In the 1960s the media routinely lambasted two multimillion-dollar projects that many politicians, experts and journalists agreed were absurdly expensive white elephants. The first was the decision to build an opera house on Bennelong Point in Sydney Harbour, with a radical design by Danish architect Joern Utzon. The second was federal cabinet’s call to replace its ageing fleet of Canberra bombers with 24 supersonic strike aircraft bought from the US.
Judged by the metrics of logistics and costs, neither the Sydney Opera House nor the F111-C made any sense. The swing-wing jets were picked off the plan more than a year before the first pre-production plane took to the air. The Opera House design included novel architectural forms that demanded the invention of new technologies and materials. Both projects blew their budgets by millions and their delivery dates by years.
The Sydney Opera House became an icon. Picture: AAP
The Sydney Opera House became an icon. Picture: AAP
In the end one became an icon and the other served in this nation’s defence for nearly 40 years. But, as you would expect, politicians in the ’60s made hay with every blowout and delay, depending on whether they were in government or opposition when the fateful die was cast.
Given the F111’s were a Coalition project from start to finish, Labor’s Lance Barnard must have relished his moments speaking on a matter of public importance in the House of Representatives in May 1969.
“It has proved an exercise in high flying which can only prove disastrous to this country, its defence and its economic strength,” Barnard said.
In the NSW bear pit the Opera House provided rich pickings for both sides as a Labor government initiated the build in 1959 and a Liberal government had carriage of it from 1965 to 1973.
In November 1964, showing the Country Party’s usual appreciation of matters artistic, Leon Punch described the embryonic building as “that concrete monstrosity at Bennelong Point”. History shows this judgment was a tad premature. Labor’s Lionel Bowen was a NSW MLA before he upgraded to federal politics. In a debate in 1965 he attacked the new Askin government over the latest Opera House budget blowout and defended Labor’s decision to initiate it based on underdone, early cost estimates.
This kind of double play takes rare political skill, the kind that clearly travels with the name Bowen. But when it comes to sophistry, Bowen the elder is no match for his young namesake, Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen.
In his latest assault on the many ills of contemplating nuclear energy, young Bowen transcends earthly political posturing and ascends to an almost mystical plane.
In an article for The Australian Financial Review Bowen sought to skewer the Coalition’s energy musings with some back-of-the-envelope calculations on the generation gap that it opens. These prove a Coalition government “will need to find a whopping 6081 petajoules (of gas) just for electricity generation alone”.
For the purposes of this argument, this column will accept Bowen’s numbers without question, despite the fallow fields of disappointment that usually follow the minister’s figuring.
On the road to making his devastating point the minister makes two concessions, en passant, about the current state of affairs on his watch. He notes that the Australian Energy Market Operator’s March gas market analysis shows “there is sufficient supply to cover Australia’s needs out to 2027”.
Liberal MP Andrew Wallace slams Energy Minister Chris Bowen for destroying his portfolio. This comes as Labor continues to attack the Opposition’s nuclear policies amid a new analysis revealing households would pay more on their energy bills under the Coalition’s plan. “Chris Bowen does what Chris Bowen does best and that is absolutely destroy his portfolio,” Mr Wallace told Sky News host Caroline Marcus. “This is a bloke who’s never been able to manage any of the portfolios that he’s ever been able to have.”
First thought, 2027 seems a little close for much comfort. Second, Bowen omits this important bit of information from AEMO’s analysis: “It also highlights risks of peak-day shortfalls on some days under extreme winter conditions from 2025 and the potential for small seasonal supply gaps from 2026 in southern states.” So, under Bowen, the gas gap opens up next year and gets really chronic within two.
How chronic? The minister tells us “a projected cumulative shortfall in total national production of 3300 petajoules to 2035”.
So the only difference between the opposition and the government’s near energy future is the size of the gas gap. And both are huge.
Frank9567 on
So, the Australian’s logic is that because the Opera House and F111 were seen to be uneconomic, but eventually successful, nuclear energy, also seen to be uneconomic would also be successful.
That makes no sense at all.
For a start, the opera house and the F111 had no immediate cheaper competitors. There weren’t several cheaper opera houses lined up to compete in Sydney, and the TSR2 cost and functionality was close enough to the F111 as to be similar in its economic credentials.
2 Comments
Paywall
In the 1960s the media routinely lambasted two multimillion-dollar projects that many politicians, experts and journalists agreed were absurdly expensive white elephants. The first was the decision to build an opera house on Bennelong Point in Sydney Harbour, with a radical design by Danish architect Joern Utzon. The second was federal cabinet’s call to replace its ageing fleet of Canberra bombers with 24 supersonic strike aircraft bought from the US.
Judged by the metrics of logistics and costs, neither the Sydney Opera House nor the F111-C made any sense. The swing-wing jets were picked off the plan more than a year before the first pre-production plane took to the air. The Opera House design included novel architectural forms that demanded the invention of new technologies and materials. Both projects blew their budgets by millions and their delivery dates by years.
The Sydney Opera House became an icon. Picture: AAP
The Sydney Opera House became an icon. Picture: AAP
In the end one became an icon and the other served in this nation’s defence for nearly 40 years. But, as you would expect, politicians in the ’60s made hay with every blowout and delay, depending on whether they were in government or opposition when the fateful die was cast.
Given the F111’s were a Coalition project from start to finish, Labor’s Lance Barnard must have relished his moments speaking on a matter of public importance in the House of Representatives in May 1969.
“It has proved an exercise in high flying which can only prove disastrous to this country, its defence and its economic strength,” Barnard said.
In the NSW bear pit the Opera House provided rich pickings for both sides as a Labor government initiated the build in 1959 and a Liberal government had carriage of it from 1965 to 1973.
In November 1964, showing the Country Party’s usual appreciation of matters artistic, Leon Punch described the embryonic building as “that concrete monstrosity at Bennelong Point”. History shows this judgment was a tad premature. Labor’s Lionel Bowen was a NSW MLA before he upgraded to federal politics. In a debate in 1965 he attacked the new Askin government over the latest Opera House budget blowout and defended Labor’s decision to initiate it based on underdone, early cost estimates.
This kind of double play takes rare political skill, the kind that clearly travels with the name Bowen. But when it comes to sophistry, Bowen the elder is no match for his young namesake, Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen.
In his latest assault on the many ills of contemplating nuclear energy, young Bowen transcends earthly political posturing and ascends to an almost mystical plane.
In an article for The Australian Financial Review Bowen sought to skewer the Coalition’s energy musings with some back-of-the-envelope calculations on the generation gap that it opens. These prove a Coalition government “will need to find a whopping 6081 petajoules (of gas) just for electricity generation alone”.
For the purposes of this argument, this column will accept Bowen’s numbers without question, despite the fallow fields of disappointment that usually follow the minister’s figuring.
On the road to making his devastating point the minister makes two concessions, en passant, about the current state of affairs on his watch. He notes that the Australian Energy Market Operator’s March gas market analysis shows “there is sufficient supply to cover Australia’s needs out to 2027”.
Liberal MP Andrew Wallace slams Energy Minister Chris Bowen for destroying his portfolio. This comes as Labor continues to attack the Opposition’s nuclear policies amid a new analysis revealing households would pay more on their energy bills under the Coalition’s plan. “Chris Bowen does what Chris Bowen does best and that is absolutely destroy his portfolio,” Mr Wallace told Sky News host Caroline Marcus. “This is a bloke who’s never been able to manage any of the portfolios that he’s ever been able to have.”
First thought, 2027 seems a little close for much comfort. Second, Bowen omits this important bit of information from AEMO’s analysis: “It also highlights risks of peak-day shortfalls on some days under extreme winter conditions from 2025 and the potential for small seasonal supply gaps from 2026 in southern states.” So, under Bowen, the gas gap opens up next year and gets really chronic within two.
How chronic? The minister tells us “a projected cumulative shortfall in total national production of 3300 petajoules to 2035”.
So the only difference between the opposition and the government’s near energy future is the size of the gas gap. And both are huge.
So, the Australian’s logic is that because the Opera House and F111 were seen to be uneconomic, but eventually successful, nuclear energy, also seen to be uneconomic would also be successful.
That makes no sense at all.
For a start, the opera house and the F111 had no immediate cheaper competitors. There weren’t several cheaper opera houses lined up to compete in Sydney, and the TSR2 cost and functionality was close enough to the F111 as to be similar in its economic credentials.
The Australian’s logic is entirely spurious.