The Australian Financial Review, Page: 12
Monday, 3 July 2006
Nuclear power is hot
Sixteen utilities have expressed intentions to build up to 25 new reactors across the United States. Just last month, NRG Energy in Princeton, New Jersey, unveiled plans to invest SUS5.2 billion ($7 billion) in two new reactors at an existing atomic plant near Houston. Is it a nuclear renaissance? Not yet.
While smart money is placing multibillion-dollar bets on ethanol, wind power and solar, it's not throwing cash at nuclear power. Memories of the delays, titanic cost overruns, and bankruptcies that ended America's love affair with nuclear power hi the mid-20th century are the most daunting obstacle the industry faces. And regulators could balk if proposed designs did not meet construction and safety standards. "Investors remain wary of construction risks," said Paul Ho, a director at Credit Suisse First Boston's (CSR) energy group.
That's why, five or so years from now, when the first construction and operating licences are likely to be granted, only the most creditworthy diversified players, such as Duke Energy and Southern Company, would be likely to dip a toe in these waters, explained Denise Furey, senior director of global power with Fitch Ratings. Such companies could finance projects for a decade or so using some combination of debt and equity. But that is a far cry from a new nuclear age. Historically, energy utilities did an "abysmal" job controlling building schedules and costs, said David A. Schlissel, an economist at Synapse Energy Economics in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Between 1975 and 1989, the average period required to complete a plant soared from five years to 12. The bill for a group of 75 first-generation plants totalled $US224.1 billion (in current dollars), 219 per cent more than estimated, according to a 1986 Energy Department study.
In time, many utilities collapsed under debts even as customers' bills soared. Power companies say they can bring costs down, thanks to new, standardised plant designs and a streamlined, one-step licensing process. "People forget that the construction problems happened 30 years ago. There's been great progress since then," said NRG Energy chief David Crane.
The company plans to use reactors from General Electric and Hitachi that have been installed in Japan. This time around, the industry is aiming to build new plants for SUS1500 to $US2000 per kilowatt of capacity, compared with a peak, inflation-adjusted cost of about $US4000 in the 1970s. But the cheapest plants built recently, all outside the US, have cost more than $US2000 per kilowatt. And the advanced designs now on US drawing boards have never been built here.
"A first-of-its-kind facility always costs more," said John Kennedy, a director at Standard & Poor's. "Nukes ought to be part of the [energy] mix," said Southern chief David M. Ratcliffe, but nobody wants to be first to build. "Everyone would actually like to be No. 10," he said. Last year's Energy Act dangled SUS13 billion worth of extra treats before the nuclear industry, according to Public Citizen, a consumer interest group. These are focused on the first six plants and range from some $US2 billion set aside to cover construction overruns due to legal challenges to a production tax credit worth up to $US5.7 billion.
Yet all that still may not be enough. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman offered couched assurances on nukes. "I'm convinced we'll get the first six reactors, with construction starting by 2010," he said. "But we don't need six reactors. We need 16, or 26." Ms Furey said:"Wall Street isvery shortsighted." Or maybe it justcan't forget what it has already seen.
Wednesday, 5 July 2006
Wind farmers want more than the thin edge of the wedge
News-Mail, Page: 14
Thursday, 22 June 2006
HOBART: Australia stands to lose billions of dollars in wind farm investment if it doesn't give renewable energy a greater share of the national energy market, an industry leader has warned. Mark Kelleher, managing director of renewable energy company Roaring 40s, said companies were being forced to invest offshore as Australia lagged behind international renewable energy targets. renewable energy accounts for about 0.5 per cent of the Australian market, compared with 20 per cent in other countries.
The industry is calling for the Federal Government to revise its Mandated renewable energy Target or implement another measure to ensure future growth. "In the absence of something like that the industry won't be able to proceed," Mr Kelleher said. The MRET was introduced in 2001, requiring energy retailers to purchase an extra two per cent, or 9500 gigawatt hours, of renewable energy per year by 2010. But Mr Kelleher said Australia's economic and energy growth meant the specified 9500 gigawatts was now equal to only 0.5 per cent of the market.
The Government's refusal to lift its renewable energy targets had forced Roaring 40s to stall new projects, including its $230 million Musselroe wind farm in north-east Tasmania. Mr Kelleher warned that unless renewable energy targets were raised, wind farms would lose importance as a source of renewable energy in Australia. "The few farms that are built around Australia now obviously will run their course for the next 15, 20 years or so, but basically rather than it being the beginning of a very important industry, it will be seen as a few wind farms have gone up, and that's as far as it will go," he said. Mr Kelleher said the loss of wind farm companies and associated manufacturing businesses would result in a loss worth "in the billions".
"Firms like ours. will obviously continue to operate the (wind farms) we've got here but the activity will drop back to a care and maintenance role and all. the investment will go overseas," he said. Roaring 40s has already invested in wind farms in New Zealand and China, and is exploring new projects in Korea and India.
Thursday, 22 June 2006
HOBART: Australia stands to lose billions of dollars in wind farm investment if it doesn't give renewable energy a greater share of the national energy market, an industry leader has warned. Mark Kelleher, managing director of renewable energy company Roaring 40s, said companies were being forced to invest offshore as Australia lagged behind international renewable energy targets. renewable energy accounts for about 0.5 per cent of the Australian market, compared with 20 per cent in other countries.
The industry is calling for the Federal Government to revise its Mandated renewable energy Target or implement another measure to ensure future growth. "In the absence of something like that the industry won't be able to proceed," Mr Kelleher said. The MRET was introduced in 2001, requiring energy retailers to purchase an extra two per cent, or 9500 gigawatt hours, of renewable energy per year by 2010. But Mr Kelleher said Australia's economic and energy growth meant the specified 9500 gigawatts was now equal to only 0.5 per cent of the market.
The Government's refusal to lift its renewable energy targets had forced Roaring 40s to stall new projects, including its $230 million Musselroe wind farm in north-east Tasmania. Mr Kelleher warned that unless renewable energy targets were raised, wind farms would lose importance as a source of renewable energy in Australia. "The few farms that are built around Australia now obviously will run their course for the next 15, 20 years or so, but basically rather than it being the beginning of a very important industry, it will be seen as a few wind farms have gone up, and that's as far as it will go," he said. Mr Kelleher said the loss of wind farm companies and associated manufacturing businesses would result in a loss worth "in the billions".
"Firms like ours. will obviously continue to operate the (wind farms) we've got here but the activity will drop back to a care and maintenance role and all. the investment will go overseas," he said. Roaring 40s has already invested in wind farms in New Zealand and China, and is exploring new projects in Korea and India.
Cleantech As An Asset Class? Coming Soon
Ethical Investor, Page: 10
Wednesday, 21 June 2006
An amalgam of industries that have at their core an ability to generate sustainable business outcomes, new environmental technologies or 'cleantech' is an area of increasing interest for ethical and mainstream investors alike. As the Australian cleantech sector continues to emerge it looks set to attract the all important 'big money' from institutional investors just as it is starting to do overseas. Last year's first study entitled The Australian Cleantech Map: 2005 Benchmark Report defined cleantech as 'a theme for investments' across a range of sectors including: alternative and renewable energy, new materials, green buildings, water purification and conservation, recycling and waste management technologies. The study identified 71 companies listed on the Australian Stock Exchange with a business model that is related to cleantech, the majority of which are considered small companies or 'microcaps'.
In total they only accounted for 0.8% of the ASX stockmarket capitalisation. While there are more companies in the private sector, both large and small, and while they are also developing (or proving) an impressive array of new technologies, it is still too early to consider this range of investments as an industry in its own right. How to classify in portfolio investment terms. According to Peter Lunt, Manager of Sustainable Investments with the large superannuation fund VicSuper, the cleantech industry still has to be considered as a segment of private equity.
While specialist fund managers may consider the environmental or sustainable benefits involved with businesses in the sector, this is a rarity, he says. It has, however, progressed beyond the infant or purely venture capital phase in its development. 'You are starting to see secondary and bigger market transactions in the area that are typical of the management by-out, or middle market phase, ' he says. The fundamentals of the sector are encouraging and there is no doubt it will continue to develop.
Lunt says, 'It will provide a lot of growth in private equity over the next few years. 'Mainstream Australian funds manager Portfolio Partners' Manager of Sustainability, Amanda Me Cluskey says that cleantech is certainly gaining the attention of mainstream investors despite its private equity status. Relatively new investment funds that concentrate on cleantechs, such as Babcock and Brown's environmental and specialist wind energy funds and those of Starfish Ventures, are generating broad market interest, she says. But in terms of mainstream large company share investors, a typical cleantech company is just too small to be considered a viable investment at this stage.
Some of the small companies' funds are starting to build positions in cleantech companies particularly in the alternative fuels segment. McClusky says the Portfolio Partners' Long Short Sustainability Trust favourably views Australian Renewable Fuels, Australian Ethanol and CDS Technologies for example. 'We take a positive view on companies operating in the cleantech space because we recognise energy and water issues will be priced into share values in the future," she says. Following an overseas lead, in the United States the star of the cleantech sector is also on the rise.
Neal Dikeman, a partner with US-based investment bank Jane Capital Partners says the market is certainly 'getting there' when it comes to treating cleantech investments as a uniquely identifiable class of investment. Clear evidence of this maturity was the launch earlier this year of two stock market based indices based on cleantech industries: the New Energy Global Innovation Index (NEX) and the Cleantech Index. Each allows investors to monitor how a basket of business in the sector performs. 'This is the next step along the curve in terms of[cleantech] becoming an asset class,' Dikeman said.
The market is also starting to get a better idea of what exactly is included in the cleantech sector. The use of the umbrella term encompassing a range of industries is also probably helping low profile areas gain early recognition and acknowledgement from the mainstream investment community. By being considered part of the cleantech sector they are absorbing some of the credibility of high profile and successful sectors such renewable energy, he says. In the United States and Europe, solar and wind energy companies have experienced strong growth which has allowed venture capitalists to get in, make their money and then on-sell to institutional investors.
Dikeman points out that this positive experience sees venture capitalists look more positively at other businesses in the cleantech sector. But the really big money associated with mainstream institutional investors isn't there just yet, he says. As in Australia, although on a different scale, projects are still too small and can't get to t h e investment threshold that many of the institutions require for them to invest. When cleantechs get to this scale on a regular basis then the investment 'flood gates will open,' he says.
Institutions also look to diversify across a range of investment options particularly in new areas such as cleantech. When the industry is deep enough to be able to offer a range of fund investment options (a development which is currently under way) it will be another sign that it has matured and developed. It will also bring bigger institutional investment flows, says Dikeman. Overseas these processes are helped along by the fact that banks and other industry analysts are providing broader research on the cleantech industry.
As this picks up, so too more investors will be drawn to recognise the industry. The market in the US is also in the slipstream of the investment activity in England and mainland Europe. In particular, Dikeman nominates the Alternative Investment Market (AIM) operating out of London to be one of the first stock markets to truly give cleantech its due. The AIM draws companies operating in the US and Australia to list and raise funds in preference to home markets.
At least 2 Australian cleantech companies: Novera Energy and Ceramic Fuel Cells have taken advantage of this positive environment and completed AIM listings in the last year. 'For new public floats of cleantech companies the AIM has beaten out the NASDAQ. It puts the wind into the sails of the sector across the world,' Dikeman says. Dikeman says the success of AIM and new cleantechs is because it has the all important support of the European institutional investors: 'It makes the world sit up and notice.
' Another factor emphasising this process is the development of the new carbon economy in Europe. 'There are billions of dollars being pumped into the sector and it's all going through European asset managers and exchanges,' he says. 'In Australia and America they're talking but not really putting the money in yet. 'One US-based institutional investor that is getting behind cleantech is well known investment pioneer, Californian-based Calpers (California Public Employees' Retirement System) and CalSTERS (California StateTeachers' Retirement System).
The funds have earmarked US$1.5 billion in their Green Wave initiative to invest in clean technologies with at least US$200m going to venture capital sized firms. Winston Hickox, Portfolio Manager - Environmental Initiatives with Calpers, says, 'We don't see this sector as fleeting or marginal in anyway. Over time our exposure to the sector will just increase.
The investment is derived from a fundamental belief that the global economy will change over time as climate change and the increasing scarcity of fossil fuels make their impact. We need to find alternatives if we are going to continue to grow the economy, not in the next 100 years, not in 10, but now! 'Hickox's vision goes beyond renewable energy, citing water-focused technologies as another exciting area from an investment perspective. Water conservation and treatment techniques as well as new and efficient ways of handling sewerage will increasingly become important, he says, adding that China and other emerging nations will also be regions where these types of technologies can more easily prove themselves from an investment perspective. He also stresses that the various government subsidies and other development programs supporting the cleantech industry around the world must be sustainable in their own right, otherwise they are simply destabilising and counter-productive.
'Whatever governments do to stimulate cleantech industries it must not be taken away for some arbitrary reason, that is the worst thing they could do, ' he says. None of this is to say that the Australian cleantech sector isn't profitable as it is maturing. Long established local venture capital firm CVC, manages the CVC Sustainable Investments Fund, a pooled development fund dedicated to sustainable investments, and Sandy Beard says the business 'has no issues finding investment dollars or getting returns. We pioneered this [sector] 5 years ago [when the fund was launched as the Eco Fund] and there is certainly a growing appetite for it,' he says.
But as a specialist in the area Beard does admit that this prognosis is somewhat biased. 'It is still early days in Australia and pure play direct investments in environmentally friendly companies are not that common. Being a specialist we have greater access to opportunities and see deal flow from established networks,' he says. But it is not just the vitality at the small end of the market that shows that it is coming of age.
When industrial giants like GE start up whole divisions dedicated to cleantech technologies, and they have just generated US$10 billion, then you know it is an 'exceptionally healthy area,' he says.
Wednesday, 21 June 2006
An amalgam of industries that have at their core an ability to generate sustainable business outcomes, new environmental technologies or 'cleantech' is an area of increasing interest for ethical and mainstream investors alike. As the Australian cleantech sector continues to emerge it looks set to attract the all important 'big money' from institutional investors just as it is starting to do overseas. Last year's first study entitled The Australian Cleantech Map: 2005 Benchmark Report defined cleantech as 'a theme for investments' across a range of sectors including: alternative and renewable energy, new materials, green buildings, water purification and conservation, recycling and waste management technologies. The study identified 71 companies listed on the Australian Stock Exchange with a business model that is related to cleantech, the majority of which are considered small companies or 'microcaps'.
In total they only accounted for 0.8% of the ASX stockmarket capitalisation. While there are more companies in the private sector, both large and small, and while they are also developing (or proving) an impressive array of new technologies, it is still too early to consider this range of investments as an industry in its own right. How to classify in portfolio investment terms. According to Peter Lunt, Manager of Sustainable Investments with the large superannuation fund VicSuper, the cleantech industry still has to be considered as a segment of private equity.
While specialist fund managers may consider the environmental or sustainable benefits involved with businesses in the sector, this is a rarity, he says. It has, however, progressed beyond the infant or purely venture capital phase in its development. 'You are starting to see secondary and bigger market transactions in the area that are typical of the management by-out, or middle market phase, ' he says. The fundamentals of the sector are encouraging and there is no doubt it will continue to develop.
Lunt says, 'It will provide a lot of growth in private equity over the next few years. 'Mainstream Australian funds manager Portfolio Partners' Manager of Sustainability, Amanda Me Cluskey says that cleantech is certainly gaining the attention of mainstream investors despite its private equity status. Relatively new investment funds that concentrate on cleantechs, such as Babcock and Brown's environmental and specialist wind energy funds and those of Starfish Ventures, are generating broad market interest, she says. But in terms of mainstream large company share investors, a typical cleantech company is just too small to be considered a viable investment at this stage.
Some of the small companies' funds are starting to build positions in cleantech companies particularly in the alternative fuels segment. McClusky says the Portfolio Partners' Long Short Sustainability Trust favourably views Australian Renewable Fuels, Australian Ethanol and CDS Technologies for example. 'We take a positive view on companies operating in the cleantech space because we recognise energy and water issues will be priced into share values in the future," she says. Following an overseas lead, in the United States the star of the cleantech sector is also on the rise.
Neal Dikeman, a partner with US-based investment bank Jane Capital Partners says the market is certainly 'getting there' when it comes to treating cleantech investments as a uniquely identifiable class of investment. Clear evidence of this maturity was the launch earlier this year of two stock market based indices based on cleantech industries: the New Energy Global Innovation Index (NEX) and the Cleantech Index. Each allows investors to monitor how a basket of business in the sector performs. 'This is the next step along the curve in terms of[cleantech] becoming an asset class,' Dikeman said.
The market is also starting to get a better idea of what exactly is included in the cleantech sector. The use of the umbrella term encompassing a range of industries is also probably helping low profile areas gain early recognition and acknowledgement from the mainstream investment community. By being considered part of the cleantech sector they are absorbing some of the credibility of high profile and successful sectors such renewable energy, he says. In the United States and Europe, solar and wind energy companies have experienced strong growth which has allowed venture capitalists to get in, make their money and then on-sell to institutional investors.
Dikeman points out that this positive experience sees venture capitalists look more positively at other businesses in the cleantech sector. But the really big money associated with mainstream institutional investors isn't there just yet, he says. As in Australia, although on a different scale, projects are still too small and can't get to t h e investment threshold that many of the institutions require for them to invest. When cleantechs get to this scale on a regular basis then the investment 'flood gates will open,' he says.
Institutions also look to diversify across a range of investment options particularly in new areas such as cleantech. When the industry is deep enough to be able to offer a range of fund investment options (a development which is currently under way) it will be another sign that it has matured and developed. It will also bring bigger institutional investment flows, says Dikeman. Overseas these processes are helped along by the fact that banks and other industry analysts are providing broader research on the cleantech industry.
As this picks up, so too more investors will be drawn to recognise the industry. The market in the US is also in the slipstream of the investment activity in England and mainland Europe. In particular, Dikeman nominates the Alternative Investment Market (AIM) operating out of London to be one of the first stock markets to truly give cleantech its due. The AIM draws companies operating in the US and Australia to list and raise funds in preference to home markets.
At least 2 Australian cleantech companies: Novera Energy and Ceramic Fuel Cells have taken advantage of this positive environment and completed AIM listings in the last year. 'For new public floats of cleantech companies the AIM has beaten out the NASDAQ. It puts the wind into the sails of the sector across the world,' Dikeman says. Dikeman says the success of AIM and new cleantechs is because it has the all important support of the European institutional investors: 'It makes the world sit up and notice.
' Another factor emphasising this process is the development of the new carbon economy in Europe. 'There are billions of dollars being pumped into the sector and it's all going through European asset managers and exchanges,' he says. 'In Australia and America they're talking but not really putting the money in yet. 'One US-based institutional investor that is getting behind cleantech is well known investment pioneer, Californian-based Calpers (California Public Employees' Retirement System) and CalSTERS (California StateTeachers' Retirement System).
The funds have earmarked US$1.5 billion in their Green Wave initiative to invest in clean technologies with at least US$200m going to venture capital sized firms. Winston Hickox, Portfolio Manager - Environmental Initiatives with Calpers, says, 'We don't see this sector as fleeting or marginal in anyway. Over time our exposure to the sector will just increase.
The investment is derived from a fundamental belief that the global economy will change over time as climate change and the increasing scarcity of fossil fuels make their impact. We need to find alternatives if we are going to continue to grow the economy, not in the next 100 years, not in 10, but now! 'Hickox's vision goes beyond renewable energy, citing water-focused technologies as another exciting area from an investment perspective. Water conservation and treatment techniques as well as new and efficient ways of handling sewerage will increasingly become important, he says, adding that China and other emerging nations will also be regions where these types of technologies can more easily prove themselves from an investment perspective. He also stresses that the various government subsidies and other development programs supporting the cleantech industry around the world must be sustainable in their own right, otherwise they are simply destabilising and counter-productive.
'Whatever governments do to stimulate cleantech industries it must not be taken away for some arbitrary reason, that is the worst thing they could do, ' he says. None of this is to say that the Australian cleantech sector isn't profitable as it is maturing. Long established local venture capital firm CVC, manages the CVC Sustainable Investments Fund, a pooled development fund dedicated to sustainable investments, and Sandy Beard says the business 'has no issues finding investment dollars or getting returns. We pioneered this [sector] 5 years ago [when the fund was launched as the Eco Fund] and there is certainly a growing appetite for it,' he says.
But as a specialist in the area Beard does admit that this prognosis is somewhat biased. 'It is still early days in Australia and pure play direct investments in environmentally friendly companies are not that common. Being a specialist we have greater access to opportunities and see deal flow from established networks,' he says. But it is not just the vitality at the small end of the market that shows that it is coming of age.
When industrial giants like GE start up whole divisions dedicated to cleantech technologies, and they have just generated US$10 billion, then you know it is an 'exceptionally healthy area,' he says.
'Rethink needed' on wind farms
The Examiner, Page: 4
Thursday, 22 June 2006
Australia stands to lose billions of dollars in wind farm investment if it doesn't give renewable energy a greater share of the national energy market, an industry leader has warned. Mark Kelleher, managing director of renewable energy company Roaring 40s, said yesterday that companies were being forced to invest offshore as Australia lagged behind international renewable energy targets. renewable energy accounts for about 0.5 per cent of the Australian market, compared with up to 20 per cent in other countries.
The industry is calling tor the Federal Government to revise its Mandated renewable energy Target or implement another measure to ensure future growth."In the absence of something like that, the industry won't be able to proceed," Mr Kelleher said. The MRET was introduced in 2001, requiring energy retailers to buy an extra 2 per cent or 9500 gigawatt hours of renewable energy a year by 2010.But Mr Kelleher said Australia's economic and energy growth meant the specified 9500 gigawatts was now equal to only 0.5 per cent of themarket.
The Government's refusal to lift its renewable energy targets had forced Roaring 40s to stall new projects including its $230 million Musselroe wind farm in the North-East. Mr Kelleher warned that unless renewable energy targets were raised, wind farms would lose importance as a source of renewable energy in Australia. Mr Kelleher said the Federal Government had indicated it could"rethink" the matter but meetings would be held to further discuss the issue over coming weeks.
Thursday, 22 June 2006
Australia stands to lose billions of dollars in wind farm investment if it doesn't give renewable energy a greater share of the national energy market, an industry leader has warned. Mark Kelleher, managing director of renewable energy company Roaring 40s, said yesterday that companies were being forced to invest offshore as Australia lagged behind international renewable energy targets. renewable energy accounts for about 0.5 per cent of the Australian market, compared with up to 20 per cent in other countries.
The industry is calling tor the Federal Government to revise its Mandated renewable energy Target or implement another measure to ensure future growth."In the absence of something like that, the industry won't be able to proceed," Mr Kelleher said. The MRET was introduced in 2001, requiring energy retailers to buy an extra 2 per cent or 9500 gigawatt hours of renewable energy a year by 2010.But Mr Kelleher said Australia's economic and energy growth meant the specified 9500 gigawatts was now equal to only 0.5 per cent of themarket.
The Government's refusal to lift its renewable energy targets had forced Roaring 40s to stall new projects including its $230 million Musselroe wind farm in the North-East. Mr Kelleher warned that unless renewable energy targets were raised, wind farms would lose importance as a source of renewable energy in Australia. Mr Kelleher said the Federal Government had indicated it could"rethink" the matter but meetings would be held to further discuss the issue over coming weeks.
Monday, 3 July 2006
Outcry at wind farming attack
The Mercury, Page: 20
Friday, 30 June 2006
A TASMANIAN renewable energy company has accused federal Agriculture Minister Peter McGauran of being ill-informed and out of touch for criticising wind energy as a fraud. Roaring 40s managing director Mark Kelleher said he was disappointed at Mr McGauran's comments, which included statements that wind farms devalued land and were not producing measurable amounts of electricity. "You have to wonder whether the minister got out of the wrong side of the bed... he is ill-informed on the facts, and does not appear to understand this is still a new industry that is growing, particularly overseas," he said. Mr McGauran, who came under attack from several proponents of renewable energy as well as Tasmanian Greens senator Christine Milne, questioned the value of a $140 million wind farm in western Victoria. "Wind farms don't live up to the hype that they're the environmental saviour and a serious alternate energy source," he said.
"The deleterious effect they can have on their neighbours is so serious it means that [wind energy proponents] should not be allowed to get away with the exaggerated claims. "Their claims are fraudulent in regard to the environmental and energy terms. "These wind farms are not producing any electricity of any measurable amount and because they are having such an affect on rural communities they should only be permitted where the community is accepting of them. "Mr Kelleher said wind farms had very strong community and landholder support.
Roaring 40s' Woolnorth wind farm in the North-West was overwhelmingly supported by region. He said there was more than 750 megawatts of wind energy installed in Australia, enough to power 314,000 homes. Mr Kelleher said while "very small, very loud" minority groups had campaigned against some wind farm projects, globally the energy source was growing, increasing at an annual rate of 29 per cent during the past decade and producing 59,100 megawatts. Senator Milne said Mr McGauran was plain wrong about wind farms, and his ignorance had real implications for the Australian primary industry sector which he purported to represent.
Friday, 30 June 2006
A TASMANIAN renewable energy company has accused federal Agriculture Minister Peter McGauran of being ill-informed and out of touch for criticising wind energy as a fraud. Roaring 40s managing director Mark Kelleher said he was disappointed at Mr McGauran's comments, which included statements that wind farms devalued land and were not producing measurable amounts of electricity. "You have to wonder whether the minister got out of the wrong side of the bed... he is ill-informed on the facts, and does not appear to understand this is still a new industry that is growing, particularly overseas," he said. Mr McGauran, who came under attack from several proponents of renewable energy as well as Tasmanian Greens senator Christine Milne, questioned the value of a $140 million wind farm in western Victoria. "Wind farms don't live up to the hype that they're the environmental saviour and a serious alternate energy source," he said.
"The deleterious effect they can have on their neighbours is so serious it means that [wind energy proponents] should not be allowed to get away with the exaggerated claims. "Their claims are fraudulent in regard to the environmental and energy terms. "These wind farms are not producing any electricity of any measurable amount and because they are having such an affect on rural communities they should only be permitted where the community is accepting of them. "Mr Kelleher said wind farms had very strong community and landholder support.
Roaring 40s' Woolnorth wind farm in the North-West was overwhelmingly supported by region. He said there was more than 750 megawatts of wind energy installed in Australia, enough to power 314,000 homes. Mr Kelleher said while "very small, very loud" minority groups had campaigned against some wind farm projects, globally the energy source was growing, increasing at an annual rate of 29 per cent during the past decade and producing 59,100 megawatts. Senator Milne said Mr McGauran was plain wrong about wind farms, and his ignorance had real implications for the Australian primary industry sector which he purported to represent.
Minister's wind farm comments just hot air
The Examiner, Page: 14
Friday, 30 June 2006
Federal Agriculture Minister Peter McGauran's swipe at wind farms should hardly be taken seriously. They should also come as no surprise. In a move that will no doubt anger many in Tasmania, Mr McGauran took a swipe at wind farm technology this week. He said the benefits of wind energy claimed by its proponents were fraudulent.
He also claimed wind farm turbines devalued land without producing measurable amounts of energy. His antipathy to wind farms makes more sense with some background. Tasmanian wind farm development has been torpedoed by the Federal Government, which decided not to extend its Mandatory renewable energy Targets. That decision derailed further Tasmanian wind farm developments planned for Musselroe Bay in the North-East and on the West Coast.
They are now on the backburner, at least for the short-term. The Government's decisionwas also backing for Australia's coal industry, which provides for much of the country's power needs. Unlike wind farms, coal-fired power stations are major greenhouse polluters. Mr McGauran is therefore following a simple formula of deriding the wind farms to support his Government's case.
But his comments also smack of a fair bit of political self-interest. Tasmanians will remember Mr McGauran as a critic of the Basslink project because overhead power lines went through his electorate of Gippsland. He's again looking out for his electorate. Gippsland includes the La Trobe Valley towns of Traralgon, Morwell and Moe: home to some of Victoria's major coal-fired power stations and coal mines.
It's a bit rich for him to speak about wind farms devaluing land when he lives next door to some of Australia's major greenhouse polluters. Mr McGauran's electorate might love him for the support, but his views on wind farms don't count for much.
Friday, 30 June 2006
Federal Agriculture Minister Peter McGauran's swipe at wind farms should hardly be taken seriously. They should also come as no surprise. In a move that will no doubt anger many in Tasmania, Mr McGauran took a swipe at wind farm technology this week. He said the benefits of wind energy claimed by its proponents were fraudulent.
He also claimed wind farm turbines devalued land without producing measurable amounts of energy. His antipathy to wind farms makes more sense with some background. Tasmanian wind farm development has been torpedoed by the Federal Government, which decided not to extend its Mandatory renewable energy Targets. That decision derailed further Tasmanian wind farm developments planned for Musselroe Bay in the North-East and on the West Coast.
They are now on the backburner, at least for the short-term. The Government's decisionwas also backing for Australia's coal industry, which provides for much of the country's power needs. Unlike wind farms, coal-fired power stations are major greenhouse polluters. Mr McGauran is therefore following a simple formula of deriding the wind farms to support his Government's case.
But his comments also smack of a fair bit of political self-interest. Tasmanians will remember Mr McGauran as a critic of the Basslink project because overhead power lines went through his electorate of Gippsland. He's again looking out for his electorate. Gippsland includes the La Trobe Valley towns of Traralgon, Morwell and Moe: home to some of Victoria's major coal-fired power stations and coal mines.
It's a bit rich for him to speak about wind farms devaluing land when he lives next door to some of Australia's major greenhouse polluters. Mr McGauran's electorate might love him for the support, but his views on wind farms don't count for much.
Energy industry hits back at McGauran 'fraud' claim
The Moyne Gazette, Page: 7
Thursday, 29 June 2006
THE Australian wind energy industry has hit back at claims this week by federal Agriculture Minister Peter McGauran that the industry was "a complete fraud." Auswind president Andrew Richards said many of Mr McGauran's comments regarding wind energy were "quite simply incorrect." Mr McGauran, who said he was speaking as the Member for Gippsland, told dairy farmers at Allansford this week wind farms only existed on taxpayers' subsidies and devalued the value of adjoining properties. Wind farms have provoked controversy in Gippsland and in the Moyne Shire.
Moyne Shire is the site of two large proposed wind farms with one planning to erect nearly 200 wind towers between Macarthur and Hawkesdale and the other nearly 100 at Ryan Corner near Port Fairy and Hawkesdale. Wind farms of smaller scale already exist at Codrington and Yambuk. Mr Richards said wind energy had been embraced in India, China, Europe and the United States because it delivered substantial quantities of clean green energy, stimulated investment and employment and provided valuable income to farmers and local communities. "Many of Minister McGauran's own parliamentary colleagues, including the local member, David Hawker, Environment Minister Senator Ian Campbell and Prime Minister John Howard have stated that alternative forms of energy, including wind, must play a part in Australia's future energy mix.
He said developers did not receive government financial assistance to build wind farms and consumers who bought green energy did so at a small price premium. He also said that rather than destroying land values, wind energy drove regional investment and created substantial financial benefits for regional Australia. He said wind energy could provide significant quantities of clean green energy.
Thursday, 29 June 2006
THE Australian wind energy industry has hit back at claims this week by federal Agriculture Minister Peter McGauran that the industry was "a complete fraud." Auswind president Andrew Richards said many of Mr McGauran's comments regarding wind energy were "quite simply incorrect." Mr McGauran, who said he was speaking as the Member for Gippsland, told dairy farmers at Allansford this week wind farms only existed on taxpayers' subsidies and devalued the value of adjoining properties. Wind farms have provoked controversy in Gippsland and in the Moyne Shire.
Moyne Shire is the site of two large proposed wind farms with one planning to erect nearly 200 wind towers between Macarthur and Hawkesdale and the other nearly 100 at Ryan Corner near Port Fairy and Hawkesdale. Wind farms of smaller scale already exist at Codrington and Yambuk. Mr Richards said wind energy had been embraced in India, China, Europe and the United States because it delivered substantial quantities of clean green energy, stimulated investment and employment and provided valuable income to farmers and local communities. "Many of Minister McGauran's own parliamentary colleagues, including the local member, David Hawker, Environment Minister Senator Ian Campbell and Prime Minister John Howard have stated that alternative forms of energy, including wind, must play a part in Australia's future energy mix.
He said developers did not receive government financial assistance to build wind farms and consumers who bought green energy did so at a small price premium. He also said that rather than destroying land values, wind energy drove regional investment and created substantial financial benefits for regional Australia. He said wind energy could provide significant quantities of clean green energy.
Projects to swell Moyne's coffers
The Moyne Gazette, Page: 4
Thursday, 29 June 2006
MOYNE Shire's spending power would be greatly boosted by the proposed gas-fired power station at Mortlake and a wind farm at Macarthur. Moyne Shire chief executive officer Graham Shiell said the shire's two existing wind farms contributed about $127,000 a year in rates. Mr Shiell said the two proposed projects would have an ''enormous boost to our rate revenue. ''He said the extra revenue could help reduce the council's asset renewal gap.
Mr Shiell said the shire had forecast a rate increase of under six per cent over the next four years. However, the rate of increase may have to be reviewed to decrease the asset renewal gap further. Moyne Shire Mayor Gerald Madden said the council relied heavily on grant funding, which accounted for 38 per cent of its revenue. ''Council makes it a priority to source as much grant funding as possible and our success in this area can be seen when comparing Moyne to shires of approximately the same size, '' Cr Madden said.
''Moyne Shire receives a significant level of support from government thanks to the hard work of its staff, and this means we are able to keep rates as low as we can without compromising the delivery or quality of services. ''.
Thursday, 29 June 2006
MOYNE Shire's spending power would be greatly boosted by the proposed gas-fired power station at Mortlake and a wind farm at Macarthur. Moyne Shire chief executive officer Graham Shiell said the shire's two existing wind farms contributed about $127,000 a year in rates. Mr Shiell said the two proposed projects would have an ''enormous boost to our rate revenue. ''He said the extra revenue could help reduce the council's asset renewal gap.
Mr Shiell said the shire had forecast a rate increase of under six per cent over the next four years. However, the rate of increase may have to be reviewed to decrease the asset renewal gap further. Moyne Shire Mayor Gerald Madden said the council relied heavily on grant funding, which accounted for 38 per cent of its revenue. ''Council makes it a priority to source as much grant funding as possible and our success in this area can be seen when comparing Moyne to shires of approximately the same size, '' Cr Madden said.
''Moyne Shire receives a significant level of support from government thanks to the hard work of its staff, and this means we are able to keep rates as low as we can without compromising the delivery or quality of services. ''.
Editorial
Australasian Science, Page: 1
Wednesday, 28 June 2006
In the political satire Yes Minister, Sir Humphrey Appleby likens an independent inquiry to "a train, and the terms of the inquiry are the tracks. Once the tracks are in place, the train will follow the way they go." The same could be said about the "full-blooded debate" that Prime Minister John Howard wants Australia to have on developing a home-grown nuclear industry (see pp. 30-32).
In recent weeks his government has fast-tracked the debate, having received costings from the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) and appointed a pro-nuclear Taskforce that will produce a draft report by November. The final report is due by the end of the year, leaving little time -or desire -for public consultation. The debate has been driven by a sudden desire by the government to reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. It's a desire that lacks sincerity, the government having opted out of the Kyoto Protocol and abolished several renewable energy research programs.
Global warming is also a disingenuous trigger. While nuclear reactors don't emit greenhouse gases, the energy inputs over the reactor's lifetime -from mining, milling and enriching uranium to building the power station, decommissioning it and reprocessing and storing its waste -can emit more CO2 than an equivalent gas-fired power station (AS, July 2005, pp. 39-40). The best-case scenario is a payback of 7-10 years if limited high-grade ore reserves are used.
But why is the Taskforce only considering nuclear energy as a solution to Australia's impending power shortage? What roles do oil, coal, gas, hydro, wind, solar, tidal, hot rocks and biofuels have in Australia's energy portfolio, and how much will their efficiencies improve in coming decades? Even ANSTO's report limited itself to modern uranium reactors and ignored a new breed of reactors that can use Australia's vast thorium reserves as fuel. These reactors have much better safety and environmental credentials as they can incinerate their own waste and do not produce plutonium that contributes to weapons proliferation. ANSTO's report also found that nuclear energy would require large government subsidies if Australia commissioned a modern reactor. To avoid "flrst-of-a-kind" costs we would have to wait for a later "copy" before the price of nuclear energy would be competitive with coal or gas.
An alternative would be to introduce a carbon tax to drive up the cost of electricity by 50%. However, this could cut demand as consumers adopt more energy-efficient measures, such as better insulation and solar panels that would pay for themselves much more quickly than presently. Under this scenario, the demand for electricity would drop, as would the need for nuclear power.
Wednesday, 28 June 2006
In the political satire Yes Minister, Sir Humphrey Appleby likens an independent inquiry to "a train, and the terms of the inquiry are the tracks. Once the tracks are in place, the train will follow the way they go." The same could be said about the "full-blooded debate" that Prime Minister John Howard wants Australia to have on developing a home-grown nuclear industry (see pp. 30-32).
In recent weeks his government has fast-tracked the debate, having received costings from the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) and appointed a pro-nuclear Taskforce that will produce a draft report by November. The final report is due by the end of the year, leaving little time -or desire -for public consultation. The debate has been driven by a sudden desire by the government to reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. It's a desire that lacks sincerity, the government having opted out of the Kyoto Protocol and abolished several renewable energy research programs.
Global warming is also a disingenuous trigger. While nuclear reactors don't emit greenhouse gases, the energy inputs over the reactor's lifetime -from mining, milling and enriching uranium to building the power station, decommissioning it and reprocessing and storing its waste -can emit more CO2 than an equivalent gas-fired power station (AS, July 2005, pp. 39-40). The best-case scenario is a payback of 7-10 years if limited high-grade ore reserves are used.
But why is the Taskforce only considering nuclear energy as a solution to Australia's impending power shortage? What roles do oil, coal, gas, hydro, wind, solar, tidal, hot rocks and biofuels have in Australia's energy portfolio, and how much will their efficiencies improve in coming decades? Even ANSTO's report limited itself to modern uranium reactors and ignored a new breed of reactors that can use Australia's vast thorium reserves as fuel. These reactors have much better safety and environmental credentials as they can incinerate their own waste and do not produce plutonium that contributes to weapons proliferation. ANSTO's report also found that nuclear energy would require large government subsidies if Australia commissioned a modern reactor. To avoid "flrst-of-a-kind" costs we would have to wait for a later "copy" before the price of nuclear energy would be competitive with coal or gas.
An alternative would be to introduce a carbon tax to drive up the cost of electricity by 50%. However, this could cut demand as consumers adopt more energy-efficient measures, such as better insulation and solar panels that would pay for themselves much more quickly than presently. Under this scenario, the demand for electricity would drop, as would the need for nuclear power.
New website has all the latest on proposed wind farm
The Advocate - Daylesford Hepburn Shire Edition, Page: 4
Wednesday, 28 June 2006
AUSTRALIA'S first community-owned wind farm, the Hepburn Community Wind Park, launched a website last week. The Hepburn Renewable Energy Association developed the website as a means to keep the community up-to-date on the wind park planned for Leonards Hill. President Per Bernard said the association was moving towards 300 members and a website was needed."This is a great way for people to get the latest information onthe wind park.
And there's an on-line application form for people to join up," he said. The association's communications spokeswoman Jane Knight said the website would be a valuable way to interact with the community."The website has a description of the project, newsletters, wind energy articles and research as well as a facility for people to ask their own questions."We plan to respond with answers as soon as possible and then post the most frequently asked questions on the website for everyone to see," she said.
Mr Bernard said the website was well set out and very user friendly."We've had some good feedback from users so far but we're really keen to hear any suggestions," he said. The communityowned wind park will consist of two turbines each of two megawatts capacity and is expected to produce enough energy to power more than 2000 homes. Inquiries: Per Bernard on 5348 1298 or www.hrea.org.au.
Wednesday, 28 June 2006
AUSTRALIA'S first community-owned wind farm, the Hepburn Community Wind Park, launched a website last week. The Hepburn Renewable Energy Association developed the website as a means to keep the community up-to-date on the wind park planned for Leonards Hill. President Per Bernard said the association was moving towards 300 members and a website was needed."This is a great way for people to get the latest information onthe wind park.
And there's an on-line application form for people to join up," he said. The association's communications spokeswoman Jane Knight said the website would be a valuable way to interact with the community."The website has a description of the project, newsletters, wind energy articles and research as well as a facility for people to ask their own questions."We plan to respond with answers as soon as possible and then post the most frequently asked questions on the website for everyone to see," she said.
Mr Bernard said the website was well set out and very user friendly."We've had some good feedback from users so far but we're really keen to hear any suggestions," he said. The communityowned wind park will consist of two turbines each of two megawatts capacity and is expected to produce enough energy to power more than 2000 homes. Inquiries: Per Bernard on 5348 1298 or www.hrea.org.au.
Spain says "adios" to nuclear power
Fourth European country to begin phase out
June, 1
Madrid.– The nuclear industry recently launched a multi-million dollar campaign to try and revive the most expensive, dangerous, and polluting way to boil water ever invented.
Spain is having none of it. The nation's president has confirmed that the country's 8 operating plants will be phased out in favour of clean, renewable energy.
Industry lobby groups have been trying to sell 10 new nuclear plants in Spain, and have fought hard for legislation that would allow existing plants to operate past their planned retirement dates. But President José Luis RodrÃguez Zapatero has confirmed the government's commitment to the phase-out in his State of the Nation address.
“Zapatero has shown true leadership in preparing the phase out of this dangerous and polluting problem and phasing in safe renewable energy sources,” said Jan Vande Putte of Greenpeace International.
“All across the world the nuclear industry is drowning in debt, controversy and its massive waste issues. It is only kept afloat by the likes of Blair and Bush who are pouring billions of dollars of public money into an industry which reached the end of its life over a decade ago.”
Greenpeace was part of a national coalition of environmental and civic groups which on May 20th unanimously petitioned the government to deliver on election promises of "safer, cleaner, cheaper" energy.
Zapatero agreed not only to the phase-out, but to a widely consultative process to find a solution to what to do with existing radioactive waste. In a bid to resurrect a failing industry, regular claims of a nuclear power revival have been made – the most recent using climate change as an excuse to spend further billions to build more reactors.
But renewable energy is now taking the lead, with a single source such as wind energy adding more than 6,000 megawatts to the European grid every year, the equivalent to two large nuclear reactors. In only a few years, wind power in Spain has grown to 8 percent of the national electricity production.
In 2005 alone, some 1680 megawatts of new wind power were installed, generating four times as much electricity as the Zorita nuclear power plant which Spain closed last month.
Spain joins Sweden, Germany and Belgium as the fourth European country to abandon nuclear power.
June, 1
Madrid.– The nuclear industry recently launched a multi-million dollar campaign to try and revive the most expensive, dangerous, and polluting way to boil water ever invented.
Spain is having none of it. The nation's president has confirmed that the country's 8 operating plants will be phased out in favour of clean, renewable energy.
Industry lobby groups have been trying to sell 10 new nuclear plants in Spain, and have fought hard for legislation that would allow existing plants to operate past their planned retirement dates. But President José Luis RodrÃguez Zapatero has confirmed the government's commitment to the phase-out in his State of the Nation address.
“Zapatero has shown true leadership in preparing the phase out of this dangerous and polluting problem and phasing in safe renewable energy sources,” said Jan Vande Putte of Greenpeace International.
“All across the world the nuclear industry is drowning in debt, controversy and its massive waste issues. It is only kept afloat by the likes of Blair and Bush who are pouring billions of dollars of public money into an industry which reached the end of its life over a decade ago.”
Greenpeace was part of a national coalition of environmental and civic groups which on May 20th unanimously petitioned the government to deliver on election promises of "safer, cleaner, cheaper" energy.
Zapatero agreed not only to the phase-out, but to a widely consultative process to find a solution to what to do with existing radioactive waste. In a bid to resurrect a failing industry, regular claims of a nuclear power revival have been made – the most recent using climate change as an excuse to spend further billions to build more reactors.
But renewable energy is now taking the lead, with a single source such as wind energy adding more than 6,000 megawatts to the European grid every year, the equivalent to two large nuclear reactors. In only a few years, wind power in Spain has grown to 8 percent of the national electricity production.
In 2005 alone, some 1680 megawatts of new wind power were installed, generating four times as much electricity as the Zorita nuclear power plant which Spain closed last month.
Spain joins Sweden, Germany and Belgium as the fourth European country to abandon nuclear power.
Should We Embrace Nuclear Energy?
Australasian Science, Page: 30
Wednesday, 28 June 2006
During his recent tour of North America, Australian Prime Minister John Howard called for a "full-blooded debate" about the place of nuclear power in the nation's energy mix. "I have a very open mind on the development of nuclear energy in my own country," he said. Treasurer Peter Costello said that only economic arguments precluded Australia's move to nuclear energy. "If it becomes commercial, we should have it," he said on 23 May.
But in reality the "debate" had already been adjudicated. Three days later the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) presented Science Minister Julie Bishop with a report that delivered Costello's economic justification for nuclear power. Bishop said the ANSTO report"concluded that the latest types of nuclear power stations would be competitive with newly-built coal-fired power stations in Australia. It also concluded that nuclear power is the safest, most secure way of generating electricity with greater price stability in comparison to gas or coal power generation.
"While Bishop described the report's author, Prof John Gittus, as an "independent consultant", an annex to the report reveals that: "He and Mr Michael Dawsori now run Lloyds of London Insurance Syndicate 1176, the biggest commercial insurer of nuclear power stations and other facilities in the world". On 6 June Howard announced "the establishment of a Prime Ministerial Taskforce to undertake an objective, scientific and comprehensive review into uranium mining, processing and the contribution of nuclear energy in Australia in the longer term". Former nuclear physicist and Telstra CEO Dr Ziggy Switkowski will lead the taskforce, which includes the Head of Nuclear Physics at the Australian National University, Prof George Dracoulis. Switkowski has resigned from the ANSTO Board to avoid allegations of a conflict of interest.
The Taskforce will report by the end of this year. Chief Scientist Dr Jim Peacock will facilitate a peer review of the inquiry's scientific aspects. Peacock has already lobbied the government on the nuclear issue, stating in his Presidential address to the Australian Academy of Science AGM on 4 May that he had approached Howard to discuss "the place of nuclear power in the global effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions." Much of the economic justification for Australia embracing a nuclear future centres on modern reactor technologies that are safer and more efficient.
"Many of the concerns that people have expressed about nuclear energy would be solved by using thorium instead of uranium to generate energy," says Dr Reza Hashemi-Nezhad of the University of Sydney's School of Physics, who is Australia's only expert on accelerator-driven systems (ADS) that use thorium as fuel. "Apart from the fact that Australia has the world's biggest reserves of thorium, the ADS using thorium does not produce plutonium and can incinerate its own nuclear waste as well as plutonium and other very long-lived radioactive waste, such as that produced by the experimental reactor at Lucas Heights. The nuclear waste produced requires only 500 years of storage time as opposed to hundreds of thousands of years for conventional nuclear reactor waste. In these reactors a meltdown like the Chernobyl disaster is virtually impossible.
"However, the government is not considering an ADS reactor. Gittus' calculations were based on Australia waiting for the costs to come down on Westinghouse's AP1000 nuclear power plant, which can produce 1117-1154 MWe of energy." The cost of generating electricity in Australia from the 'nth copy' of a nuclear power station such as the AP1000, including financial provision for managing the spent fuel, radioactive wastes and ultimate decommissioning, is cheaper than generating it from coal or a CCGT [combined cycle gas turbine] station," Gittus concluded.
"The 'nth copy' has settleddown costs, both capital and operating, unlike the first and other early copies which will have 'first-of-a-kind' costs." For instance, Gittus found that an early copy of the AP1000 would need "a government subsidy of 14.31% of the fifth-of-a-kind cost together with a subsidy of 21.41% of the cost of electricity for the first 12 years of operation" to bring the costs into line with the 'nth copy' scenario.
Therefore, Australia's nuclear future will still be some time off without government support. Such support would need to come from the present Coalition government, as Labor leader Kim Beazley has declared that"there will be no nuclear power in Australia under a Beazley government". But while the debate has been engineered by politicians and nuclear industry advocates, little has been heard of the views of scientists about the role of nuclear power in Australia's energy mix. Dr John Price, an engineer at Monash University's Mechanical Department of Engineering, has worked on the design of coal and nuclear power plants and alternative energy.
"Australia must add 9-10 GW of electricity capacity over the next 10 years to keep pace with demand," he says. "Currently there appears to be no option but to use black and brown coal and gas to generate this extra electricity. Thus the debate should be around whether or not we're happy to commit to so much more carbon dioxide production." Prof Aidan Byrne, Head of Physics at the Australian National University, also believes that "nuclear power could well be part of our energy mix in future, along with wind, solar and other renewables."
All sources of energy have their advantages and disadvantages, and each has to be considered on its merits. "Australia's particular circumstances - with an abundance of sunlight, space, coal and nuclear resources - will decide on this mix. Other countries are not so fortunate so the decisions that other countries make to go nuclear may not need to be replicated in Australia." Prof Peter Johnston, Head of Physics at EMIT and a scientific adviser to Maralinga Tjarutja, who are traditional owners of the former nuclear test site at Maralinga, says: "I think we should be interested in nuclear energy options.
We don't necessarily need a nuclear power program right now but we certainly should have the capability to choose this option in future if and when we want to. Our existing fossil fuel sources may last a long time but we might decide that we need to use coal for things such as liquid fuels instead of burning it for base load energy, especially if oil becomes very expensive in future."Unless we have the capacity to use nuclear power then we may be at a disadvantage. Other countries may be in a position to produce energy by nuclear power much more quickly and cheaply than us. We need the skills and expertise in nuclear science to ensure that we can also do it."
Price concurs:"The nuclear power option would be nice to have. The past 50 years of experience has shown that the safety of nuclear energy and its fuel cycle is very attractive, and modern plants will be even better." The current debate has gained momentum due to increasing support for initiatives that reduce Australia'sgreenhouse gas emissions.
According to Prof Hugh Possingham, a mathematical ecologist at the University of Queensland: "This debate is not about renewables versus nuclear, it is about how quickly we can wean ourselves off energy generation that releases greenhouse gases. The increased level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels has already begun to contribute to the loss of biodiversity through its impact on the climate. It has been estimated that we could lose 10-30% of all species around the globe as a result of climate change. This places climate change among the top three threats to biodiversity along with land clearing and invasive species."
According to Gittus:"The five measures that Australia currently plans to mitigate global warming will, taken together, reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by 38 million tonnes per year. An equal reduction would be provided by substituting 4-5 GWe of nuclear generation for present and planned coal-fired power stations. This would comprise, for example, three or perhaps four APlOOOs."However Ian Lowe, Emeritus Professor at Griffith University and President of the Australian Conservation Foundation, says that "nuclear power is certainly not a cost-effective answer to climate change.
Various forms of renewable energy supply are more attractive without having the environmental, social and political disadvantages of nuclear power. Energy efficiency is a more cost-effective way of reducing carbon dioxide emissions than any supply alternative, and should be pursued vigorously."Dr Joel Fleming, an environmental scientist and Managing Director of Climate Friendly Pty Ltd agrees."Whether Australia should go nuclear is the wrong question," he says.
"The question we need to ask is: what is the best strategy to reduce greenhouse emissions by 80% and avoid dangerous climate change?" Renewable and efficiency technologies are available now. With these, there are companies in Australia right now who have reduced their emissions by 60-100%. So why take the safety risk with nuclear when there are clean energy options available? In the long term, with nuclear we would end up using low grade uranium with roughly the same greenhouse emissions as gasfired power stations." Frank Muller, an Adjunct Professor at the University of NSW Institute for Environmental Studies, says Australia's decisions will have implications for our role in the global nuclear industry.
"This is not really about whether Australia should meet its energy needs through nuclear power," he says. "It's a much bigger debate about whether the world should make a major shift to nuclear power and whether Australia should become a big supplier of nuclear fuel cycle services and a nuclear waste dump for other countries." Muller, who previously headed greenhouse policy in the NSW Cabinet Office and spent the 1990s in Washington advising governments and the United Nations on climate change, says: "The reason we are having this debate now is because it meets the political needs of conservative politicians in Washington and Canberra on the defensive over oil prices, climate change and other issues, not because there has been any real commercial progress in overcoming the proliferation, economic and environmental risks of nuclear energy. If we are serious about tackling climate change now there are many other energy options that we should be debating - options that are cheaper, safer and can be deployed much more quickly.
"Nuclear power requires not only big subsidies, but also big government to deal with its risks - and it is a great irony that is should be embraced by conservative politicians."Lowe is also suspicious of the government's agenda."The nuclear power option makes so little sense for Australia that I suspect 'the debate' is really aimed at softening up the electorate to accept increased exports of uranium. It remains true, as the Ranger inquiry found 30 years ago, that exporting uranium adds to the problems of proliferation of fissile material and production of radioactive waste.
There is no convincing technical or political solution to either of those problems, so exporting uranium inevitably makes the world a dirtier and more dangerous place."
Wednesday, 28 June 2006
During his recent tour of North America, Australian Prime Minister John Howard called for a "full-blooded debate" about the place of nuclear power in the nation's energy mix. "I have a very open mind on the development of nuclear energy in my own country," he said. Treasurer Peter Costello said that only economic arguments precluded Australia's move to nuclear energy. "If it becomes commercial, we should have it," he said on 23 May.
But in reality the "debate" had already been adjudicated. Three days later the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) presented Science Minister Julie Bishop with a report that delivered Costello's economic justification for nuclear power. Bishop said the ANSTO report"concluded that the latest types of nuclear power stations would be competitive with newly-built coal-fired power stations in Australia. It also concluded that nuclear power is the safest, most secure way of generating electricity with greater price stability in comparison to gas or coal power generation.
"While Bishop described the report's author, Prof John Gittus, as an "independent consultant", an annex to the report reveals that: "He and Mr Michael Dawsori now run Lloyds of London Insurance Syndicate 1176, the biggest commercial insurer of nuclear power stations and other facilities in the world". On 6 June Howard announced "the establishment of a Prime Ministerial Taskforce to undertake an objective, scientific and comprehensive review into uranium mining, processing and the contribution of nuclear energy in Australia in the longer term". Former nuclear physicist and Telstra CEO Dr Ziggy Switkowski will lead the taskforce, which includes the Head of Nuclear Physics at the Australian National University, Prof George Dracoulis. Switkowski has resigned from the ANSTO Board to avoid allegations of a conflict of interest.
The Taskforce will report by the end of this year. Chief Scientist Dr Jim Peacock will facilitate a peer review of the inquiry's scientific aspects. Peacock has already lobbied the government on the nuclear issue, stating in his Presidential address to the Australian Academy of Science AGM on 4 May that he had approached Howard to discuss "the place of nuclear power in the global effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions." Much of the economic justification for Australia embracing a nuclear future centres on modern reactor technologies that are safer and more efficient.
"Many of the concerns that people have expressed about nuclear energy would be solved by using thorium instead of uranium to generate energy," says Dr Reza Hashemi-Nezhad of the University of Sydney's School of Physics, who is Australia's only expert on accelerator-driven systems (ADS) that use thorium as fuel. "Apart from the fact that Australia has the world's biggest reserves of thorium, the ADS using thorium does not produce plutonium and can incinerate its own nuclear waste as well as plutonium and other very long-lived radioactive waste, such as that produced by the experimental reactor at Lucas Heights. The nuclear waste produced requires only 500 years of storage time as opposed to hundreds of thousands of years for conventional nuclear reactor waste. In these reactors a meltdown like the Chernobyl disaster is virtually impossible.
"However, the government is not considering an ADS reactor. Gittus' calculations were based on Australia waiting for the costs to come down on Westinghouse's AP1000 nuclear power plant, which can produce 1117-1154 MWe of energy." The cost of generating electricity in Australia from the 'nth copy' of a nuclear power station such as the AP1000, including financial provision for managing the spent fuel, radioactive wastes and ultimate decommissioning, is cheaper than generating it from coal or a CCGT [combined cycle gas turbine] station," Gittus concluded.
"The 'nth copy' has settleddown costs, both capital and operating, unlike the first and other early copies which will have 'first-of-a-kind' costs." For instance, Gittus found that an early copy of the AP1000 would need "a government subsidy of 14.31% of the fifth-of-a-kind cost together with a subsidy of 21.41% of the cost of electricity for the first 12 years of operation" to bring the costs into line with the 'nth copy' scenario.
Therefore, Australia's nuclear future will still be some time off without government support. Such support would need to come from the present Coalition government, as Labor leader Kim Beazley has declared that"there will be no nuclear power in Australia under a Beazley government". But while the debate has been engineered by politicians and nuclear industry advocates, little has been heard of the views of scientists about the role of nuclear power in Australia's energy mix. Dr John Price, an engineer at Monash University's Mechanical Department of Engineering, has worked on the design of coal and nuclear power plants and alternative energy.
"Australia must add 9-10 GW of electricity capacity over the next 10 years to keep pace with demand," he says. "Currently there appears to be no option but to use black and brown coal and gas to generate this extra electricity. Thus the debate should be around whether or not we're happy to commit to so much more carbon dioxide production." Prof Aidan Byrne, Head of Physics at the Australian National University, also believes that "nuclear power could well be part of our energy mix in future, along with wind, solar and other renewables."
All sources of energy have their advantages and disadvantages, and each has to be considered on its merits. "Australia's particular circumstances - with an abundance of sunlight, space, coal and nuclear resources - will decide on this mix. Other countries are not so fortunate so the decisions that other countries make to go nuclear may not need to be replicated in Australia." Prof Peter Johnston, Head of Physics at EMIT and a scientific adviser to Maralinga Tjarutja, who are traditional owners of the former nuclear test site at Maralinga, says: "I think we should be interested in nuclear energy options.
We don't necessarily need a nuclear power program right now but we certainly should have the capability to choose this option in future if and when we want to. Our existing fossil fuel sources may last a long time but we might decide that we need to use coal for things such as liquid fuels instead of burning it for base load energy, especially if oil becomes very expensive in future."Unless we have the capacity to use nuclear power then we may be at a disadvantage. Other countries may be in a position to produce energy by nuclear power much more quickly and cheaply than us. We need the skills and expertise in nuclear science to ensure that we can also do it."
Price concurs:"The nuclear power option would be nice to have. The past 50 years of experience has shown that the safety of nuclear energy and its fuel cycle is very attractive, and modern plants will be even better." The current debate has gained momentum due to increasing support for initiatives that reduce Australia'sgreenhouse gas emissions.
According to Prof Hugh Possingham, a mathematical ecologist at the University of Queensland: "This debate is not about renewables versus nuclear, it is about how quickly we can wean ourselves off energy generation that releases greenhouse gases. The increased level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels has already begun to contribute to the loss of biodiversity through its impact on the climate. It has been estimated that we could lose 10-30% of all species around the globe as a result of climate change. This places climate change among the top three threats to biodiversity along with land clearing and invasive species."
According to Gittus:"The five measures that Australia currently plans to mitigate global warming will, taken together, reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by 38 million tonnes per year. An equal reduction would be provided by substituting 4-5 GWe of nuclear generation for present and planned coal-fired power stations. This would comprise, for example, three or perhaps four APlOOOs."However Ian Lowe, Emeritus Professor at Griffith University and President of the Australian Conservation Foundation, says that "nuclear power is certainly not a cost-effective answer to climate change.
Various forms of renewable energy supply are more attractive without having the environmental, social and political disadvantages of nuclear power. Energy efficiency is a more cost-effective way of reducing carbon dioxide emissions than any supply alternative, and should be pursued vigorously."Dr Joel Fleming, an environmental scientist and Managing Director of Climate Friendly Pty Ltd agrees."Whether Australia should go nuclear is the wrong question," he says.
"The question we need to ask is: what is the best strategy to reduce greenhouse emissions by 80% and avoid dangerous climate change?" Renewable and efficiency technologies are available now. With these, there are companies in Australia right now who have reduced their emissions by 60-100%. So why take the safety risk with nuclear when there are clean energy options available? In the long term, with nuclear we would end up using low grade uranium with roughly the same greenhouse emissions as gasfired power stations." Frank Muller, an Adjunct Professor at the University of NSW Institute for Environmental Studies, says Australia's decisions will have implications for our role in the global nuclear industry.
"This is not really about whether Australia should meet its energy needs through nuclear power," he says. "It's a much bigger debate about whether the world should make a major shift to nuclear power and whether Australia should become a big supplier of nuclear fuel cycle services and a nuclear waste dump for other countries." Muller, who previously headed greenhouse policy in the NSW Cabinet Office and spent the 1990s in Washington advising governments and the United Nations on climate change, says: "The reason we are having this debate now is because it meets the political needs of conservative politicians in Washington and Canberra on the defensive over oil prices, climate change and other issues, not because there has been any real commercial progress in overcoming the proliferation, economic and environmental risks of nuclear energy. If we are serious about tackling climate change now there are many other energy options that we should be debating - options that are cheaper, safer and can be deployed much more quickly.
"Nuclear power requires not only big subsidies, but also big government to deal with its risks - and it is a great irony that is should be embraced by conservative politicians."Lowe is also suspicious of the government's agenda."The nuclear power option makes so little sense for Australia that I suspect 'the debate' is really aimed at softening up the electorate to accept increased exports of uranium. It remains true, as the Ranger inquiry found 30 years ago, that exporting uranium adds to the problems of proliferation of fissile material and production of radioactive waste.
There is no convincing technical or political solution to either of those problems, so exporting uranium inevitably makes the world a dirtier and more dangerous place."
Back to the news...
My apologies to regular readers who have wondered about the lack of news lately. I was unable to access the regular news feeds I usually receive. The problems have been solved and I should now be able to keep you informed with regular updates on developments in alternative energy. Murphy's Law allowing...
Thursday, 29 June 2006
Nott's climate change campaign continues
Bega District News, Page: 10
Friday, 23 June 2006
SUNDAY, June 11, was the worst day of the year at Jindabyne, according to Bega Valley campaigner against climate change, Dr Matthew Nott. That was the day he and fellow Tathra campaigner, Mr Grant Prowse, swam six kilometres in Lake Jindabyne to draw attention to the dramatic changes being wrought by our overuse of fossil fuels to create energy. "The water temperature was 8 degrees, and the air temperature was 1 degree," Dr Nott said." There was a southerly gale blowing and there was snow falling.
"We were advised to abandon the swim because the weather was so bad but the idea was to draw attention to climate change so we went ahead." he said. Dr Nott and Mr Prowse were joined for half of the swim by 13-year-old Jesse Greenwood of Batemans Bay and by Ms Julie Mayo-Ramsey, an environmental lawyer from the Eurobodalla. "They retired after three kilometres because they were unable to go on," Dr Nott said.
"Grant and I would not have been able to continue if it had not been for the practical support of Dr Gabe Khouri and Tathra Surf Club member Ben Ellis in a boat and the moral support of a band of sea kayakers from Tathra. "We were very close to the end of our tether when we completed the six km swim." Dr Nott said they had chosen a distance of six km for the swim because "that is the thickness of the biosphere into which we pump seven billion tonnes of carbon each year". "Parents should be campaigning with passion and a great sense of urgency for clean air.
He said they group he had established since his first action in May of getting some 3,000 people to line up on Tathra Beach to spell out the words "Clean Air for Eternity" was taking its inspiration from Germany which has a renewable energy target of 100 per cent by 2050. "Currently 30 per cent of their energy is nuclear and they are planning to replace that with wind and solar power. "Australia should be absolutely embarrassed by that example since we have so much better resources." Dr Nott said.
Friday, 23 June 2006
SUNDAY, June 11, was the worst day of the year at Jindabyne, according to Bega Valley campaigner against climate change, Dr Matthew Nott. That was the day he and fellow Tathra campaigner, Mr Grant Prowse, swam six kilometres in Lake Jindabyne to draw attention to the dramatic changes being wrought by our overuse of fossil fuels to create energy. "The water temperature was 8 degrees, and the air temperature was 1 degree," Dr Nott said." There was a southerly gale blowing and there was snow falling."We were advised to abandon the swim because the weather was so bad but the idea was to draw attention to climate change so we went ahead." he said. Dr Nott and Mr Prowse were joined for half of the swim by 13-year-old Jesse Greenwood of Batemans Bay and by Ms Julie Mayo-Ramsey, an environmental lawyer from the Eurobodalla. "They retired after three kilometres because they were unable to go on," Dr Nott said.
"Grant and I would not have been able to continue if it had not been for the practical support of Dr Gabe Khouri and Tathra Surf Club member Ben Ellis in a boat and the moral support of a band of sea kayakers from Tathra. "We were very close to the end of our tether when we completed the six km swim." Dr Nott said they had chosen a distance of six km for the swim because "that is the thickness of the biosphere into which we pump seven billion tonnes of carbon each year". "Parents should be campaigning with passion and a great sense of urgency for clean air.
He said they group he had established since his first action in May of getting some 3,000 people to line up on Tathra Beach to spell out the words "Clean Air for Eternity" was taking its inspiration from Germany which has a renewable energy target of 100 per cent by 2050. "Currently 30 per cent of their energy is nuclear and they are planning to replace that with wind and solar power. "Australia should be absolutely embarrassed by that example since we have so much better resources." Dr Nott said.
Timor-Leste Friendship Group says thankyou
Riverine Herald, Page: 17
Friday, 23 June 2006
The Campaspe Timor-Leste Friendship Group has extended its thanks to all those involved in the Konsertu held in Echuca in April. The musical, open-air event raised about $1000 for the people of Liquidoe in East Timor's Aileu Province. The friendship group's chairperson, Campaspe Mayor Judi Lawler said many people donated time, goods and goodwill to ensure the afternoon was successful. Cr Lawler said the group was supporting two students with scholarships worth $1000 a year and would provide the Alternative Technology Association with $500 towards the cost of installing a small wind turbine to generate electricity in areas with no connection to electrical power.
The friendship group meets in the Echuca shire offices every two months on the first Monday of the month. The next meeting is on Monday, August 7, at 7.30pm and everyone is welcome. For information, call Freya Fidge on 5481 2202.
Friday, 23 June 2006
The Campaspe Timor-Leste Friendship Group has extended its thanks to all those involved in the Konsertu held in Echuca in April. The musical, open-air event raised about $1000 for the people of Liquidoe in East Timor's Aileu Province. The friendship group's chairperson, Campaspe Mayor Judi Lawler said many people donated time, goods and goodwill to ensure the afternoon was successful. Cr Lawler said the group was supporting two students with scholarships worth $1000 a year and would provide the Alternative Technology Association with $500 towards the cost of installing a small wind turbine to generate electricity in areas with no connection to electrical power.
The friendship group meets in the Echuca shire offices every two months on the first Monday of the month. The next meeting is on Monday, August 7, at 7.30pm and everyone is welcome. For information, call Freya Fidge on 5481 2202.
Monday, 26 June 2006
Wind farms forgotten amid nuclear debate, say states
ABC Online
26 Jun 2006
State Environment Ministers have accused the Commonwealth of attempting to curb the growth of wind farms in Australia in favour of nuclear power.
The states have rejected a plan to introduce a national code for wind farms, put forward by the Federal Government at a meeting of state and federal Ministers in Sydney today.
The Victorian Environment Minister, John Thwaites, says the code would have created another bureaucratic barrier to the growth of a renewable energy source. "The lack of support for wind farms from the Howard Government is coming at the same time they seem to be supporting nuclear energy," he said.
"We believe that clean, green, renewable energy wind farms are much more the way to go. "It's a much more preferable way to go than going down the track of nuclear energy." The Federal Environment Minister, Senator Ian Campbell, says the states should be embracing all forms of renewable energy, including nuclear power.
"Ruling out one technology effectively puts your head in the sand on greenhouse and on energy security," he said. "Australians deserve an honest, open and well informed debate on all of their energy options."
26 Jun 2006
State Environment Ministers have accused the Commonwealth of attempting to curb the growth of wind farms in Australia in favour of nuclear power.The states have rejected a plan to introduce a national code for wind farms, put forward by the Federal Government at a meeting of state and federal Ministers in Sydney today.
The Victorian Environment Minister, John Thwaites, says the code would have created another bureaucratic barrier to the growth of a renewable energy source. "The lack of support for wind farms from the Howard Government is coming at the same time they seem to be supporting nuclear energy," he said.
"We believe that clean, green, renewable energy wind farms are much more the way to go. "It's a much more preferable way to go than going down the track of nuclear energy." The Federal Environment Minister, Senator Ian Campbell, says the states should be embracing all forms of renewable energy, including nuclear power.
"Ruling out one technology effectively puts your head in the sand on greenhouse and on energy security," he said. "Australians deserve an honest, open and well informed debate on all of their energy options."
Let wind farms pay to help endangered species they hurt
The Age,
June 26, 2006
ENVIRONMENT Minister Ian Campbell's recent decision to use federal endangered species legislation to block a wind farm development in west Gippsland was controversial. Some in the wind industry now worry whether any proposed development is safe, while others, including me, are wondering whether there is a better way to protect endangered species from such uncertain threats.
If further wind developments are blocked on the same grounds — that a single individual of an endangered species may die — the decision may affect the development of Australia's energy infrastructure. It may, for example, lead to the development of more coal-fired power plants. How many orange-bellied parrots will then die from the resultant climate change? If we really intend to protect endangered species, we must tackle these issues.
Perhaps surprisingly, the Kyoto Protocol might have a thing or two to teach us about managing wind farm developments. At the heart of the treaty is a carbon trading mechanism that allows polluters who find it difficult or expensive to reduce their CO2 emissions to offset their pollution by buying carbon credits from those who can reduce their pollution more easily. Why should we not allow a trading system designed to protect endangered species to operate in the case of wind farm developments?
The system could work as follows: if it is considered likely that a wind farm development might kill a single orange-bellied parrot each decade, for example, the wind farm developers should be allowed to offset this risk by funding initiatives aimed at increasing the population of orange-bellied parrots by one individual each decade. Such initiatives might include the protection of important habitat, feral cat eradication programs, or even support for organisations committed to saving the orange-bellied parrot.
Such a scheme has the potential to allow both wind-farm development and save endangered species in a cost-effective manner. It should be subject to review: if more parrots are killed, the volume of "endangered species credits" purchased by the wind company could be increased. The same could be done if the measures funded were found to be ineffective in protecting the species. If, on the other hand, it could be demonstrated that no dead parrots eventuated, the credit scheme could be suspended and the funding reimbursed to the wind farm.
Environmentalists might worry that such an offset scheme would lead to inappropriate development should it be applied more broadly. There is a good argument, however, that climate change and wind-power generation is a special case: without wind we are likely to be forced back to dependence on fossil fuels, which will gravely damage many endangered species.
If we are to win the war for climate stability we need to generate as much low-emission electricity as possible, and wind is one of the most cost-effective ways of achieving this. If the wind industry is to avoid being destroyed by thoughtless NIMBYs, its fossil-fuel rivals or political opportunism, it desperately needs an endangered-species credits scheme.
Tim Flannery is an environmental scientist and director of the South Australian Museum in Adelaide.
June 26, 2006
ENVIRONMENT Minister Ian Campbell's recent decision to use federal endangered species legislation to block a wind farm development in west Gippsland was controversial. Some in the wind industry now worry whether any proposed development is safe, while others, including me, are wondering whether there is a better way to protect endangered species from such uncertain threats.If further wind developments are blocked on the same grounds — that a single individual of an endangered species may die — the decision may affect the development of Australia's energy infrastructure. It may, for example, lead to the development of more coal-fired power plants. How many orange-bellied parrots will then die from the resultant climate change? If we really intend to protect endangered species, we must tackle these issues.
Perhaps surprisingly, the Kyoto Protocol might have a thing or two to teach us about managing wind farm developments. At the heart of the treaty is a carbon trading mechanism that allows polluters who find it difficult or expensive to reduce their CO2 emissions to offset their pollution by buying carbon credits from those who can reduce their pollution more easily. Why should we not allow a trading system designed to protect endangered species to operate in the case of wind farm developments?
The system could work as follows: if it is considered likely that a wind farm development might kill a single orange-bellied parrot each decade, for example, the wind farm developers should be allowed to offset this risk by funding initiatives aimed at increasing the population of orange-bellied parrots by one individual each decade. Such initiatives might include the protection of important habitat, feral cat eradication programs, or even support for organisations committed to saving the orange-bellied parrot.
Such a scheme has the potential to allow both wind-farm development and save endangered species in a cost-effective manner. It should be subject to review: if more parrots are killed, the volume of "endangered species credits" purchased by the wind company could be increased. The same could be done if the measures funded were found to be ineffective in protecting the species. If, on the other hand, it could be demonstrated that no dead parrots eventuated, the credit scheme could be suspended and the funding reimbursed to the wind farm.
Environmentalists might worry that such an offset scheme would lead to inappropriate development should it be applied more broadly. There is a good argument, however, that climate change and wind-power generation is a special case: without wind we are likely to be forced back to dependence on fossil fuels, which will gravely damage many endangered species.
If we are to win the war for climate stability we need to generate as much low-emission electricity as possible, and wind is one of the most cost-effective ways of achieving this. If the wind industry is to avoid being destroyed by thoughtless NIMBYs, its fossil-fuel rivals or political opportunism, it desperately needs an endangered-species credits scheme.
Tim Flannery is an environmental scientist and director of the South Australian Museum in Adelaide.
Minister creating a hostile environment
The Weekend Australian,
June 24, 2006
CRAIG Chappelle has learned the hard way the danger of standing between federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell and political opportunity.
When a group led by Chappelle was seeking to build a wind farm in the holiday town of Denmark, south of Perth, last November, they did everything by the book, winning state government approval and then $240,000 in federal funding for the project. But when Senator Campbell got a whiff of community unease about the project - and the possibility of an electoral backlash in the seat of veteran Liberal MP Wilson Tuckey - he suddenly moved to scuttle it.
"He barnstormed into town without telling us and made all sorts of ridiculous comments about the plan," Chappelle said yesterday of Campbell, who has tried to freeze funding for the wind farm. "It was a political grandstanding exercise." A stunned Chappelle wrote to the minister about his behaviour: "For you to sweep into town virtually unannounced and pontificate on a project you clearly had no knowledge about, spent precious little time getting acquainted with, and then condemned to gratify a rowdy minority, displayed incredible arrogance. To cap that by publicly threatening to withdraw an existing federal grant is stupefying."
Barely seven months on, Campbell's critics have only grown louder, with business and green groups accusing the nation's Environment Minister of playing politics with the environment on a grand and damaging scale. They say a raft of baffling decisions, poorly explained and inconsistent, have sent a chill through the country's mining, renewable energy and infrastructure industries.
This week, the minister decided to try to soothe jangled nerves when it appeared that a $650 million pulp mill in South Australia was under threat from a red-tailed black cockatoo that had never been seen on the planned site. The developer of the planned Penola Pulp Mill, which would employ 600 people during production and permanently employ 120, was told the project would need federal approval because of the potential danger it posed to the cockatoo, which feeds more than 4km away.
The notification alarmed the project's managers, given Campbell's decision in April to stop the $220 million Bald Hills wind farm in regional Victoria, supposedly because of the threat it might pose to the endangered orange-bellied parrot. Campbell's bizarre Bald Hills decision was criticised by pro-business and green groups, who say it had less to do with parrots than with a pre-election promise by the Liberals to oppose the Bald Hills plan.
So this week, when a rare bird threatened to spark another political controversy, a gun-shy Campbell effectively pre-empted his department's findings by telling The Australian that he did "not expect any problems" from the cockatoo issue.
Campbell strongly denies any inconsistency in his approach. "We have an approvals process which is applied consistently based on science and based on what is recognised internationally as one of the best environmental (planning) processes in the world," he told The Weekend Australian yesterday.
Danny Kennedy, campaign manager with Greenpeace Australia Pacific disagrees. "Consistency is not this minister's strong point - he does what is politically expedient. His record so far is all style and no substance. He is big on having parrots and whales on the front page but there is nothing of substance on climate change and the energy revolution we need to have."
The Business Council of Australia has also been unsettled by the parrot and cockatoo controversies. "When you look at those sort of decisions, and they appear to come out of the blue without clarity about why they were taken, it creates a sense of concern about making long-term investments," says Maria Tarrant, director of policy at the BCA, which represents the nation's top 100 companies.
Andrew Macintosh from the left-wing think tank The Australia Institute believes Campbell is driven by political rather than environmental motives and is misusing the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. "The use of the act has descended into a farce," he says.
Ironically this might be less controversial if Campbell were a consistent colour on environmental issues, but the minister has proven to be uneven in his passions. "On the positive side he has been a strong voice for whale conservation and he has also recently been acknowledging that we need to look at a carbon price to tackle Greenhouse," says Don Henry, executive director of the Australian Conservation Foundation. "But on the negative side, environment legislation has been applied weakly by Ian Campbell and his predecessors."
Although Campbell has been big on saving whales and the orange-bellied parrot, he has been less loving towards other animals. The flatback turtle on Barrow Island in Western Australia did not get preferential treatment, with Campbell this month choosing not to block the $11 billion Gorgon gas project there despite the threat it poses to the rare turtle.
Campbell has also dismissed concerns about the southern blue-fin tuna which remains a legitimate target for commercial fishermen despite being endangered. "He is hunting with the hounds and running with the foxes," says Chappelle. "You can't pick up where he is coming from or where he is going to. That makes it tough."
June 24, 2006
CRAIG Chappelle has learned the hard way the danger of standing between federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell and political opportunity.
When a group led by Chappelle was seeking to build a wind farm in the holiday town of Denmark, south of Perth, last November, they did everything by the book, winning state government approval and then $240,000 in federal funding for the project. But when Senator Campbell got a whiff of community unease about the project - and the possibility of an electoral backlash in the seat of veteran Liberal MP Wilson Tuckey - he suddenly moved to scuttle it.
"He barnstormed into town without telling us and made all sorts of ridiculous comments about the plan," Chappelle said yesterday of Campbell, who has tried to freeze funding for the wind farm. "It was a political grandstanding exercise." A stunned Chappelle wrote to the minister about his behaviour: "For you to sweep into town virtually unannounced and pontificate on a project you clearly had no knowledge about, spent precious little time getting acquainted with, and then condemned to gratify a rowdy minority, displayed incredible arrogance. To cap that by publicly threatening to withdraw an existing federal grant is stupefying."
Barely seven months on, Campbell's critics have only grown louder, with business and green groups accusing the nation's Environment Minister of playing politics with the environment on a grand and damaging scale. They say a raft of baffling decisions, poorly explained and inconsistent, have sent a chill through the country's mining, renewable energy and infrastructure industries.
This week, the minister decided to try to soothe jangled nerves when it appeared that a $650 million pulp mill in South Australia was under threat from a red-tailed black cockatoo that had never been seen on the planned site. The developer of the planned Penola Pulp Mill, which would employ 600 people during production and permanently employ 120, was told the project would need federal approval because of the potential danger it posed to the cockatoo, which feeds more than 4km away.
The notification alarmed the project's managers, given Campbell's decision in April to stop the $220 million Bald Hills wind farm in regional Victoria, supposedly because of the threat it might pose to the endangered orange-bellied parrot. Campbell's bizarre Bald Hills decision was criticised by pro-business and green groups, who say it had less to do with parrots than with a pre-election promise by the Liberals to oppose the Bald Hills plan.
So this week, when a rare bird threatened to spark another political controversy, a gun-shy Campbell effectively pre-empted his department's findings by telling The Australian that he did "not expect any problems" from the cockatoo issue.
Campbell strongly denies any inconsistency in his approach. "We have an approvals process which is applied consistently based on science and based on what is recognised internationally as one of the best environmental (planning) processes in the world," he told The Weekend Australian yesterday.
Danny Kennedy, campaign manager with Greenpeace Australia Pacific disagrees. "Consistency is not this minister's strong point - he does what is politically expedient. His record so far is all style and no substance. He is big on having parrots and whales on the front page but there is nothing of substance on climate change and the energy revolution we need to have."
The Business Council of Australia has also been unsettled by the parrot and cockatoo controversies. "When you look at those sort of decisions, and they appear to come out of the blue without clarity about why they were taken, it creates a sense of concern about making long-term investments," says Maria Tarrant, director of policy at the BCA, which represents the nation's top 100 companies.
Andrew Macintosh from the left-wing think tank The Australia Institute believes Campbell is driven by political rather than environmental motives and is misusing the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. "The use of the act has descended into a farce," he says.
Ironically this might be less controversial if Campbell were a consistent colour on environmental issues, but the minister has proven to be uneven in his passions. "On the positive side he has been a strong voice for whale conservation and he has also recently been acknowledging that we need to look at a carbon price to tackle Greenhouse," says Don Henry, executive director of the Australian Conservation Foundation. "But on the negative side, environment legislation has been applied weakly by Ian Campbell and his predecessors."
Although Campbell has been big on saving whales and the orange-bellied parrot, he has been less loving towards other animals. The flatback turtle on Barrow Island in Western Australia did not get preferential treatment, with Campbell this month choosing not to block the $11 billion Gorgon gas project there despite the threat it poses to the rare turtle.
Campbell has also dismissed concerns about the southern blue-fin tuna which remains a legitimate target for commercial fishermen despite being endangered. "He is hunting with the hounds and running with the foxes," says Chappelle. "You can't pick up where he is coming from or where he is going to. That makes it tough."
Earth hottest in 400 years
The Herald Sun
AP 23 Jun 2006
THE Earth is the hottest it has been in at least 400 years and perhaps thousands of years, US scientists say.
The US National Academy of Sciences reached that conclusion in a broad review of scientific work requested by the US Congress. In a report released yesterday it found the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia".
A panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers Earth was running a fever and "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming".
Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about half a degree Celsius during the 20th century.
The report was requested in November by chairman of the House Science Committee Congressman Sherwood Boehlert, a Republican, to address those who questioned whether global warming was a major threat.
Climate scientists Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes had concluded the Northern Hemisphere was the warmest it has been in 2000 years.
Their research was known as the "hockey-stick" graphic because it compared the sharp curve of the hockey blade with the recent uptick in temperatures and the stick's long shaft to centuries of previous climate stability.
The scientists confirmed that research from the late 1990s was "likely" to be true, said John "Mike" Wallace, an atmospheric sciences professor at the University of Washington and a panel member.
The report's conclusions "are very close to being right" and are supported by even more recent data, Prof Wallace said.
Overall, the panel agreed that the warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last 1000 years, though relatively warm conditions persisted around the year 1000, followed by a "Little Ice Age" from about 1500 to 1850.
AP 23 Jun 2006
THE Earth is the hottest it has been in at least 400 years and perhaps thousands of years, US scientists say.The US National Academy of Sciences reached that conclusion in a broad review of scientific work requested by the US Congress. In a report released yesterday it found the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia".
A panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers Earth was running a fever and "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming".
Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about half a degree Celsius during the 20th century.
The report was requested in November by chairman of the House Science Committee Congressman Sherwood Boehlert, a Republican, to address those who questioned whether global warming was a major threat.
Climate scientists Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes had concluded the Northern Hemisphere was the warmest it has been in 2000 years.
Their research was known as the "hockey-stick" graphic because it compared the sharp curve of the hockey blade with the recent uptick in temperatures and the stick's long shaft to centuries of previous climate stability.
The scientists confirmed that research from the late 1990s was "likely" to be true, said John "Mike" Wallace, an atmospheric sciences professor at the University of Washington and a panel member.
The report's conclusions "are very close to being right" and are supported by even more recent data, Prof Wallace said.
Overall, the panel agreed that the warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last 1000 years, though relatively warm conditions persisted around the year 1000, followed by a "Little Ice Age" from about 1500 to 1850.
Japan kick-starts biofuel transport
The Herald Sun
21 Jun 2006
JAPAN plans to have 40 per cent of cars running on biofuels within five years in a bid to slash greenhouse gas emissions and foreign oil dependence.
Vehicles account for about 20 per cent of energy consumption in Japan, which is nearly entirely dependent on the Middle East for oil.
The Environment Ministry would launch a project to boost the production of ethanol made from sugar cane produced on Miyako island in Japan's southern island chain of Okinawa, the Nihon Keizai Shimbun business daily revealed.
21 Jun 2006
JAPAN plans to have 40 per cent of cars running on biofuels within five years in a bid to slash greenhouse gas emissions and foreign oil dependence.
Vehicles account for about 20 per cent of energy consumption in Japan, which is nearly entirely dependent on the Middle East for oil.
The Environment Ministry would launch a project to boost the production of ethanol made from sugar cane produced on Miyako island in Japan's southern island chain of Okinawa, the Nihon Keizai Shimbun business daily revealed.
Early birds feel the heat
The Herald Sun
21 Jun 2006
MIGRATORY birds are arriving earlier in Australia and leaving later, most likely because of global warming, a study has found.
Researchers analysed the movements of migratory birds visiting southeastern Australia since the 1960s. Using published literature, bird observer reports, and observations of bird watchers, the team compared the arrival date for 24 species and the departure for 12 species over the past 40 years.
Heading the study were Macquarie University PhD students Linda Beaumont and Ian McAllan, together with Associate Prof Lesley Hughes. The study is believed to be the largest of its kind in the southern hemisphere, and is published in the international journal Global Change Biology.
The study found half the species analysed -- which included sandpipers, kingfishers, bee eaters and plovers -- showed a significant trend towards earlier arrival since 1960. It showed they were arriving on average 3.5 days earlier each decade across the study group, and staying an average 5.1 days later.
Temperature change in Australia of around 0.5C since the 1960s was "very likely" to be influencing the birds' migratory patterns, Ms Beaumont said. She said the big concern was that the change would alter the life cycles of birds, including when they reproduce. "(A temperature change of) 0.5 degrees for us is nothing, but birds and insects respond very rapidly to changes in temperature," she said. "Birds time their breeding so that when the eggs hatch it coincides with the optimal timing for whatever is the source of their food."
There was also a danger that short distance migratory birds, such as the channel-billed cuckoo, may stop migrating become permanent residents of southeastern Australia, she said.
21 Jun 2006
MIGRATORY birds are arriving earlier in Australia and leaving later, most likely because of global warming, a study has found.
Researchers analysed the movements of migratory birds visiting southeastern Australia since the 1960s. Using published literature, bird observer reports, and observations of bird watchers, the team compared the arrival date for 24 species and the departure for 12 species over the past 40 years.
Heading the study were Macquarie University PhD students Linda Beaumont and Ian McAllan, together with Associate Prof Lesley Hughes. The study is believed to be the largest of its kind in the southern hemisphere, and is published in the international journal Global Change Biology.
The study found half the species analysed -- which included sandpipers, kingfishers, bee eaters and plovers -- showed a significant trend towards earlier arrival since 1960. It showed they were arriving on average 3.5 days earlier each decade across the study group, and staying an average 5.1 days later.
Temperature change in Australia of around 0.5C since the 1960s was "very likely" to be influencing the birds' migratory patterns, Ms Beaumont said. She said the big concern was that the change would alter the life cycles of birds, including when they reproduce. "(A temperature change of) 0.5 degrees for us is nothing, but birds and insects respond very rapidly to changes in temperature," she said. "Birds time their breeding so that when the eggs hatch it coincides with the optimal timing for whatever is the source of their food."
There was also a danger that short distance migratory birds, such as the channel-billed cuckoo, may stop migrating become permanent residents of southeastern Australia, she said.
Thursday, 22 June 2006
Greenhouse gases 'under-reported
From: Reuters in London
June 22, 2006
MANY countries may be grossly underestimating the quantity of greenhouse gases they emit according to a new method of monitoring output, scientists said today.
The new "top-down" system measures the actual amount of gases such as carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere, compared with the traditional "bottom-up" method which estimates what is likely to be produced on the ground.
The findings, still the subject of scientific debate, could destabilise the European Union's fledgling carbon trading system and have implications for the Kyoto Treaty.
"Work at the (European Commission's) Joint Research Centre (JRC) in Italy suggests huge under-reporting of many national CH4 (methane) emissions," said Euan Nisbet of London's Royal Holloway University.
"Top-down science is still somewhat in its infancy. But the gas they measure is there, not an estimate of what they think should be there."
According to work by Peter Bergamaschi at the JRC in Ispra, Italy, top-down science suggests Britain may be reporting only half its actual methane emissions and France only two-thirds, the magazine New Scientist said today.
By contrast, Ireland and Finland may be over-reporting the methane coming from their peat bogs.
Britain defended its estimates today, saying they were calculated in line with international guidelines reviewed each year by independent international experts.
The government's Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) said in a statement it believed Mr Bergamaschi overestimated British methane emissions by at least half.
"Bergamaschi's work cannot separate natural methane emissions from man-made ones. There is significant uncertainty in how much natural methane is produced in the UK, which is carried into Bergamaschi's model," DEFRA said.
Mr Nisbet said making the same calculations for carbon dioxide, more plentiful but less damaging, was more complicated.
The world needed a chain of monitoring stations, similar to the seismic system set up in the 1950s to monitor nuclear bomb tests, he said.
Mr Nisbet said China, which is building a coal-fired power station a week to fuel its booming economy, had good monitoring as had Canada and Kyoto refuseniks the United States and Australia.
There was virtually no monitoring in South Asia, very little in Africa and the tropical oceans were scantily covered.
June 22, 2006
MANY countries may be grossly underestimating the quantity of greenhouse gases they emit according to a new method of monitoring output, scientists said today.
The new "top-down" system measures the actual amount of gases such as carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere, compared with the traditional "bottom-up" method which estimates what is likely to be produced on the ground.
The findings, still the subject of scientific debate, could destabilise the European Union's fledgling carbon trading system and have implications for the Kyoto Treaty.
"Work at the (European Commission's) Joint Research Centre (JRC) in Italy suggests huge under-reporting of many national CH4 (methane) emissions," said Euan Nisbet of London's Royal Holloway University.
"Top-down science is still somewhat in its infancy. But the gas they measure is there, not an estimate of what they think should be there."
According to work by Peter Bergamaschi at the JRC in Ispra, Italy, top-down science suggests Britain may be reporting only half its actual methane emissions and France only two-thirds, the magazine New Scientist said today.
By contrast, Ireland and Finland may be over-reporting the methane coming from their peat bogs.
Britain defended its estimates today, saying they were calculated in line with international guidelines reviewed each year by independent international experts.
The government's Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) said in a statement it believed Mr Bergamaschi overestimated British methane emissions by at least half.
"Bergamaschi's work cannot separate natural methane emissions from man-made ones. There is significant uncertainty in how much natural methane is produced in the UK, which is carried into Bergamaschi's model," DEFRA said.
Mr Nisbet said making the same calculations for carbon dioxide, more plentiful but less damaging, was more complicated.
The world needed a chain of monitoring stations, similar to the seismic system set up in the 1950s to monitor nuclear bomb tests, he said.
Mr Nisbet said China, which is building a coal-fired power station a week to fuel its booming economy, had good monitoring as had Canada and Kyoto refuseniks the United States and Australia.
There was virtually no monitoring in South Asia, very little in Africa and the tropical oceans were scantily covered.
Wednesday, 21 June 2006
Debating nuclear, but what about our rich renewable resource?
Rashida Nuridin
20 June 2006
We produce the highest amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) per capita in the world. One third of this pollution comes solely from the production of electricity. It is imperative that we take urgent action now to reduce our CO2 emissions.
The Federal Government is calling for a “full blooded” debate on nuclear power in Australia, with the pretense that it will be a solution to our GHG emissions. This doesn't make sense when we are not seriously harvesting the free, safe and rich renewable resources that are available.
Wind farms and other renewables can be up and running in a matter of months. Nuclear power stations take many years. In the US, the most recent nuclear power station to come on line took 24 years from start of construction to commercial production!
Don't be fooled by the “clean” tag the government is giving nuclear. The production of nuclear power is a multi stage process. The nuclear “cycle” includes mining, milling, enrichment, power production and waste management, with transportation needed between each of these processes. Although the emissions of GHG's attributed to the power generation phase may be low, this is not the case for the remainder of the cycle. Transport is also required between each one of these processes adding further to the emissions attributable to the full cycle of nuclear power. They also require an enormous quantity of water for cooling.
Renewables such as solar, wind, wave and hydro are simple; they directly convert the raw energy source into electricity with no harmful side effects and minimal full energy cycle GHG emissions, particularly in the case of wind.
Further, high-grade uranium deposits are only expected to last a few decades and when demand increases this will be depleted much sooner. If we then turn to using lower-grade uranium “the CO2 emissions become similar to those of a combined cycle gas fired power station” (Dr. Diesendorf, UNSW).
After 50 years there is still no safe long term solution to waste disposal. It will be 240,000 years before the radioactivity of the “high level waste” is no longer a concern. Are you prepared to leave this legacy for your children and future generations to deal with?
Nuclear power is high risk. With an increased terrorist threat, weapons proliferation and sabotage are a reality. No other energy source requires the substantial level of security as nuclear power.
Twenty years on, have we forgotten the lessons of Chernobyl? Even today's nuclear experts concede that nuclear accidents are inevitable. As more nuclear plants are built, so too does the risk of the next major accident.
Nuclear energy is uneconomical. It requires massive subsidies (the most highly subsidised power of all) and isn't self supporting anywhere in the world . The estimated cost of subsidies to the nuclear power industry in the US, for example, is “US$115 billion in direct subsidies, compared to less than $10 billion for wind and solar combined” (ACF). Just one nuclear waste repository in Nevada is expected to cost US$50 billion. As soon as it is opened in 2010, it will be filled to capacity by the nuclear waste accumulated in the US.
The average lifespan of a nuclear power station is only 21 years (similar to that of a wind turbine) and the cost of dismantling Britain’s nuclear power stations for example is estimated at around 70 billion pounds sterling.
Perhaps those who argue against the economics of wind don’t realise that nuclear power is more expensive. On a global scale, renewable energy already supplies more power than nuclear.
Renewable energy made up an average of 20% of Australia’s electricity from the 1960’s through to the mid 1970’s. It has gradually declined to 8% and projected to make up only 8.8% of our electricity by 2010 (ABARE). Compare this to an EU wide target of 21% by the same year.
Worldwide, wind power is the fastest growing energy sector with energy capacity doubling every 3 years - in 2005 it increased by 43% more than the previous year. Australia has one of the best and most consistent wind resources in the world, but without community and government we are being left behind.
Countries such as Germany have one third of our renewable resource, yet are one of the world leaders in both solar and wind installations. Germany's commitment to renewables is reflected in their decision to phase out all of its nuclear power stations by 2020. Countries with a high ratio of nuclear power such as France and even Sweden, the nuclear power capital of the world, are increasing their renewables.
There is a small vocal minority in the community who oppose wind farm developments. Hype created by these individuals is a smokescreen to a “nimbyism” based primarily on aesthetics. The recurring fictional rhetoric they preach regarding bird kills, noise and unreliability have long been proven false by independent scientists and engineers the world over.
WWF, Greenpeace, ACF, David Attenborough, David Suzuki, The Royal Society For The Protection Of Birds In Britain and most other world leading environmentalists all publicly promote wind energy along with other renewables as being the way forward for electricity production. They would not take this stance if they believed wind farms posed a threat to bird or animal populations.
As far as noise is concerned, you can hold a conversation at the base of the biggest modern wind tower, while the turbine is working at full speed, without raising your voice (35-45 dB (A) at 350m ) and at 97-99% reliability, wind turbines far exceed the performance of coal plants.
I am a visual artist and aesthetics is very important to me, but I don't let it cloud my judgment. Let's put things in perspective. What is more important, your view being “spoilt” or addressing global warming?
The vocal minority should not be allowed to jeopardise the benefit to the silent majority on such a critical issue. We all share the same atmosphere. It is not a localised issue, it crosses all borders and affects us all.
I have focused on wind power because it is currently one of the most economical ways to increase the mix of renewable energy in the overall production of electricity. We all want electricity. I’m sure given a choice most of us would prefer to have clean power.
Next time you flick the switch on, think about where your power is coming from, and your contribution to GHG emissions.
20 June 2006
We produce the highest amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) per capita in the world. One third of this pollution comes solely from the production of electricity. It is imperative that we take urgent action now to reduce our CO2 emissions.
The Federal Government is calling for a “full blooded” debate on nuclear power in Australia, with the pretense that it will be a solution to our GHG emissions. This doesn't make sense when we are not seriously harvesting the free, safe and rich renewable resources that are available.
Wind farms and other renewables can be up and running in a matter of months. Nuclear power stations take many years. In the US, the most recent nuclear power station to come on line took 24 years from start of construction to commercial production!
Don't be fooled by the “clean” tag the government is giving nuclear. The production of nuclear power is a multi stage process. The nuclear “cycle” includes mining, milling, enrichment, power production and waste management, with transportation needed between each of these processes. Although the emissions of GHG's attributed to the power generation phase may be low, this is not the case for the remainder of the cycle. Transport is also required between each one of these processes adding further to the emissions attributable to the full cycle of nuclear power. They also require an enormous quantity of water for cooling.
Renewables such as solar, wind, wave and hydro are simple; they directly convert the raw energy source into electricity with no harmful side effects and minimal full energy cycle GHG emissions, particularly in the case of wind.
Further, high-grade uranium deposits are only expected to last a few decades and when demand increases this will be depleted much sooner. If we then turn to using lower-grade uranium “the CO2 emissions become similar to those of a combined cycle gas fired power station” (Dr. Diesendorf, UNSW).
After 50 years there is still no safe long term solution to waste disposal. It will be 240,000 years before the radioactivity of the “high level waste” is no longer a concern. Are you prepared to leave this legacy for your children and future generations to deal with?
Nuclear power is high risk. With an increased terrorist threat, weapons proliferation and sabotage are a reality. No other energy source requires the substantial level of security as nuclear power.
Twenty years on, have we forgotten the lessons of Chernobyl? Even today's nuclear experts concede that nuclear accidents are inevitable. As more nuclear plants are built, so too does the risk of the next major accident.
Nuclear energy is uneconomical. It requires massive subsidies (the most highly subsidised power of all) and isn't self supporting anywhere in the world . The estimated cost of subsidies to the nuclear power industry in the US, for example, is “US$115 billion in direct subsidies, compared to less than $10 billion for wind and solar combined” (ACF). Just one nuclear waste repository in Nevada is expected to cost US$50 billion. As soon as it is opened in 2010, it will be filled to capacity by the nuclear waste accumulated in the US.
The average lifespan of a nuclear power station is only 21 years (similar to that of a wind turbine) and the cost of dismantling Britain’s nuclear power stations for example is estimated at around 70 billion pounds sterling.
Perhaps those who argue against the economics of wind don’t realise that nuclear power is more expensive. On a global scale, renewable energy already supplies more power than nuclear.
Renewable energy made up an average of 20% of Australia’s electricity from the 1960’s through to the mid 1970’s. It has gradually declined to 8% and projected to make up only 8.8% of our electricity by 2010 (ABARE). Compare this to an EU wide target of 21% by the same year.
Worldwide, wind power is the fastest growing energy sector with energy capacity doubling every 3 years - in 2005 it increased by 43% more than the previous year. Australia has one of the best and most consistent wind resources in the world, but without community and government we are being left behind.
Countries such as Germany have one third of our renewable resource, yet are one of the world leaders in both solar and wind installations. Germany's commitment to renewables is reflected in their decision to phase out all of its nuclear power stations by 2020. Countries with a high ratio of nuclear power such as France and even Sweden, the nuclear power capital of the world, are increasing their renewables.
There is a small vocal minority in the community who oppose wind farm developments. Hype created by these individuals is a smokescreen to a “nimbyism” based primarily on aesthetics. The recurring fictional rhetoric they preach regarding bird kills, noise and unreliability have long been proven false by independent scientists and engineers the world over.
WWF, Greenpeace, ACF, David Attenborough, David Suzuki, The Royal Society For The Protection Of Birds In Britain and most other world leading environmentalists all publicly promote wind energy along with other renewables as being the way forward for electricity production. They would not take this stance if they believed wind farms posed a threat to bird or animal populations.
As far as noise is concerned, you can hold a conversation at the base of the biggest modern wind tower, while the turbine is working at full speed, without raising your voice (35-45 dB (A) at 350m ) and at 97-99% reliability, wind turbines far exceed the performance of coal plants.
I am a visual artist and aesthetics is very important to me, but I don't let it cloud my judgment. Let's put things in perspective. What is more important, your view being “spoilt” or addressing global warming?
The vocal minority should not be allowed to jeopardise the benefit to the silent majority on such a critical issue. We all share the same atmosphere. It is not a localised issue, it crosses all borders and affects us all.
I have focused on wind power because it is currently one of the most economical ways to increase the mix of renewable energy in the overall production of electricity. We all want electricity. I’m sure given a choice most of us would prefer to have clean power.
Next time you flick the switch on, think about where your power is coming from, and your contribution to GHG emissions.
Tuesday, 20 June 2006
Green power for the future
The Australian
June 10, 2006
Impressive advances are being made in clean coal technologies, writes Andrew Trounson
IT seems almost too good to be true. Can we really make our dirty coal-fired power stations green? Have we discovered the silver bullet to slay the monster that has transformed our abundant coal reserves into sources of evil greenhouse gases?
As the Prime Minister's crusade to reassess the potential for nuclear power gained momentum this week, the coal industry was claiming that by the time nuclear power could become a reality in Australia, the technologies for effectively plugging greenhouse gas emissions from coal power plants will have been commercially proven.
The idea is to commercialise technologies that "clean" coal before it is burnt to bring down emissions closer to natural gas, which generates about half the emissions of brown coal. Carbon dioxide emissions would then be captured and compressed into almost liquid vapor that could then be piped to geological sites and injected hundreds of metres underground.
But while achieving this energy nirvana for the world's coal resources is feasible, it will be expensive, making alternative sources, such as natural gas and renewables, such as sun and wind, relatively more competitive.
According to numbers from the National Generators Forum that represent the country's main coal and gas-fired generators, by 2015-20 the generating cost of coal with carbon capture and burial, or sequestration, will be roughly the same as that for nuclear and wind.
Critics such as the environment lobby are concerned that carbon capture and sequestration technologies are unlikely to be widely enough employed to significantly cut global emissions until 2020 or more. That, they say, is too long a wait while we continue to burn coal, and that we should stop building new coal-fired plants and extending the life of new plants in favour of proven gas and renewable energy. It is why Victoria's decision last year to extend the life of the Hazelwood brown coal power plant from 2009 to 2031 so angered the environment lobby and renewable energy industry.
Nevertheless, there hasn't been a new coal-fired plant built in either Victoria or NSW in the past 10 years, with new capacity already largely coming from gas.
The seductive attraction of the self-styled clean coal technologies is the huge potential gain to be had from sequestering carbon emissions from coal, given its importance as a power source.
Australians get nearly 80 per cent of their electricity from coal-fired generation and the country has coal resources big enough to last hundreds of years.
And despite the threat of climate change, the energy-hungry populations of China, India and the rest of the developing world will be demanding ever more cheap fossil fuels to raise them out of poverty.
Globally, fossil fuels are expected to remain the planet's primary energy source until at least 2050, by which time scientists warn that we need to have stabilised carbon levels in the atmosphere or face serious, and in some places devastating, climate change. Many already think climate change is under way with the rising incidence of floods, hurricanes and other events.
China, where coal supplies 69per cent of the country's power, is effectively installing the equivalent of Australia's total coal power industry every year.
The International Energy Agency expects China to account for 26 per cent of all new global emissions between 2002 and 2030, more than all the emissions from the developed world combined. And in the 20 years to 2025, the IEA expects coal to account for 33per cent of global carbon dioxide growth.
Clearly, finding a solution to coal emissions is where the biggest dividends can be made in cutting global emissions. According to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, scenario analysts suggest that including carbon capture and sequestration in a carbon dioxide mitigation portfolio could cut the cost of stabilising its levels in the atmosphere by 30 per cent or more.
"There is no reason why by 2020 we can't be putting a quarter of our emissions from coal and gas back into the ground, and no reason why by 2030 it wouldn't be about half," Mark O'Neill, chief executive of the Australian Coal Association, says.
It is the huge size of this tantalising alchemist's cherry that has driven the formation this year of the six-nation Asia-Pacific partnership on clean development and climate that is betting on technology to beat climate change.
It brings together Kyoto rebels Australia and the US, with the world's emerging energy consumption giants China and India. In the US the Government has teamed with industry, including coal giants Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton, to invest $US1 billion ($1.34 billion) in the FutureGen project that aims to have the world's first commercial scale emissions-free coal-fired generator in operation by 2012 using carbon capture and sequestration.
In Australia the coal industry is putting $300 million into a technology development fund. Low emission technologies for fossil fuels are also expected to take the bulk of the Government's $500million low-emission fund announced last year, much to the chagrin of the renewable industry that complains the Government is punting too heavily on coal.
There are several low-emission coal demonstration projects under way in Australia aimed at reducing and or capturing coal emissions. But the most important is a $30 million trial of geo-sequestration in Victoria's Otway Basin by the Government-backed Co-operative Research Centre for greenhouse gas technologies.
Late this year the CRC plans to start injecting carbon dioxide underground into an old gas well at Nirranda, 20km east of Warrnambool in western Victoria. It will be piped from a naturally occurring underground reservoir some 2km away, with 100,000 tonnes of the gas to be re-injected underground over two years.
That compares with the 400million tonnes of carbon dioxide Australia emits every year. The CRC estimates that Australia has enough geological capacity to store up to six billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, which, assuming an injection rate of 50 million tonnes a year, would give us 120 years of storage.
But while the capture and sequestration technology is feasible and is used to varying degrees already in the oil and gas industry, the challenges of achieving carbon capture and sequestration shouldn't be underestimated.
To get a feeling for the scale of the undertaking to capture and store coal emissions, it has been estimated that the volume of flue gas emitted by coal-fired power stations across Australia every year is equivalent to about 20 times the amount of natural gas produced every year from Australian gas fields.
Capturing, compressing and storing such vast quantities of gas would be a Herculean undertaking. But since only 14 per cent of this vapour from a coal-fired power station is actually carbon dioxide, the key is using various technologies to strip out the nitrogen, oxygen and water vapour and significantly reduce the amount of gas that needs to be captured.
The other challenge is finding places to store the gas. While potential geological sites have been identified within reasonable distances of population centres in Victoria and Queensland, no such sites have been indentified within a 500km radius of Sydney or Newcastle. In an age when proposals for a gas pipeline between Papua New Guinea and Queensland are close to becoming a reality, this isn't an insurmountable problem, but it adds significantly to the overall cost.
There are also inevitable concerns over the safety of transporting and storing large quantities of concentrated carbon dioxide. Concentrated carbon dioxide is nasty stuff. In 1986, a freak geological disaster released a massive natural bubble of carbon dioxide from under Lake Nyos in Cameroon that asphyxiated more than 1700 people.
However, an IPCC assessment found that piping carbon dioxide posed no greater risk to the public than piping natural gas, and could be lower. And storing the carbon dioxide would involve injecting the gas hundreds of metres underground into reservoir rocks that have held oil and gas for millions of years.
June 10, 2006
Impressive advances are being made in clean coal technologies, writes Andrew Trounson
IT seems almost too good to be true. Can we really make our dirty coal-fired power stations green? Have we discovered the silver bullet to slay the monster that has transformed our abundant coal reserves into sources of evil greenhouse gases?
As the Prime Minister's crusade to reassess the potential for nuclear power gained momentum this week, the coal industry was claiming that by the time nuclear power could become a reality in Australia, the technologies for effectively plugging greenhouse gas emissions from coal power plants will have been commercially proven.
The idea is to commercialise technologies that "clean" coal before it is burnt to bring down emissions closer to natural gas, which generates about half the emissions of brown coal. Carbon dioxide emissions would then be captured and compressed into almost liquid vapor that could then be piped to geological sites and injected hundreds of metres underground.
But while achieving this energy nirvana for the world's coal resources is feasible, it will be expensive, making alternative sources, such as natural gas and renewables, such as sun and wind, relatively more competitive.
According to numbers from the National Generators Forum that represent the country's main coal and gas-fired generators, by 2015-20 the generating cost of coal with carbon capture and burial, or sequestration, will be roughly the same as that for nuclear and wind.
Critics such as the environment lobby are concerned that carbon capture and sequestration technologies are unlikely to be widely enough employed to significantly cut global emissions until 2020 or more. That, they say, is too long a wait while we continue to burn coal, and that we should stop building new coal-fired plants and extending the life of new plants in favour of proven gas and renewable energy. It is why Victoria's decision last year to extend the life of the Hazelwood brown coal power plant from 2009 to 2031 so angered the environment lobby and renewable energy industry.
Nevertheless, there hasn't been a new coal-fired plant built in either Victoria or NSW in the past 10 years, with new capacity already largely coming from gas.
The seductive attraction of the self-styled clean coal technologies is the huge potential gain to be had from sequestering carbon emissions from coal, given its importance as a power source.
Australians get nearly 80 per cent of their electricity from coal-fired generation and the country has coal resources big enough to last hundreds of years.
And despite the threat of climate change, the energy-hungry populations of China, India and the rest of the developing world will be demanding ever more cheap fossil fuels to raise them out of poverty.
Globally, fossil fuels are expected to remain the planet's primary energy source until at least 2050, by which time scientists warn that we need to have stabilised carbon levels in the atmosphere or face serious, and in some places devastating, climate change. Many already think climate change is under way with the rising incidence of floods, hurricanes and other events.
China, where coal supplies 69per cent of the country's power, is effectively installing the equivalent of Australia's total coal power industry every year.
The International Energy Agency expects China to account for 26 per cent of all new global emissions between 2002 and 2030, more than all the emissions from the developed world combined. And in the 20 years to 2025, the IEA expects coal to account for 33per cent of global carbon dioxide growth.
Clearly, finding a solution to coal emissions is where the biggest dividends can be made in cutting global emissions. According to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, scenario analysts suggest that including carbon capture and sequestration in a carbon dioxide mitigation portfolio could cut the cost of stabilising its levels in the atmosphere by 30 per cent or more.
"There is no reason why by 2020 we can't be putting a quarter of our emissions from coal and gas back into the ground, and no reason why by 2030 it wouldn't be about half," Mark O'Neill, chief executive of the Australian Coal Association, says.
It is the huge size of this tantalising alchemist's cherry that has driven the formation this year of the six-nation Asia-Pacific partnership on clean development and climate that is betting on technology to beat climate change.
It brings together Kyoto rebels Australia and the US, with the world's emerging energy consumption giants China and India. In the US the Government has teamed with industry, including coal giants Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton, to invest $US1 billion ($1.34 billion) in the FutureGen project that aims to have the world's first commercial scale emissions-free coal-fired generator in operation by 2012 using carbon capture and sequestration.
In Australia the coal industry is putting $300 million into a technology development fund. Low emission technologies for fossil fuels are also expected to take the bulk of the Government's $500million low-emission fund announced last year, much to the chagrin of the renewable industry that complains the Government is punting too heavily on coal.
There are several low-emission coal demonstration projects under way in Australia aimed at reducing and or capturing coal emissions. But the most important is a $30 million trial of geo-sequestration in Victoria's Otway Basin by the Government-backed Co-operative Research Centre for greenhouse gas technologies.
Late this year the CRC plans to start injecting carbon dioxide underground into an old gas well at Nirranda, 20km east of Warrnambool in western Victoria. It will be piped from a naturally occurring underground reservoir some 2km away, with 100,000 tonnes of the gas to be re-injected underground over two years.
That compares with the 400million tonnes of carbon dioxide Australia emits every year. The CRC estimates that Australia has enough geological capacity to store up to six billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, which, assuming an injection rate of 50 million tonnes a year, would give us 120 years of storage.
But while the capture and sequestration technology is feasible and is used to varying degrees already in the oil and gas industry, the challenges of achieving carbon capture and sequestration shouldn't be underestimated.
To get a feeling for the scale of the undertaking to capture and store coal emissions, it has been estimated that the volume of flue gas emitted by coal-fired power stations across Australia every year is equivalent to about 20 times the amount of natural gas produced every year from Australian gas fields.
Capturing, compressing and storing such vast quantities of gas would be a Herculean undertaking. But since only 14 per cent of this vapour from a coal-fired power station is actually carbon dioxide, the key is using various technologies to strip out the nitrogen, oxygen and water vapour and significantly reduce the amount of gas that needs to be captured.
The other challenge is finding places to store the gas. While potential geological sites have been identified within reasonable distances of population centres in Victoria and Queensland, no such sites have been indentified within a 500km radius of Sydney or Newcastle. In an age when proposals for a gas pipeline between Papua New Guinea and Queensland are close to becoming a reality, this isn't an insurmountable problem, but it adds significantly to the overall cost.
There are also inevitable concerns over the safety of transporting and storing large quantities of concentrated carbon dioxide. Concentrated carbon dioxide is nasty stuff. In 1986, a freak geological disaster released a massive natural bubble of carbon dioxide from under Lake Nyos in Cameroon that asphyxiated more than 1700 people.
However, an IPCC assessment found that piping carbon dioxide posed no greater risk to the public than piping natural gas, and could be lower. And storing the carbon dioxide would involve injecting the gas hundreds of metres underground into reservoir rocks that have held oil and gas for millions of years.
Climate is biggest security challenge
The Australian
June 10, 2006
Patrick Walters, National security editor
CLIMATE change now poses a graver long-term security risk to Australia than terrorism, with a high likelihood it will produce destabilising civil conflict and unregulated population movements in Asia and the Pacific. That is the conclusion of leading Australian security expert Alan Dupont, the co-author of a new study on climate change and security to be published next week.
The report concludes that the "now irrefutable" evidence the planet is heating up will generate major national security challenges for Australia.
"It is the most significant issue confronting us because of its global dimensions and because it's almost certain to happen," Dr Dupont said yesterday.
"In probability and magnitude, it's well ahead of terrorism and just about anything else I can think of, short of a major global war or a nuclear exchange."
The study, to be published by the Lowy Institute, argues that the wider security implications of climate change have been largely ignored and seriously underestimated in public policy, academia and the media.
It calls on the Howard Government to adopt a more strategic approach to climate change, including setting up a taskforce to examine the policy connections between climate change and national security.
The Australian intelligence community, led by the Office of National Assessments, should co-ordinate a wide-scale assessment of the climate change risk to Australia, the report says.
"The likely speed and magnitude of climate change in the 21st century will be unprecedented in human experience, posing daunting challenges of adaptation and mitigation for all life forms on the planet," Dr Dupont and leading climate scientist Graeme Pearman conclude after analysing the latest scientific evidence of climate change.
Dr Pearman, former head of the CSIRO's division of atmospheric research, says the evidence the earth is heating up is irrefutable. "We are in no doubt that the planet has warmed," he told The Weekend Australian.
"We are highly confident that most of that warming has been due to greenhouse gas increases and that those will continue into the future, at least for some time, because of the momentum of our energy systems. We can anticipate further warming through this century."
Scientists now concede there is a real risk that previously forecast estimates of a 1.4C to 5.8C rise in global temperatures could be exceeded by 2100.
Climate scientists now "overwhelmingly accept" that the world's glaciers and northern ice cap are melting at faster rates and sea-level rises will threaten many coastal and low-lying areas.
Weather extremes, including droughts and severe floods, could lead to food, water and energy shortages in Asia-Pacific nations.
Climate change could also lead to "destabilising and unregulated population movements in Asia and the Pacific" as well as the threat of state collapse in the most severely affected developing nations.
June 10, 2006
Patrick Walters, National security editor
CLIMATE change now poses a graver long-term security risk to Australia than terrorism, with a high likelihood it will produce destabilising civil conflict and unregulated population movements in Asia and the Pacific. That is the conclusion of leading Australian security expert Alan Dupont, the co-author of a new study on climate change and security to be published next week.
The report concludes that the "now irrefutable" evidence the planet is heating up will generate major national security challenges for Australia.
"It is the most significant issue confronting us because of its global dimensions and because it's almost certain to happen," Dr Dupont said yesterday.
"In probability and magnitude, it's well ahead of terrorism and just about anything else I can think of, short of a major global war or a nuclear exchange."
The study, to be published by the Lowy Institute, argues that the wider security implications of climate change have been largely ignored and seriously underestimated in public policy, academia and the media.
It calls on the Howard Government to adopt a more strategic approach to climate change, including setting up a taskforce to examine the policy connections between climate change and national security.
The Australian intelligence community, led by the Office of National Assessments, should co-ordinate a wide-scale assessment of the climate change risk to Australia, the report says.
"The likely speed and magnitude of climate change in the 21st century will be unprecedented in human experience, posing daunting challenges of adaptation and mitigation for all life forms on the planet," Dr Dupont and leading climate scientist Graeme Pearman conclude after analysing the latest scientific evidence of climate change.
Dr Pearman, former head of the CSIRO's division of atmospheric research, says the evidence the earth is heating up is irrefutable. "We are in no doubt that the planet has warmed," he told The Weekend Australian.
"We are highly confident that most of that warming has been due to greenhouse gas increases and that those will continue into the future, at least for some time, because of the momentum of our energy systems. We can anticipate further warming through this century."
Scientists now concede there is a real risk that previously forecast estimates of a 1.4C to 5.8C rise in global temperatures could be exceeded by 2100.
Climate scientists now "overwhelmingly accept" that the world's glaciers and northern ice cap are melting at faster rates and sea-level rises will threaten many coastal and low-lying areas.
Weather extremes, including droughts and severe floods, could lead to food, water and energy shortages in Asia-Pacific nations.
Climate change could also lead to "destabilising and unregulated population movements in Asia and the Pacific" as well as the threat of state collapse in the most severely affected developing nations.
Monday, 19 June 2006
Danes seek broader research links
About The House, Page: 26 Friday,
16 June 2006
Danish scientists have told a delegation of Australian parliamentarians that more formalised links between Australian and Danish research institutions would be of benefit to both countries. The scientists, working at the Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences Foulum Research Centre, told the delegation while there are many personal contacts between Danish and Australian scientists and some specific project collaboration, broader contacts through formal research agreements would be welcome.
In the recently released report on its visit to Denmark and Sweden, the delegation, led by Speaker David Hawker, called for broader research links to be explored, given the strong interest that Australia and Denmark share in agricultural production and research. At the Foulum Research Centre, the delegation met with Australian scientist Dr Mark Henryon who briefed the delegation on projects in which the research centre had been involved. These included projects to breed disease resistant pigs and better trout andmarron. Dr Henryon told the delegation such projects could provide Australia with some "good food for thought". Other scientists told the delegation they would welcome Australian collaboration in the field of cloning.
Warnings about the future of the wind energy industry in Australia were also issued to the delegation during inspections of the Vestas Wind Systems headquarters in Denmark. Vestas has wind turbine manufacturing operations in Portland, Victoria and Wynyard, Tasmania. Vestas representatives told the delegation a lack of certainty regarding future renewable energy targets in Australia, coupled with public opposition to wind turbines in some areas, have generated significant concerns about the future viability of their Australian operations."Given the impact this could have on jobs in Australia and the potential loss of an alternative energy producer, these concerns need to be taken seriously, ' the delegation said in its report.
The delegation also urged the federal government to examine the feasibility of bringing the Nobel Prize Centennial Exhibition to Australia. During an inspection of the Nobel Museum in Stockholm the delegation was informed by the museum director that the Nobel Prize exhibition was being taken on a world tour, but Australia was not one or the planned destinations for the exhibition. The delegation felt this matter should be looked into, given Australia's impressive involvement with the Nobel Prize over many decades, including the recent awarding of the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine to Australians Barry Marshall and Robin Warren.
16 June 2006
Danish scientists have told a delegation of Australian parliamentarians that more formalised links between Australian and Danish research institutions would be of benefit to both countries. The scientists, working at the Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences Foulum Research Centre, told the delegation while there are many personal contacts between Danish and Australian scientists and some specific project collaboration, broader contacts through formal research agreements would be welcome.
In the recently released report on its visit to Denmark and Sweden, the delegation, led by Speaker David Hawker, called for broader research links to be explored, given the strong interest that Australia and Denmark share in agricultural production and research. At the Foulum Research Centre, the delegation met with Australian scientist Dr Mark Henryon who briefed the delegation on projects in which the research centre had been involved. These included projects to breed disease resistant pigs and better trout andmarron. Dr Henryon told the delegation such projects could provide Australia with some "good food for thought". Other scientists told the delegation they would welcome Australian collaboration in the field of cloning.
Warnings about the future of the wind energy industry in Australia were also issued to the delegation during inspections of the Vestas Wind Systems headquarters in Denmark. Vestas has wind turbine manufacturing operations in Portland, Victoria and Wynyard, Tasmania. Vestas representatives told the delegation a lack of certainty regarding future renewable energy targets in Australia, coupled with public opposition to wind turbines in some areas, have generated significant concerns about the future viability of their Australian operations."Given the impact this could have on jobs in Australia and the potential loss of an alternative energy producer, these concerns need to be taken seriously, ' the delegation said in its report.
The delegation also urged the federal government to examine the feasibility of bringing the Nobel Prize Centennial Exhibition to Australia. During an inspection of the Nobel Museum in Stockholm the delegation was informed by the museum director that the Nobel Prize exhibition was being taken on a world tour, but Australia was not one or the planned destinations for the exhibition. The delegation felt this matter should be looked into, given Australia's impressive involvement with the Nobel Prize over many decades, including the recent awarding of the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine to Australians Barry Marshall and Robin Warren.
Crows Nest firm in wind farm flap
Rural Weekly, Page: 6 Friday,
16 June 2006
IT ISN'T easy being green, as Crows Nest Shire Council has found. Council chief executive officer Dave McEvoy was at the Energy Resources Information Forum in Dalby last month to update participants on the progress of the Energreen wind farm, which has brought Crows Nest Shire Council and a group of opposing residents to the Planning and Environment Court. On August 7 the Planning and Environment Court will hear an appeal against Crows Nest Shire Council's approval of the wind farm at Upper Pinelands on two grounds: that approval was not in accordance with the shire's planning scheme and that the wind farm would be a detriment to flora and fauna in the area."The council saw major economic benefits in this project, mainly in carbon dioxide savings," Mr McEvoy said.
"This installation is capable of supplying one-third of the generating output of Tarong Power Station or enough electricity to supply a city twice the size of Toowoomba."But council also understands the concerns of residents -it was a matter of weighing the good against the bad."You just can't hide 85 metretowers behind a few trees," he said. Mr McEvoy said it was important that Commonwealth and state governments looked at extending their renewable energy targets, as without a stronger commitment to renewable energy it would remain difficult to attract more investment and development into the sector.
"We need to use a range of solutions and develop a range of technologies to meet our future energy needs," Mr McEvoy said. The Crows Nest wind farm was first proposed in June 2004: the initial proposal was for 65 turbine towers to be built in Crows Nest Shire and another 10 in neighbouring Rosalie Shire, with Crows Nest Shire Council leading the project. It was approved in late August last year, with Mayor Geoff Patch using his casting vote in favour of the proposal, worth an estimated $250 million and 16 local jobs. The appeal was lodged in January.
16 June 2006
IT ISN'T easy being green, as Crows Nest Shire Council has found. Council chief executive officer Dave McEvoy was at the Energy Resources Information Forum in Dalby last month to update participants on the progress of the Energreen wind farm, which has brought Crows Nest Shire Council and a group of opposing residents to the Planning and Environment Court. On August 7 the Planning and Environment Court will hear an appeal against Crows Nest Shire Council's approval of the wind farm at Upper Pinelands on two grounds: that approval was not in accordance with the shire's planning scheme and that the wind farm would be a detriment to flora and fauna in the area."The council saw major economic benefits in this project, mainly in carbon dioxide savings," Mr McEvoy said.
"This installation is capable of supplying one-third of the generating output of Tarong Power Station or enough electricity to supply a city twice the size of Toowoomba."But council also understands the concerns of residents -it was a matter of weighing the good against the bad."You just can't hide 85 metretowers behind a few trees," he said. Mr McEvoy said it was important that Commonwealth and state governments looked at extending their renewable energy targets, as without a stronger commitment to renewable energy it would remain difficult to attract more investment and development into the sector.
"We need to use a range of solutions and develop a range of technologies to meet our future energy needs," Mr McEvoy said. The Crows Nest wind farm was first proposed in June 2004: the initial proposal was for 65 turbine towers to be built in Crows Nest Shire and another 10 in neighbouring Rosalie Shire, with Crows Nest Shire Council leading the project. It was approved in late August last year, with Mayor Geoff Patch using his casting vote in favour of the proposal, worth an estimated $250 million and 16 local jobs. The appeal was lodged in January.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)