for energy security.

A benefit of the fuel is that it is extremely clean. Just as synthetic engine oil has virtually no impurities, the same holds for synthetic petrol. The really good news is that the fuel that was ignored due to costs is now remarkably cheap. The Sasol process produces oil for between $27 and $55 a barrel. Somehow I do not think we will have oil prices quite that low again. The United States is showing significant interest in the process, as are many other nations. Where are we?

The green disciples of anthropogenic global warming will oppose this process, as it is relatively carbon dioxide intensive. But let us take the time to examine some of the science on which the anthropogenic global warming belief is based.

We hear that the rate of increase of global temperature is faster than the science predicted. But what is actually happening?