Thread by @simonahac

i'm live-tweeting observations for @AngusTaylorMP . @PressClubAust… here we go…

https://twitter.com/AngusTaylorMP/status/1308202425682022400

angus starts by talking up the role of technology in civilisation… as if this is new.

apparently snowy hydro is an example of home grown technology. hmmmm.

angus claims taxation has no role — despite the huge success of carbon pricing in europe.

also bangs on about the (nonsense) tension between emissions reduction and prosperity.

brings up hazelwood… saying that it gave us:
• frequency control
• energy storage🤷‍♂️
for free… but wind and solar doesn't.

claims that australia is building renewables at 10x the global per-capita rate. (need to fact check that.)

claims that we've easily met our kyoto targets — that's not necessarily true, and also nothing to be proud of (if you know the history).

"roadmap plays to australia's strengths"

(let's see if he has plans to use our bountiful RE resources…)

[looking forward to hearing some financial allocation… not just a categorised list of technologies… ARENA and CEFC would have done that 7 years ago!]

5 goals:
• clean hydrogen (H₂ under $2/kg)
• electricity for firming (storage <$100/MWh energy delivered)
• low carbon steel (< $900/t) & aluminium (<$2700/t)
CCS (under $20/t for compression & storage)
soil carbon (measurement < $4/h/yr)

watching briefs:
• small modular reactors (red meat for the base?)

mature technologies
• coal, gas, solar, wind — all play important role, gov't will invest if market failure

gov't has 4 levers:
1. investment & incentives — invest $18bn (existing programs)? increase to at least $50bn from private sector?
2. legislative — "flexibility & accountability"

"reforms" = CEFC/ARENA changes he'd like to see.

3. regulatory — $40m to clean energy regulator to develop new methodologies (we have so many already!)

4. international engagement
[ummm, angus stuffed that up majorly in madrid last year]

apparently we are reducing emissions with hard work and diligence.

(in truth, the only real emissions reduction have been from renewable energy sector, which angus has worked to destroy since at least 2013.)

and with that, @AngusTaylorMP ends his speech.

there was close to nothing in it. 🤷‍♂️

it's little more than a prioritised list of opportunities as we see them in 2020.

it's not a roadmap. not a funding program. just an excuse to continue to proceed without a plan.

.@CroweDM is asking for the benchmark of success from spending the $18bn — good question — what's the target.

AT: "we're very clean with voters" claims that we'll meet and beat 2030 target, which is utter nonsense as i think you all know.

AT not committing to any targets. going all partisan. labor labor labor.

.@latingle noting that EU and other nations are providing strong signals to investors, how do we reassure investors without a target?

AT: we have a target that we'll meet and beat. 🤥

AT talking about the latrobe valley H₂ project. (few journalists know that it's a tiny trial project. just *3* tonnes of H₂ before it's dismantled.)

.@murpharoo we get no clarity on targets, what is definition on "clean", "green", "low emissions"? and how were priorities determined?

AT: techs that can "move the dial".

quick observations:
• nothing on value adding the battery supply chain
• nothing on mass electrification of transport
• no major focus on electrification of industry
• no focus on integration challenges of high renewables grid

missing the big opportunities.

[how is this guy still energy minister? he has no vision for energy in australia?]

.@PhillipCoorey asks about gov't picking winners, and how investment can have confidence given the lack of bipartisanship.

waffle waffle waffle labor labor labor

"we'd very much like labor to work with us to implement this agenda"

.@ScienceMediaGuy (?) asks about soil carbon — only tech in roadmap with tonnage target. 90mtCO₂ pa.

AT: great challenge is to measure at low cost.

(no argument there!)

.@tomwconnell tries to do some maths on the fly. 450t now less 250t here — does that mean 60% emissions reductions?

AT laughs, but won't be nailed down on numbers. waffle waffle waffle.

@gregbrown_TheOz is a brand new coal power station (collinsville) incompatible with australia's commitments on paris?

AT: "what matters is balance" collinsville is a feasibility study. "i'm not going to pre-empt those… waffles…"

.@michellegrattan asks about angus' [stupid, ridiculous, crazy] threat to build a gas power station in the hunter.

AT: we will fill whatever gaps… if they don't step up, we'll step in… partly about reliability but also about price. [makes BS comparison with hazelwood]

.@andrewprobyn how do you get green steel (for instance) off the ground without a carbon price or mandate?

AT: we want the cost to be the same. we're not going to mandate. unlike labor labor labor.

[no detail… fairytale stuff angus.]

.@_gredley can you reassure the public that nobody on the covid commission stands to personally gain from the plan?

AT: this is our plan. our decisions.
RG: but will they benefit?
AT: this is our plan. we take advice from business all the time. we make decisions.

.@SabraLane asks @AngusTaylorMP to answer the "yes" or "no" question.

for the record: angus refuses to reassure the public that nobody on covid commission stands to financially gain.

.@canberratimes why invest in #CCS when even gorgon is only sequestering 40% of it's emissions.

AT: there are 59 (?) CCS project in development or operation. why is this politically vexed in australia?

[only 19 projects operating, most *tiny*.]

.@lanai_scarr why is nuclear such a low priority?

AT:
• traditional nukes: cost high [correct]
• SMRs are hope of the sector [correct]
• early days [correct]
watch and see. not afraid of political fight.

current opinion: "nuclear not going to deliver outcomes we need."

[missed questioner] what happened to the NEG?

AT:
• we've achieved outcomes of the NEG [well that's 🐂💩]
• we're putting $18bn behind the roadmap [#factcheck needed!]

.@Stela_Todorovic says @mattjcan reckon gas won't cut it. who's right?

AT: we have unimaginably low gas prices now. gas is important for electricity [somewhat true] and electricity prices [currently very… needs to be fixed]. needed for fertiliser [can/should use green H₂!]

.@shubaskrishnan question about targets.
AT: waffle

.@triplej how do we know jobs will be created?
AT: "we're not working on guesses" [but explains that methodology is just guesses]

big question: how much of this investment is new? if it's just repackaging, won't create 1 job.

…and it's a wrap.

perhaps unsurprisingly, the plan to kick the can down the road does nothing more than kick the can down the road.

opportunity squandered, but maybe it'll make some in the gas sector rich.