Hobart Mercury
Tuesday 5/8/2008 Page: 49
Amid the gloom about climate are beacons of hope - individuals quietly going about their business of improving the environment. Perhaps unsurprisingly, these beacons are to be found more in local settings than on national and international stages. An information session about the Rudd Government's carbon pollution reduction scheme last week was a dispiriting experience - not because the scheme is without merit but because the discussion was several stages removed from the physical reality of carbon pollution.
It's that disjunct that so bothers me and I'm sure many others. Reducing the climate risk demands swift, direct, decisive and physical action, most importantly to use energy more efficiently. So far there's precious little sign that this is understood in higher political circles. At a local level it's possible to feel more hopeful. Not that local government doesn't have its share of climate contrarians - it does - but because some of its people have found real ways to address their personal concerns about how we generate and use energy.
Hobart City Council engineers, for example, have managed to find new sources of energy in landfill and sewage systems, significantly reducing the council's carbon emissions and electricity bills. This is quite an achievement considering the pace of reforms in state and federal spheres.
An enlightened local authority in Britain has gone several steps beyond the Hobart experience, with remarkable success. In 1990. a city engineer named Allan Jones began a push by the city of Woking, southwest of London, that by 2005 had achieved emission cuts of nearly 80 per cent and virtual independence from the national electricity grid.
Woking's innovations came to the attention of nearby London, and in 2005 Allan Jones began applying his vision there. on a scale 80 threes that of Woking. Eventually the Sydney City Council carne to hear of him, and last month borrowed him and his ideas to explore such possibilities for itself. Allan Jones sees today's largescale fossil fuel generating systems, distributing electricity from central power stations over long distances to factories, offices and households, as the biggest threat of all to the planet's sustainable future.
Woking overcame legal and administrative obstacles to generate its own power while saving millions of pounds. Its energy comes from a "combined heat and power" system that draws on locally generated gas and solar energy to distribute heating and cooling as well as electricity, while also saving heat energy lost in transmission.
Woking's population is a little more than Launceston's and about half that of Greater Hobart. Unlike Tasmanian centres, it is close to a world-scale metropolis, so its experience is unlikely to be directly transferable to our own situations.
But equally, there's much that this truly pioneering effort can teach any community. Tasmanian local councils have shown they can apply imaginative solutions to climate challenges. Perhaps one day our own pioneering civic innovators will, like Allan Jones, tread a world stage to pass on their knowledge and experience. But before they do, they'll need some more runs on the board, and for that they'll need bold, visionary political leadership, at all levels of government. Is that asking too much?
peterboyer@southwind.com.au
Tuesday, 26 August 2008
Call to act by pioneer on climate
Courier Mail
Tuesday 5/8/2008 Page: 11
THE scientist who coined the term acid rain says the world is close to a climate change tipping point and Australia must show leadership in dealing with the problem. American scientist Professor Gene Likens, who in the early '60s was among the first to link the increasing acidity in rain with the burning of fossil fuels, said Australia had to act now.
"Does the climate change problem exist? Yes," Professor Likens said. "The scientific consensus is so strong and so universal there are just a handful of doubters on this. "Yet (those doubters) get such high media attention and a lot of support." He argued Australia needed to provide leadership now rather than waiting for other countries such as China, Russia and the US to move first. "You are sticking your head in the sand if you think you should just wait for the US and Russia to do their bit," he said.
"There has to be leadership so I applaud Australia for its attempts to provide leadership." Professor Likens will be speaking today to policy makers and politicians at the Australian Rivers Institute, based at Griffith University's Nathan campus, on the problems being faced around the globe with drought and climate change.
Expected at the invitation-only talk were Queensland Minister for Climate Change Andrew McNamara, National Water Commissioner Chloe Munro and water commissioners from Queensland and NSW. Professor Likens said climate change was causing a change in rainfall patterns and while Australia appeared to have plenty of rain, water was not falling "where people are living and extracting it through irrigation."
He said he had researched the effects of acid rain in 1963 but it took almost 30 years for politicians to act. "I think we are approaching from a scientific point of view a tipping point on climate change and we are going to have to take action sooner rather than later," Professor Likens said. The Australian Government has so far pledged to cut national emissions by 60 per cent compared with 2000 levels by 2050.
The Government has also set a target of a national greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme by 2010, although ministers have hinted that timeframe could slip. "We certainly can't wait until 2050 to cut emissions." Professor Likens warned.
Tuesday 5/8/2008 Page: 11
THE scientist who coined the term acid rain says the world is close to a climate change tipping point and Australia must show leadership in dealing with the problem. American scientist Professor Gene Likens, who in the early '60s was among the first to link the increasing acidity in rain with the burning of fossil fuels, said Australia had to act now.
"Does the climate change problem exist? Yes," Professor Likens said. "The scientific consensus is so strong and so universal there are just a handful of doubters on this. "Yet (those doubters) get such high media attention and a lot of support." He argued Australia needed to provide leadership now rather than waiting for other countries such as China, Russia and the US to move first. "You are sticking your head in the sand if you think you should just wait for the US and Russia to do their bit," he said.
"There has to be leadership so I applaud Australia for its attempts to provide leadership." Professor Likens will be speaking today to policy makers and politicians at the Australian Rivers Institute, based at Griffith University's Nathan campus, on the problems being faced around the globe with drought and climate change.
Expected at the invitation-only talk were Queensland Minister for Climate Change Andrew McNamara, National Water Commissioner Chloe Munro and water commissioners from Queensland and NSW. Professor Likens said climate change was causing a change in rainfall patterns and while Australia appeared to have plenty of rain, water was not falling "where people are living and extracting it through irrigation."
He said he had researched the effects of acid rain in 1963 but it took almost 30 years for politicians to act. "I think we are approaching from a scientific point of view a tipping point on climate change and we are going to have to take action sooner rather than later," Professor Likens said. The Australian Government has so far pledged to cut national emissions by 60 per cent compared with 2000 levels by 2050.
The Government has also set a target of a national greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme by 2010, although ministers have hinted that timeframe could slip. "We certainly can't wait until 2050 to cut emissions." Professor Likens warned.
Farmers reap the wind - and profits
Canberra Times
Tuesday 5/8/2008 Page: 3
Contentious wind farms worth hundreds of millions of dollars are offering farmers and drought stricken rural communities a fresh income stream. Work has started on a$ 100 million wind farm near Crookwell, and a planning application has been lodged for a $300 million installation nearby. The two projects are in Upper Lachlan Shire Council, which is holding a plebiscite coinciding with council elections next month on whether people support more wind farms.
Crookwell farmer Charlie Prell sees wind farms as the way to drought-proof his property and with two neighbours is negotiating leasing land for turbines. In a separate development, work on Origin Energy's $100 million wind farm on the Cullerin Range, 12km east of Gunning, is tender way, providing business for electricians and fencing and concrete contractors.
Construction manager Paul Bultitude said they would pour 400 tonnes of concrete and use 40 tonnes of reinforcement steel in each one of the 15 foundations of the 80m-high turbines. The wind farm should be running by June 2009, providing enough electricity to power almost 15,000 homes. Origin Energy has 360,000 "green" customers and says it is the largest buyer of wind farm energy from other wind farms in Australia.
Public relations manager Yvette Reade said Cullerin Range farm was Origin Energy's first farm. It had acquired rights from Epuron to develop wind farms at Conroy's Gap, west of Yass, and the Snowy Plains near Cooma. Epuron, a multi-national project developer and financier which has several NSW wind farts projects, sold Cullerin Range to Origin Energy, and has lodged plans with NSW Planning for a $300 million wind farm, on four ridges 25km north-west of Goulburn, near Crookwell.
Epuron owns and operates one of the largest wind monitoring networks in NSW. Executive director Martin Poole said the combination of high wind speeds and proximity to large transmission lines gave the Southern Tablelands an advantage over windier areas in western Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia.
The proposed Gullen Range project would comprise up to 84 wind turbines, substation and transmission connections linked to the TransGrid 330kV line, an on-site control room and maintenance facilities. The turbines would generate enough power for 70,000 to 100,000 homes.
Mr Poole said,"We are definitely looking at other sites in the area. It has good combination of characteristics." Mr Prell and two neighbours have signed with TME Australia, a Spanish backed wind farm consortium, to develop 46 turbines on their properties between CrookWell and Goulburn.
While some neighbours are opposed to wind farms, Mr Prell said the Southern Tablelands between the Brindabella Mountains and Oberon rated highly in the renewable energy industry.
Tuesday 5/8/2008 Page: 3
Contentious wind farms worth hundreds of millions of dollars are offering farmers and drought stricken rural communities a fresh income stream. Work has started on a$ 100 million wind farm near Crookwell, and a planning application has been lodged for a $300 million installation nearby. The two projects are in Upper Lachlan Shire Council, which is holding a plebiscite coinciding with council elections next month on whether people support more wind farms.Crookwell farmer Charlie Prell sees wind farms as the way to drought-proof his property and with two neighbours is negotiating leasing land for turbines. In a separate development, work on Origin Energy's $100 million wind farm on the Cullerin Range, 12km east of Gunning, is tender way, providing business for electricians and fencing and concrete contractors.
Construction manager Paul Bultitude said they would pour 400 tonnes of concrete and use 40 tonnes of reinforcement steel in each one of the 15 foundations of the 80m-high turbines. The wind farm should be running by June 2009, providing enough electricity to power almost 15,000 homes. Origin Energy has 360,000 "green" customers and says it is the largest buyer of wind farm energy from other wind farms in Australia.
Public relations manager Yvette Reade said Cullerin Range farm was Origin Energy's first farm. It had acquired rights from Epuron to develop wind farms at Conroy's Gap, west of Yass, and the Snowy Plains near Cooma. Epuron, a multi-national project developer and financier which has several NSW wind farts projects, sold Cullerin Range to Origin Energy, and has lodged plans with NSW Planning for a $300 million wind farm, on four ridges 25km north-west of Goulburn, near Crookwell.
Epuron owns and operates one of the largest wind monitoring networks in NSW. Executive director Martin Poole said the combination of high wind speeds and proximity to large transmission lines gave the Southern Tablelands an advantage over windier areas in western Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia.
The proposed Gullen Range project would comprise up to 84 wind turbines, substation and transmission connections linked to the TransGrid 330kV line, an on-site control room and maintenance facilities. The turbines would generate enough power for 70,000 to 100,000 homes.
Mr Poole said,"We are definitely looking at other sites in the area. It has good combination of characteristics." Mr Prell and two neighbours have signed with TME Australia, a Spanish backed wind farm consortium, to develop 46 turbines on their properties between CrookWell and Goulburn.
While some neighbours are opposed to wind farms, Mr Prell said the Southern Tablelands between the Brindabella Mountains and Oberon rated highly in the renewable energy industry.
Geothermal deal steams ahead
Age
Tuesday 5/8/2008 Page: 2
TRUENERGY has joined local rivals by entering the burgeoning geothermal energy market, announcing a $57 million joint venture with Petratherm. Under the partnership, TRUEnergy acquires up to 30% of Petratherm's Paralana project in the Flinders Ranges in South Australia.
TRUEnergy managing director Richard Mclndoe said the investment, combined with almost $1 billion of committed capital into clean-energy projects, meant the company was on track to achieve its 60% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. Australia's energy giants have been rushing to grab a slice of the country's geothermal prospects.
Origin Energy has committed $150 million to GeoDynamics' Habanero hot rock project in the Cooper Basin in South Australia. AGL has paid $2.2 million for a 10% stake in Torrens Energy, which is also looking at geothermal projects in South Australia.
geothermal energy is achieved by drilling deep wells into the earth. Water is then poured down the wells, spilling over "hot rocks." The water then returns to the surface in the form of steam and is converted into electricity. Mr Mclndoe said the attraction of geothermal was its abundance, its zero emissions and its potential to produce base-load power.
Under the Petratherm deal, TRUEnergy can:
*Earn 10% equity for $6 million to be spent drilling the first and second wells.
*Earn a further 5% equity for $7 million to be spent establishing a 7.5-megawatt pilot plant in Paralana.
*Add a final 15% stake worth $44 million to develop the 30-megawatt demonstration plant.
Petratherm managing director Terry Kallis said while the project was 280 kilometres away from the national electricity grid, the project had a customer off-grid 10 kilometres away who was prepared to buy the output.
He said the energy could start feeding into the national electricity market by 2011, with 260 megawatts expected to be commercially available to Port Augusta by 2020. "I think over the next two to five years you are going to see a huge amount of development in the geothermal sector," he said. Petratherm's share price rose almost 30% after the announcement, finishing the day up 8C, or 12%. at 73¢.
Gunning
Tuesday 5/8/2008 Page: 2
TRUENERGY has joined local rivals by entering the burgeoning geothermal energy market, announcing a $57 million joint venture with Petratherm. Under the partnership, TRUEnergy acquires up to 30% of Petratherm's Paralana project in the Flinders Ranges in South Australia.
TRUEnergy managing director Richard Mclndoe said the investment, combined with almost $1 billion of committed capital into clean-energy projects, meant the company was on track to achieve its 60% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. Australia's energy giants have been rushing to grab a slice of the country's geothermal prospects.
Origin Energy has committed $150 million to GeoDynamics' Habanero hot rock project in the Cooper Basin in South Australia. AGL has paid $2.2 million for a 10% stake in Torrens Energy, which is also looking at geothermal projects in South Australia.
geothermal energy is achieved by drilling deep wells into the earth. Water is then poured down the wells, spilling over "hot rocks." The water then returns to the surface in the form of steam and is converted into electricity. Mr Mclndoe said the attraction of geothermal was its abundance, its zero emissions and its potential to produce base-load power.
Under the Petratherm deal, TRUEnergy can:
*Earn 10% equity for $6 million to be spent drilling the first and second wells.
*Earn a further 5% equity for $7 million to be spent establishing a 7.5-megawatt pilot plant in Paralana.
*Add a final 15% stake worth $44 million to develop the 30-megawatt demonstration plant.
Petratherm managing director Terry Kallis said while the project was 280 kilometres away from the national electricity grid, the project had a customer off-grid 10 kilometres away who was prepared to buy the output.
He said the energy could start feeding into the national electricity market by 2011, with 260 megawatts expected to be commercially available to Port Augusta by 2020. "I think over the next two to five years you are going to see a huge amount of development in the geothermal sector," he said. Petratherm's share price rose almost 30% after the announcement, finishing the day up 8C, or 12%. at 73¢.
Gunning
Petratherm gets $57m incentive
Adelaide Advertiser
Tuesday 5/8/2008 Page: 31
Petratherm has received a large boost with TRUEnergy committing to invest $57 million for a 30 per cent stake in its Paralana geothermal project. Its shares jumped 12.3 per cent to 73c cent on the news. Adelaide-based Petratherm yesterday said Chinese-owned TRUEnergy would initially contribute $6 million towards the drilling of two geothermal energy wells, for a 10 per cent stake in the project in the northern Flinders Ranges.
It would have the option to earn another 5 per cent by contributing $7 million towards the development of a 7.5 megawatt pilot plant. This would be able to supply power to the nearby Beverley uranium mine as early as mid-2010. The final 15 per cent would be earned through the contribution of $44 million towards a 30MW demonstration plant.
TRUEnergy supplies gas and electricity to 1.3 million homes and businesses in Victoria, SA and NSW and also generates electricity in SA and Victoria. TRUEnergy managing director Richard Mclndoe said the company had committed close to $1 billion to expand its renewable and clean energy generation portfolio. This included a $292 million development agreement with photovoltaic cell maker Solar Systems to develop a 154 MW solar electricity plant in Victoria.
"The strategy has been to look at what we consider to be the leading renewables companies in the marketplace to try and bring TRUEnergy's marketing capability and other capabilities as a major energy generator and retailer to the table," Mr Mclndoe said.
Petratherm managing director Terry Kallis said the company had been looking for complementary business partners. Last year Beach Petroleum committed up to $30 million to the Paralana project in return for a stake of up to 36 per cent. The TRUEnergy deal is dependent on Foreign Investment Review Board approval.
Tuesday 5/8/2008 Page: 31
Petratherm has received a large boost with TRUEnergy committing to invest $57 million for a 30 per cent stake in its Paralana geothermal project. Its shares jumped 12.3 per cent to 73c cent on the news. Adelaide-based Petratherm yesterday said Chinese-owned TRUEnergy would initially contribute $6 million towards the drilling of two geothermal energy wells, for a 10 per cent stake in the project in the northern Flinders Ranges.
It would have the option to earn another 5 per cent by contributing $7 million towards the development of a 7.5 megawatt pilot plant. This would be able to supply power to the nearby Beverley uranium mine as early as mid-2010. The final 15 per cent would be earned through the contribution of $44 million towards a 30MW demonstration plant.
TRUEnergy supplies gas and electricity to 1.3 million homes and businesses in Victoria, SA and NSW and also generates electricity in SA and Victoria. TRUEnergy managing director Richard Mclndoe said the company had committed close to $1 billion to expand its renewable and clean energy generation portfolio. This included a $292 million development agreement with photovoltaic cell maker Solar Systems to develop a 154 MW solar electricity plant in Victoria.
"The strategy has been to look at what we consider to be the leading renewables companies in the marketplace to try and bring TRUEnergy's marketing capability and other capabilities as a major energy generator and retailer to the table," Mr Mclndoe said.
Petratherm managing director Terry Kallis said the company had been looking for complementary business partners. Last year Beach Petroleum committed up to $30 million to the Paralana project in return for a stake of up to 36 per cent. The TRUEnergy deal is dependent on Foreign Investment Review Board approval.
Monday, 25 August 2008
Perth team buoyed by new wave energy
West Australian
Monday 4/8/2008 Page: 25
Desalination plants use between six and 10 times the energy used in sourcing ground water to produce a kilolitre of water - which is a downside with an upside for WA's renewable energy buffs. The upside is the potential for the State's next desalination plant to become working proof for the viability of previously neglected renewable energy technology in WA, such as wave power.
The Southern Desalination Plant, to be built outside Binningup in the South-West, will deliver 50G1 of water a year, about 16 per cent of WA's total supply, with the ability to be expanded up to 100G1 a year. Project director Nick Churchill said the total amount of energy that would be used to run the first stage of the plant (producing 50Gl a year) was about 200 gigawatts a year.
"Of this 80 per cent will be a commercially proven (renewable) energy source, like wind or biomass, while the other 20 per cent will be from commercially unproven sources such as wave power," Mr Churchill said. Seven energy companies have been short listed by the Water Corporation to tender for the supply of 80 per cent of the renewable energy required.
Four groups have been selected out of 18 that applied to pre-qualify to supply the 20 per cent - or 40GW a year - unproven portion, with final submissions due in September. A decision will be made by the Water Corporation on which is most viable in November and there is potential for more than one source to be used. Mr Churchill said several aspects would impact on the choice of power, including cost and ability to get it off the ground by 2011.
"Each company would have to address any issues related to the generation source so that the plant would not be impacted on variables such as wind, or waves," Mr Churchill said. Carnegie Corporation's CETO wave power technology is one of those on the short list and the oil and gas engineering expertise in WA was crucial to its development. Carnegie managing director Michael Ottaviano said the ocean was the most obvious source of sustainable, renewable power.
Tides are created by the relationship between the Earth's rotation and the gravitational attraction of the ocean to the sun and the moon. "It is a very, very concentrated form of energy," Dr Ottaviano said. "Solar and wind are relatively diffuse forms of energy and particularly with solar you have to concentrate it with mirrors to produce dense enough energy to be able to economically exploit it - wave is in fact an already concentrated form of solar energy." The CETO technology, invented by Carnegie chairman Alan Burns, involves buoys tethered underwater, which take the swell in the ocean's wave and create electricity by pumping high-pressure sea water ashore to spin the turbines.
"The CETO units replace the pumps that would otherwise be required for a desalination plant and the ocean's energy replaces the power station that would usually be required to power those pumps," Dr Ottaviano said. "It's the only way that exists to produce zero-emission desalinated water, which is obviously a challenge for the desalination industry currently." Dr Ottaviano said the main challenge associated with CETO was the massive amount of energy generated during a storm.
Fortunately, Perth's big population of offshore oil and gas engineers has provided insight into storm survivability, as has the science originating in that industry, such as computational fluid dynamics, which enables the company to use computer generated conditions to in tests. "Effectively what we have got is a full-scale virtual ocean where we do all our initial testing before we move into the real ocean," Dr Ottaviano said.
Carnegie has about 35 employees ranging from oil and gas engineers through to divers and oceanographers. "It doesn't happen through a single individual working on it, it requires all of those different facets to come together to produce a solution," Dr Ottaviano said. "When you've got 35 different smart people with a whole bunch of different skills, the challenge is making sure you are making use of all of those skills." Regular design sessions are held at Carnegie to bring the subsets of the team together and an internal wiki system - a collection of web pages that can be moderated by users - helps to store ideas.
"It's kind of like your old fashioned ideas log if you like, but it's a wiki, so the ideas stay alive and dynamic and develop," Dr Ottaviano said. People looking at a career in ocean engineering should get out and do some fishing or surfing. "That gives you a really good appreciation of the forces involved in the ocean, but a mechanical engineering degree is also a pretty good start," Dr Ottaviano said. "We've got a disproportionately high number of divers and surfers in the team. You can do research by sitting on a surfboard."
Monday 4/8/2008 Page: 25
Desalination plants use between six and 10 times the energy used in sourcing ground water to produce a kilolitre of water - which is a downside with an upside for WA's renewable energy buffs. The upside is the potential for the State's next desalination plant to become working proof for the viability of previously neglected renewable energy technology in WA, such as wave power.The Southern Desalination Plant, to be built outside Binningup in the South-West, will deliver 50G1 of water a year, about 16 per cent of WA's total supply, with the ability to be expanded up to 100G1 a year. Project director Nick Churchill said the total amount of energy that would be used to run the first stage of the plant (producing 50Gl a year) was about 200 gigawatts a year.
"Of this 80 per cent will be a commercially proven (renewable) energy source, like wind or biomass, while the other 20 per cent will be from commercially unproven sources such as wave power," Mr Churchill said. Seven energy companies have been short listed by the Water Corporation to tender for the supply of 80 per cent of the renewable energy required.
Four groups have been selected out of 18 that applied to pre-qualify to supply the 20 per cent - or 40GW a year - unproven portion, with final submissions due in September. A decision will be made by the Water Corporation on which is most viable in November and there is potential for more than one source to be used. Mr Churchill said several aspects would impact on the choice of power, including cost and ability to get it off the ground by 2011.
"Each company would have to address any issues related to the generation source so that the plant would not be impacted on variables such as wind, or waves," Mr Churchill said. Carnegie Corporation's CETO wave power technology is one of those on the short list and the oil and gas engineering expertise in WA was crucial to its development. Carnegie managing director Michael Ottaviano said the ocean was the most obvious source of sustainable, renewable power.
Tides are created by the relationship between the Earth's rotation and the gravitational attraction of the ocean to the sun and the moon. "It is a very, very concentrated form of energy," Dr Ottaviano said. "Solar and wind are relatively diffuse forms of energy and particularly with solar you have to concentrate it with mirrors to produce dense enough energy to be able to economically exploit it - wave is in fact an already concentrated form of solar energy." The CETO technology, invented by Carnegie chairman Alan Burns, involves buoys tethered underwater, which take the swell in the ocean's wave and create electricity by pumping high-pressure sea water ashore to spin the turbines.
"The CETO units replace the pumps that would otherwise be required for a desalination plant and the ocean's energy replaces the power station that would usually be required to power those pumps," Dr Ottaviano said. "It's the only way that exists to produce zero-emission desalinated water, which is obviously a challenge for the desalination industry currently." Dr Ottaviano said the main challenge associated with CETO was the massive amount of energy generated during a storm.
Fortunately, Perth's big population of offshore oil and gas engineers has provided insight into storm survivability, as has the science originating in that industry, such as computational fluid dynamics, which enables the company to use computer generated conditions to in tests. "Effectively what we have got is a full-scale virtual ocean where we do all our initial testing before we move into the real ocean," Dr Ottaviano said.
Carnegie has about 35 employees ranging from oil and gas engineers through to divers and oceanographers. "It doesn't happen through a single individual working on it, it requires all of those different facets to come together to produce a solution," Dr Ottaviano said. "When you've got 35 different smart people with a whole bunch of different skills, the challenge is making sure you are making use of all of those skills." Regular design sessions are held at Carnegie to bring the subsets of the team together and an internal wiki system - a collection of web pages that can be moderated by users - helps to store ideas.
"It's kind of like your old fashioned ideas log if you like, but it's a wiki, so the ideas stay alive and dynamic and develop," Dr Ottaviano said. People looking at a career in ocean engineering should get out and do some fishing or surfing. "That gives you a really good appreciation of the forces involved in the ocean, but a mechanical engineering degree is also a pretty good start," Dr Ottaviano said. "We've got a disproportionately high number of divers and surfers in the team. You can do research by sitting on a surfboard."
Entrepreneur runs like wind as utilities back renewables
West Australian
Monday 4/8/2008 Page: 28
The lights snap off in the five-story, grey concrete building in Pune, India, where Suzlon Energy - the fastest growing of the world's top five wind turbine makers - has its headquarters. After 30 seconds of darkness, the fluorescent bulbs flicker on as back-up generators kick in.
"For us, it's routine," Tulsi Tanti, Suzlon's billionaire founder, says. "You have to understand the country's limitation and, within that, develop your business." Mr Tanti, 50, made his fortune in a decade by supplying wind energy to Indian companies struggling with blackouts and soaring energy costs.
The entrepreneur got his start in 1993, when he bought two turbines to reduce the electricity bills at his textile company in the western state of Gujarat. Mr Tanti's employees dug the foundations, installed the towers and connected the turbines to India's overburdened power grid - taking advantage of government incentives that let the company swap the wind energy it generated for the electricity. it used.
"Within two years, we understood the economics and dynamics of the industry and realised wind is a good source," Mr Tanti says. "Why not focus on that industry?" Suzlon started in 1995 and now ranks as the No. 5 turbine maker worldwide. These are heady days for wind energy producers.
Companies can't keep pace with demand. With oil soaring above $US 147 a barrel in July and concern mounting about global warming, governments are enacting mandates to promote the use of alternatives such as solar and wind.
Last year, utilities and other companies installed a record 20,000 megawatts of wind energy, and the renewable energy source will make up 3 per cent of the world's electricity production in 2012, up from one per cent in 2007, according to the Brussels-based industry group Global Wind Energy Council. "Suzlon came out of nowhere," says Daniel McClure, a fund manager with IG Investment Management, in Toronto.
"They've executed very well under Tanti." Like the entire wind industry, Suzlon is hooked on a growing number of incentives pushed by governments around the globe. In 1997, Massachusetts was the first of 21 US states to begin mandating that utilities buy as much as 20 per cent of their power from renewable sources. US wind energy companies get a US2¢ tax credit for each kilowatt-hour of power they produce. Starting in 2004, Indian states enacted similar mandates as high as 10 per cent for utilities, and companies can claim 80 per cent depreciation on equipment costs in the first year.
China rolled out a plan last year requiring that 15 per cent of the country's energy consumption be met with power from renewable sources by 2020. And in January, the European Union agreed that the region would get 20 per cent of its power consumption from carbon-free sources by 2020 compared with about 6 per cent in 2005. To meet these clean energy rules, utilities are mostly buying wind energy because it's cheaper than other renewable sources such as solar.
"The main driver for wind energy is regulation coming in place in Europe and North America to obtain a greater amount of energy from clean sources," says Geneva-based Philippe De Weck, who helps manage the Clean Energy Fund.
"Solar is still very expensive today. Wind is really left as the only option to fulfil that goal." Mr Tanti, the son of a wheat and peanut farmer, attended small regional colleges after leaving high school, earning a business degree from the P.D. Malaviya Commerce College and electrical and mechanical engineering diplomas from a government polytechnic institute. Although Mr Tanti and his family's net worth rocketed to $US2.2 billion ($2.29 billion) after Suzlon's initial public offering in 2005, he shuns the luxurious lifestyle.
From his small office in Pune, 160km south-east of Bombay in the state of Maharashtra in western India, Mr Tanti says he's pushing his company to grow faster partly to reduce the threat of global warming. Suzlon, which has 13,000 employees worldwide and markets its products in North and South America, Europe, Australia and China, aims to control 25 per cent of the market by 2013, making it the No. 3 wind turbine company. Denmark's Vestas Wind Systems is No. 1 globally, followed by GE Energy.
"With the climate change crisis looming, we have to work faster against it," Mr Tanti says. "That is why high growth is the priority, not just the bottom line." As the company expands, it adds turbines to India's grid that produce more power than Suzlon uses to make the machines, which eliminates its carbon footprint, Mr Tanti says. Suzlon's new, 4.5-hectare campus just 10km from its headquarters will be lit mostly by sunlight to reduce power consumption. The campus will also collect rainwater for use on lawns among the low-rise buildings.
wind energy's main drawback - turbines don't work without a strong breeze - has kept it from becoming a major source of energy for more than a century. In 1887, American Charles F. Brush became the first person to produce power from wind. He built a windmill and used it for 20 years to charge batteries in the cellar of his mansion in Cleveland.
For decades, use of the renewable energy source remained limited because even in the best locations, where winds consistently blow at speeds greater than seven metres per second, turbines operate at only 30-40 per cent of their capacity.
"The issue with wind energy is that it's a variable source of electricity," Keith Hays, a Barcelona, Spain-based research director at Emerging Energy Research, says. "You just can't turn it off and on." Mr Tanti's interest in wind energy was first nurtured at a business owned by his father who quit farming and started a business to distribute potatoes that required a freezer to store them.
Mr Tanti returned from college in 1978 and joined his father's company, which had high energy costs. He installed fins on cooling coils inside the freezer to increase efficiency and moved the condenser to the top of the building, where wind flow helped cool it. Within a year, he'd cut energy consumption by 30 per cent.
Suzlon's sales did not take off until about 1999, when it began developing and operating big wind farms for companies such as Tata Finance and Bajaj Auto, India's second-biggest motorcycle maker. Suzlon has invested in manufacturing, opening nine plants in India, China and the US to support soaring global sales. By March last year, it had installed 3768 megawatts of wind energy, a sixfold increase over 2004. Suzlon's revenue has almost doubled each year since 2004, topping out at $US3.4 billion in the 12 months to March 31.
Monday 4/8/2008 Page: 28
The lights snap off in the five-story, grey concrete building in Pune, India, where Suzlon Energy - the fastest growing of the world's top five wind turbine makers - has its headquarters. After 30 seconds of darkness, the fluorescent bulbs flicker on as back-up generators kick in.
"For us, it's routine," Tulsi Tanti, Suzlon's billionaire founder, says. "You have to understand the country's limitation and, within that, develop your business." Mr Tanti, 50, made his fortune in a decade by supplying wind energy to Indian companies struggling with blackouts and soaring energy costs.
The entrepreneur got his start in 1993, when he bought two turbines to reduce the electricity bills at his textile company in the western state of Gujarat. Mr Tanti's employees dug the foundations, installed the towers and connected the turbines to India's overburdened power grid - taking advantage of government incentives that let the company swap the wind energy it generated for the electricity. it used.
"Within two years, we understood the economics and dynamics of the industry and realised wind is a good source," Mr Tanti says. "Why not focus on that industry?" Suzlon started in 1995 and now ranks as the No. 5 turbine maker worldwide. These are heady days for wind energy producers.
Companies can't keep pace with demand. With oil soaring above $US 147 a barrel in July and concern mounting about global warming, governments are enacting mandates to promote the use of alternatives such as solar and wind.
Last year, utilities and other companies installed a record 20,000 megawatts of wind energy, and the renewable energy source will make up 3 per cent of the world's electricity production in 2012, up from one per cent in 2007, according to the Brussels-based industry group Global Wind Energy Council. "Suzlon came out of nowhere," says Daniel McClure, a fund manager with IG Investment Management, in Toronto.
"They've executed very well under Tanti." Like the entire wind industry, Suzlon is hooked on a growing number of incentives pushed by governments around the globe. In 1997, Massachusetts was the first of 21 US states to begin mandating that utilities buy as much as 20 per cent of their power from renewable sources. US wind energy companies get a US2¢ tax credit for each kilowatt-hour of power they produce. Starting in 2004, Indian states enacted similar mandates as high as 10 per cent for utilities, and companies can claim 80 per cent depreciation on equipment costs in the first year.
China rolled out a plan last year requiring that 15 per cent of the country's energy consumption be met with power from renewable sources by 2020. And in January, the European Union agreed that the region would get 20 per cent of its power consumption from carbon-free sources by 2020 compared with about 6 per cent in 2005. To meet these clean energy rules, utilities are mostly buying wind energy because it's cheaper than other renewable sources such as solar.
"The main driver for wind energy is regulation coming in place in Europe and North America to obtain a greater amount of energy from clean sources," says Geneva-based Philippe De Weck, who helps manage the Clean Energy Fund.
"Solar is still very expensive today. Wind is really left as the only option to fulfil that goal." Mr Tanti, the son of a wheat and peanut farmer, attended small regional colleges after leaving high school, earning a business degree from the P.D. Malaviya Commerce College and electrical and mechanical engineering diplomas from a government polytechnic institute. Although Mr Tanti and his family's net worth rocketed to $US2.2 billion ($2.29 billion) after Suzlon's initial public offering in 2005, he shuns the luxurious lifestyle.
From his small office in Pune, 160km south-east of Bombay in the state of Maharashtra in western India, Mr Tanti says he's pushing his company to grow faster partly to reduce the threat of global warming. Suzlon, which has 13,000 employees worldwide and markets its products in North and South America, Europe, Australia and China, aims to control 25 per cent of the market by 2013, making it the No. 3 wind turbine company. Denmark's Vestas Wind Systems is No. 1 globally, followed by GE Energy.
"With the climate change crisis looming, we have to work faster against it," Mr Tanti says. "That is why high growth is the priority, not just the bottom line." As the company expands, it adds turbines to India's grid that produce more power than Suzlon uses to make the machines, which eliminates its carbon footprint, Mr Tanti says. Suzlon's new, 4.5-hectare campus just 10km from its headquarters will be lit mostly by sunlight to reduce power consumption. The campus will also collect rainwater for use on lawns among the low-rise buildings.
wind energy's main drawback - turbines don't work without a strong breeze - has kept it from becoming a major source of energy for more than a century. In 1887, American Charles F. Brush became the first person to produce power from wind. He built a windmill and used it for 20 years to charge batteries in the cellar of his mansion in Cleveland.
For decades, use of the renewable energy source remained limited because even in the best locations, where winds consistently blow at speeds greater than seven metres per second, turbines operate at only 30-40 per cent of their capacity.
"The issue with wind energy is that it's a variable source of electricity," Keith Hays, a Barcelona, Spain-based research director at Emerging Energy Research, says. "You just can't turn it off and on." Mr Tanti's interest in wind energy was first nurtured at a business owned by his father who quit farming and started a business to distribute potatoes that required a freezer to store them.
Mr Tanti returned from college in 1978 and joined his father's company, which had high energy costs. He installed fins on cooling coils inside the freezer to increase efficiency and moved the condenser to the top of the building, where wind flow helped cool it. Within a year, he'd cut energy consumption by 30 per cent.
Suzlon's sales did not take off until about 1999, when it began developing and operating big wind farms for companies such as Tata Finance and Bajaj Auto, India's second-biggest motorcycle maker. Suzlon has invested in manufacturing, opening nine plants in India, China and the US to support soaring global sales. By March last year, it had installed 3768 megawatts of wind energy, a sixfold increase over 2004. Suzlon's revenue has almost doubled each year since 2004, topping out at $US3.4 billion in the 12 months to March 31.
China sets its own powerful agenda
Daily Telegraph
Monday 4/8/2008 Page: 72
WHILE many bemoan the fact China has not signed the Kyoto Protocol, the country has its own agenda when it comes to tackling climate change. China is the second largest consumer of energy in the world so its government has mandated that by 2010 10 per cent of the nation's total energy consumption must be renewable energy, rising to 15 per cent by 2020. With that in mind, the Minister for Trade, Simon Crean, is leading a Clean Energy Mission to China this week to showcase Australian products and techniques that can help the Chinese achieve this aim.
Participants range from a company making products which cut emissions from furnaces burning fossil fuels, to one generating power from landfill gases, to one making large-scale wind farms. One participant is Dr Richard Corkish from the world-renowned University of New South Wales School of photovoltaic and Renewable Energy Engineering. The university has been working with Chinese companies for some time now, notably SunTech, founded by former University of New South Wales student Zhengrong Shi, now the richest man in mainland China.
We are investing and developing new technologies: They are manufactured in China, but at the moment the market is in Europe," Dr Corkish said. But he does see a time when China will embrace renewable forms of energy on a much larger scale than now. "They are already embracing cheaper alternatives, for example, wind generated energy," he said. "But you can't have wind energy in the cities. That's where the big strength of photovoltaic solar cells lies.
In the cities you can generate electricity right where it's needed. "China's demand for power is outstanding. And it's aware of its impact on the world, of the global warming issues. "But they're also conscious that the problem wasn't created by China but by the developed countries that have had the free ride with cheap fuel and energy." Dr Corkish said that photovoltaic solar cells won't be the first cab off the rank in China. "It's too expensive compared to other options, for example, geothermal power, wind energy, biomass.
"It will get cheaper, and quite soon. But in the past few years the decline in the price of them has dropped because supply can't keep up with demand. "The growth in the world over the past year has been 69 per cent, and we expect 100 per cent growth next year. It's very exciting."
Monday 4/8/2008 Page: 72
WHILE many bemoan the fact China has not signed the Kyoto Protocol, the country has its own agenda when it comes to tackling climate change. China is the second largest consumer of energy in the world so its government has mandated that by 2010 10 per cent of the nation's total energy consumption must be renewable energy, rising to 15 per cent by 2020. With that in mind, the Minister for Trade, Simon Crean, is leading a Clean Energy Mission to China this week to showcase Australian products and techniques that can help the Chinese achieve this aim.
Participants range from a company making products which cut emissions from furnaces burning fossil fuels, to one generating power from landfill gases, to one making large-scale wind farms. One participant is Dr Richard Corkish from the world-renowned University of New South Wales School of photovoltaic and Renewable Energy Engineering. The university has been working with Chinese companies for some time now, notably SunTech, founded by former University of New South Wales student Zhengrong Shi, now the richest man in mainland China.
We are investing and developing new technologies: They are manufactured in China, but at the moment the market is in Europe," Dr Corkish said. But he does see a time when China will embrace renewable forms of energy on a much larger scale than now. "They are already embracing cheaper alternatives, for example, wind generated energy," he said. "But you can't have wind energy in the cities. That's where the big strength of photovoltaic solar cells lies.
In the cities you can generate electricity right where it's needed. "China's demand for power is outstanding. And it's aware of its impact on the world, of the global warming issues. "But they're also conscious that the problem wasn't created by China but by the developed countries that have had the free ride with cheap fuel and energy." Dr Corkish said that photovoltaic solar cells won't be the first cab off the rank in China. "It's too expensive compared to other options, for example, geothermal power, wind energy, biomass.
"It will get cheaper, and quite soon. But in the past few years the decline in the price of them has dropped because supply can't keep up with demand. "The growth in the world over the past year has been 69 per cent, and we expect 100 per cent growth next year. It's very exciting."
Power Play: Queenslanders face shock electricity bills
Courier Mail
Monday 4/8/2008 Page: 1
QUEENSLANDERS could be stuck with the highest electricity prices in the nation because the State Government is refusing to dump a controversial gas scheme. Premier Anna Bligh has ignored warnings to ditch the Queensland Gas Scheme amid concerns it will significantly drive up consumer power costs.
The Federal Government feared the scheme - which forced electricity retailers to source at least 13 per cent of electricity from gas-fired generation - could pose an "unnecessary cost on the economy" when a greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme starts in 2010. Consumers are already facing price hikes of 16 per cent, or up to $200 a year, under the ETS. NSW will abandon a similar program when the ETS starts.
The standoff came as new modelling revealed the ETS could drain $1.4 billion from state and territory coffers, severely undermining their ability to deliver health and other essential services and sparking fears of job cuts and tax increases. Economic modelling by the Canberra-based Australia Institute showed Queensland could be left with an ETS "hangover" of $289 million a year based on a modest carbon price of $20 a tonne.
The states have been holding talks with the Federal Government after a report showed millions of dollars would be sucked out of state budgets by an emissions trading scheme. But federal Climate Change Minister Penny Wong refused to reveal if the states were eligible for compensation and would not speculate on the viability of the Queensland Gas Scheme.
Senator Wong's green paper said the rationale for the gas scheme would diminish once an ETS started. "While the Queensland Gas Scheme is not necessarily incompatible with a national cap & trade scheme, both schemes are likely to promote the use of gas," the report said. "Therefore, its interaction with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme needs careful consideration to avoid the imposition of unnecessary cost.
"State and territory governments are encouraged to discontinue their market-based program once the carbon pollution reduction scheme commences." A spokesman for Ms Bligh failed to confirm whether the gas scheme, which has promoted significant investment of gas-fired power stations, would be ditched.
"The Queensland Gas Scheme. .. is providing a more environmentally friendly alternative source of energy and we will be working with the Federal Government to make sure any new arrangements continue to involve the development of our gas industry," the spokesman said.
Under the scheme the quota of gas that must be sourced for electricity will increase from 13 per cent to 15 per cent in 2010, rising to 18 per cent by 2020. But stakeholders warned it would theoretically drive up prices in Queensland. The Australian Industry Greenhouse Network said Queensland's scheme added another layer of administration and cost that would be passed on to consumers.
Monday 4/8/2008 Page: 1
QUEENSLANDERS could be stuck with the highest electricity prices in the nation because the State Government is refusing to dump a controversial gas scheme. Premier Anna Bligh has ignored warnings to ditch the Queensland Gas Scheme amid concerns it will significantly drive up consumer power costs.
The Federal Government feared the scheme - which forced electricity retailers to source at least 13 per cent of electricity from gas-fired generation - could pose an "unnecessary cost on the economy" when a greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme starts in 2010. Consumers are already facing price hikes of 16 per cent, or up to $200 a year, under the ETS. NSW will abandon a similar program when the ETS starts.
The standoff came as new modelling revealed the ETS could drain $1.4 billion from state and territory coffers, severely undermining their ability to deliver health and other essential services and sparking fears of job cuts and tax increases. Economic modelling by the Canberra-based Australia Institute showed Queensland could be left with an ETS "hangover" of $289 million a year based on a modest carbon price of $20 a tonne.
The states have been holding talks with the Federal Government after a report showed millions of dollars would be sucked out of state budgets by an emissions trading scheme. But federal Climate Change Minister Penny Wong refused to reveal if the states were eligible for compensation and would not speculate on the viability of the Queensland Gas Scheme.
Senator Wong's green paper said the rationale for the gas scheme would diminish once an ETS started. "While the Queensland Gas Scheme is not necessarily incompatible with a national cap & trade scheme, both schemes are likely to promote the use of gas," the report said. "Therefore, its interaction with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme needs careful consideration to avoid the imposition of unnecessary cost.
"State and territory governments are encouraged to discontinue their market-based program once the carbon pollution reduction scheme commences." A spokesman for Ms Bligh failed to confirm whether the gas scheme, which has promoted significant investment of gas-fired power stations, would be ditched.
"The Queensland Gas Scheme. .. is providing a more environmentally friendly alternative source of energy and we will be working with the Federal Government to make sure any new arrangements continue to involve the development of our gas industry," the spokesman said.
Under the scheme the quota of gas that must be sourced for electricity will increase from 13 per cent to 15 per cent in 2010, rising to 18 per cent by 2020. But stakeholders warned it would theoretically drive up prices in Queensland. The Australian Industry Greenhouse Network said Queensland's scheme added another layer of administration and cost that would be passed on to consumers.
Thursday, 21 August 2008
South Africa acts to curb emissions
Canberra Times
Monday 4/8/2008 Page: 8
The South African Government has set out an ambitious proposal to deal with climate change in the coming years, including slapping a possible carbon tax on carbon dioxide spewing industries. Saying the world faced "a global climate emergency," the Environment Ministry unveiled the strategy geared to reducing greenhouse gases last week.
Environment Minister Martinus Van SchalkWtiyk said,"The world faces a global climate emergency. It is now clear that only action by both developed and developing countries can prevent the climate crisis from deepening." The plan, which includes stringent energy-efficiency measures, has been endorsed by the cabinet, though Parliament must still approve it. Finance officials are investigating ways of implementing the tax.
The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said evidence for warming is now "unequivocal" and that there is a more than 90 per cent probability that humans are the cause of it. Human-generated greenhouse gases rose by 70 per cent between 1970 and 2004, from 28.7 to 49 billion tonnes per year in carbon dioxide or its equivalent.
South Africa emitted about 446 trillion tonnes of CO2 in 2003 and forecasts growth to a maximum of 550 million tonnes a year by 2025, according to the Environment Ministry. Mr Van SchalkWtiyk said greenhouse gas emissions must stop growing by 2020 to 2025 at the latest, stabilise for tip to 10 years, and then decline in absolute terms.
"The aim is to limit global temperature increases to 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels." The plan has been welcomed by business associations and environmentalists as a significant step towards galvanising rich industrialised nations into addressing climate change.
The chief executive of National Business Initiative, a group advocating sustainable development, Andre Fourie, said,"The time is right for the country's private sector to show leadership by partnering with Government to develop a solutions-driven national climate change mitigation and adaptation response.
"The cost of inaction far outweighs the cost of mitigating the effects of climate change." South Africa's reliance on coal to generate electricity makes it a big emitter of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases per capita. State-owned power generator Eskom gets 90 per cent of its electricity from coal-generated plants. The supplier plans to develop three more coal-generated power stations in the next eight years.
The Government's proposal includes shifting to cleaner-burning coal by introducing more stringent thermal efficiency and emissions standards for coal-fired power stations. It also proposes providing incentives to renewable energy through a tariff system to be finalised by the middle of next year. Other aspects of the strategy include reducing transport emissions by imposing stringent fuel efficiency standards and promoting hybrid electric vehicles.
Professor Harald Winkler, from the University of Cape Town climate change department, said,"Our emissions per capita are higher than many other developing countries. .. due to our coal-based energy system. "Our analysis shows that putting a price on carbon has the single largest impact on emissions. "By using the price signal, it sends signals to all actors in the economy, and can shift behaviour."
Monday 4/8/2008 Page: 8
The South African Government has set out an ambitious proposal to deal with climate change in the coming years, including slapping a possible carbon tax on carbon dioxide spewing industries. Saying the world faced "a global climate emergency," the Environment Ministry unveiled the strategy geared to reducing greenhouse gases last week.Environment Minister Martinus Van SchalkWtiyk said,"The world faces a global climate emergency. It is now clear that only action by both developed and developing countries can prevent the climate crisis from deepening." The plan, which includes stringent energy-efficiency measures, has been endorsed by the cabinet, though Parliament must still approve it. Finance officials are investigating ways of implementing the tax.
The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said evidence for warming is now "unequivocal" and that there is a more than 90 per cent probability that humans are the cause of it. Human-generated greenhouse gases rose by 70 per cent between 1970 and 2004, from 28.7 to 49 billion tonnes per year in carbon dioxide or its equivalent.
South Africa emitted about 446 trillion tonnes of CO2 in 2003 and forecasts growth to a maximum of 550 million tonnes a year by 2025, according to the Environment Ministry. Mr Van SchalkWtiyk said greenhouse gas emissions must stop growing by 2020 to 2025 at the latest, stabilise for tip to 10 years, and then decline in absolute terms.
"The aim is to limit global temperature increases to 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels." The plan has been welcomed by business associations and environmentalists as a significant step towards galvanising rich industrialised nations into addressing climate change.
The chief executive of National Business Initiative, a group advocating sustainable development, Andre Fourie, said,"The time is right for the country's private sector to show leadership by partnering with Government to develop a solutions-driven national climate change mitigation and adaptation response.
"The cost of inaction far outweighs the cost of mitigating the effects of climate change." South Africa's reliance on coal to generate electricity makes it a big emitter of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases per capita. State-owned power generator Eskom gets 90 per cent of its electricity from coal-generated plants. The supplier plans to develop three more coal-generated power stations in the next eight years.
The Government's proposal includes shifting to cleaner-burning coal by introducing more stringent thermal efficiency and emissions standards for coal-fired power stations. It also proposes providing incentives to renewable energy through a tariff system to be finalised by the middle of next year. Other aspects of the strategy include reducing transport emissions by imposing stringent fuel efficiency standards and promoting hybrid electric vehicles.
Professor Harald Winkler, from the University of Cape Town climate change department, said,"Our emissions per capita are higher than many other developing countries. .. due to our coal-based energy system. "Our analysis shows that putting a price on carbon has the single largest impact on emissions. "By using the price signal, it sends signals to all actors in the economy, and can shift behaviour."
Demand for solar hots up
Sunday Mail Brisbane
Sunday 3/8/2008 Page: 25
THE Federal Government has shed some sunlight on its controversial means-tested solar rebate, with new figures showing the program is proving popular. Environment Minister Peter Garrett said yesterday applications for the $8000 rebate had grown at a significant rate since the renewed scheme was announced in the May federal Budget. In response, the Opposition, which has relentlessly attacked the Government for means testing the rebate, accused Mr Garrett of planning to lift the rebate income level from $100,000 to $150,000 in a face saving exercise.
"We've seen record growth in the number of solar rebate applications lodged since the Government acted on budget night to better target the rebate to those earning less than $100,000," Mr Garrett said. "An average of 522 applications have been lodged weekly since the Budget, with 794 in one week alone." He said this rate of application was higher than in any single week before the Budget and was 150 applications a week more than the average in the four weeks before the Budget.
Opposition climate change spokesman Greg Hunt said he expected Mr Garrett to announce he would raise the income bar on the means test. "Some industry sources believe Mr Garrett will soon announce the Government will increase the means test on the solar panel rebate program from $100,000 to $150,000," Mr Hunt said. "(This will) not scrap the means test, simply tweak it. It still makes it harder for many people who want to install solar in their homes. It would still treat the rebate as welfare, not a positive incentive to boost the renewable sector."
Sunday 3/8/2008 Page: 25
THE Federal Government has shed some sunlight on its controversial means-tested solar rebate, with new figures showing the program is proving popular. Environment Minister Peter Garrett said yesterday applications for the $8000 rebate had grown at a significant rate since the renewed scheme was announced in the May federal Budget. In response, the Opposition, which has relentlessly attacked the Government for means testing the rebate, accused Mr Garrett of planning to lift the rebate income level from $100,000 to $150,000 in a face saving exercise.
"We've seen record growth in the number of solar rebate applications lodged since the Government acted on budget night to better target the rebate to those earning less than $100,000," Mr Garrett said. "An average of 522 applications have been lodged weekly since the Budget, with 794 in one week alone." He said this rate of application was higher than in any single week before the Budget and was 150 applications a week more than the average in the four weeks before the Budget.
Opposition climate change spokesman Greg Hunt said he expected Mr Garrett to announce he would raise the income bar on the means test. "Some industry sources believe Mr Garrett will soon announce the Government will increase the means test on the solar panel rebate program from $100,000 to $150,000," Mr Hunt said. "(This will) not scrap the means test, simply tweak it. It still makes it harder for many people who want to install solar in their homes. It would still treat the rebate as welfare, not a positive incentive to boost the renewable sector."
Support for tougher rules on green housing
Sunday Age
Sunday 3/8/2008 Page: 5
TOUGHER rules to make new houses greener could "easily" be achieved and are widely supported by people who recently built, or are planning to build, a home, a Government commissioned report has found. The report, obtained by The Sunday Age under freedom-of-information laws, found that the State Government could improve the energy rating scheme for new homes from five stars to six "immediately and with no major problems" and seven stars was "attainable in the medium term."
Spring Street is reviewing the five-star system, which makes it compulsory for new homes to have either a solar hot-water system or a rainwater tank. Houses are also required to have more energy-efficient building materials, restricted water pressure and reduced flow rates for shower heads and taps. Victoria's system was an Australian-first, but international comparisons have since found that for a climate like Melbourne's, 7.5 stars is the average mandated minimum in developed nations.
The Sunday Age believes that the Government is considering scrapping the choice between the rain tank and solar hot water and will instead focus on setting water, energy and stormwater targets and additional requirements for lighting, heating and cooling. The Government is facing stiff opposition from the building industry, which opposes more regulation on new homes. The Master Builders Association argues that more "stars" reduce housing affordability and existing houses should instead face energy-efficiency standards.
But the report - the only one of seven climate change policy documents the Brumby Government has not released publicly contradicts the argument that home builders are unwilling to pay extra upfront costs. The report's author, Wallis Consulting Group, conducted four focus groups with different home builders: some from the inner city, others from new suburbs, some who individually designed their homes, others who brought "off the plan."
Most of the home builders interviewed wanted the Government to be more "strict" with energy regulations and were happy with six stars. Six stars was explained as better insulation and orientation of the house on the block. The groups were told this would add 1-2% to building costs but reduce demand for heating and cooling by 24%.
The focus groups also backed seven stars - which includes even better insulation, ensuring no large unprotected windows faced east or west, and eaves on windows - but there was some resistance, particularly from those who felt it may be difficult to change the way a house sat on a small block, and from those who did not want to modify windows.
It was explained the seven stars would add 2-6% to building costs but reduce demand for heating and cooling by 45%. Eight stars, which included a high standard of insulation, careful design and orientation would, the focus groups were told, add 4-12% to the cost of a house but reduce heating and cooling needs by 65%.
This was supported only in greenfields developments such as housing estates. "This rating would act as a deterrent to most to build and the cost implications are seen to be large," the report found. But the authors did find universal support for the progressive tightening of regulations over time. The report also found that people have a "very poor and confused" knowledge of green energy and there was little appetite for regulation of lighting.
Sunday 3/8/2008 Page: 5
TOUGHER rules to make new houses greener could "easily" be achieved and are widely supported by people who recently built, or are planning to build, a home, a Government commissioned report has found. The report, obtained by The Sunday Age under freedom-of-information laws, found that the State Government could improve the energy rating scheme for new homes from five stars to six "immediately and with no major problems" and seven stars was "attainable in the medium term."
Spring Street is reviewing the five-star system, which makes it compulsory for new homes to have either a solar hot-water system or a rainwater tank. Houses are also required to have more energy-efficient building materials, restricted water pressure and reduced flow rates for shower heads and taps. Victoria's system was an Australian-first, but international comparisons have since found that for a climate like Melbourne's, 7.5 stars is the average mandated minimum in developed nations.
The Sunday Age believes that the Government is considering scrapping the choice between the rain tank and solar hot water and will instead focus on setting water, energy and stormwater targets and additional requirements for lighting, heating and cooling. The Government is facing stiff opposition from the building industry, which opposes more regulation on new homes. The Master Builders Association argues that more "stars" reduce housing affordability and existing houses should instead face energy-efficiency standards.
But the report - the only one of seven climate change policy documents the Brumby Government has not released publicly contradicts the argument that home builders are unwilling to pay extra upfront costs. The report's author, Wallis Consulting Group, conducted four focus groups with different home builders: some from the inner city, others from new suburbs, some who individually designed their homes, others who brought "off the plan."
Most of the home builders interviewed wanted the Government to be more "strict" with energy regulations and were happy with six stars. Six stars was explained as better insulation and orientation of the house on the block. The groups were told this would add 1-2% to building costs but reduce demand for heating and cooling by 24%.
The focus groups also backed seven stars - which includes even better insulation, ensuring no large unprotected windows faced east or west, and eaves on windows - but there was some resistance, particularly from those who felt it may be difficult to change the way a house sat on a small block, and from those who did not want to modify windows.
It was explained the seven stars would add 2-6% to building costs but reduce demand for heating and cooling by 45%. Eight stars, which included a high standard of insulation, careful design and orientation would, the focus groups were told, add 4-12% to the cost of a house but reduce heating and cooling needs by 65%.
This was supported only in greenfields developments such as housing estates. "This rating would act as a deterrent to most to build and the cost implications are seen to be large," the report found. But the authors did find universal support for the progressive tightening of regulations over time. The report also found that people have a "very poor and confused" knowledge of green energy and there was little appetite for regulation of lighting.
Trees bring relief over emissions
Independent Weekly
Friday 1/8/2008 Page: 18
Farmers can rest easy when it comes to tackling their carbon emissions, if at least 1 per cent of their property is covered in trees, said climate-change researcher Dr Richard Eckard. He told an information session at the Waite Research Centre that the scheme was only asking 1-5 per cent initially, which may well be covered by a riparian zone or landcare activity. He also discussed the options and impacts of the emissions trading scheme on agriculture, particularly for dairy farmers.
He said although the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme did not feature agriculture, a 2015 target had been set for the inclusion. Dr Eckard said the myth that the scheme could cost farmers a permit price of up to $120 per cow was incorrect, because the figure was also based on carbon neutrality. Apart from tree planting, reducing stock and nitrogen fertiliser use, Dr Eckard said options to reduce emissions in agriculture were limited.
Friday 1/8/2008 Page: 18
Farmers can rest easy when it comes to tackling their carbon emissions, if at least 1 per cent of their property is covered in trees, said climate-change researcher Dr Richard Eckard. He told an information session at the Waite Research Centre that the scheme was only asking 1-5 per cent initially, which may well be covered by a riparian zone or landcare activity. He also discussed the options and impacts of the emissions trading scheme on agriculture, particularly for dairy farmers.
He said although the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme did not feature agriculture, a 2015 target had been set for the inclusion. Dr Eckard said the myth that the scheme could cost farmers a permit price of up to $120 per cow was incorrect, because the figure was also based on carbon neutrality. Apart from tree planting, reducing stock and nitrogen fertiliser use, Dr Eckard said options to reduce emissions in agriculture were limited.
Wednesday, 20 August 2008
Beijing turns its back on dirty energy
Sydney Morning Herald
Saturday 2/8/2008 Page: 42
CYNICS may scoff, but China - the world's biggest greenhouse-gas emitter - is poised to lead world production of solar cells, wind energy turbines and low-carbon energy technology. The nation is already the world's largest renewable-energy producer as measured by installed generating capacity, according to a report from the Climate Group, a coalition of companies and governments that support solutions to global warming. The country is also the world's top manufacturer of solar cells and will be the leading exporter of wind turbines by 2009.
China's position as a renewable-energy consumer and manufacturer runs counter to its ranking as one of the world's biggest polluters and the country's rapid expansion of coal-fired power generation. About 75 per cent of China's electricity comes from coal, said Changhua Wu, China director of the Climate Group, who is based in Beijing.
"They have to do clean energy because they can't just do more and more dirty energy," said Michael Liebreich, chief executive officer of the London company New Energy Finance, which provides research to clean-energy investors. "We're seeing China as being a No 1, 2 or 3 player in lots of different sectors in this industry." China is closing older coal-fired power plants and replacing them with more efficient coal generators, Ms Wu said. While China will continue to rely on coal to fuel its rapid economic growth, state officials understand the need to move to clean energy, she said.
The Government wants to reduce the amount of energy China uses to produce each unit of economic output by 20 per cent in two years and has told its 1000 largest energy-consuming companies to cut their power consumption even more.
Meanwhile, the Government is imposing emergency traffic and industrial production restrictions to reduce pollution during the Olympic Games in Beijing. Leaders "know the urgency of the issue," Ms Wu said. "They know the impact of the issue not only to the world but to China." About 16 per cent of China's electricity came from renewable sources in 2006, led by the world's largest number of hydroelectric generators, according to the report.
China invested more than $US12 billion ($12.8 billion) in renewable energy in 2007, second only to Germany. The nation needs to invest another $US398 billion to reach its 2020 renewable energy goals, an average of $US33 billion a year, the report said.
"The system in China compared to many other countries seems to be more effective," Ms Wu said. "Basically, if the top leadership in Beijing decides to drive this kind of effort, they really get things done." China, which has doubled its output of solar panels in each of the last four years, exports them to developed countries which can afford the higher costs of generating electricity from the sun, New Energy's Mr Liebreich said. "Wind is a more mature industry," he said. "There isn't the same economic penalty today to implement wind." In 2007, each of China's 1.3 billion people emitted 5.1 tonnes of carbon, less than the 8.6 tonnes from each European and the 19.4 tonnes for each American.
Saturday 2/8/2008 Page: 42
CYNICS may scoff, but China - the world's biggest greenhouse-gas emitter - is poised to lead world production of solar cells, wind energy turbines and low-carbon energy technology. The nation is already the world's largest renewable-energy producer as measured by installed generating capacity, according to a report from the Climate Group, a coalition of companies and governments that support solutions to global warming. The country is also the world's top manufacturer of solar cells and will be the leading exporter of wind turbines by 2009.China's position as a renewable-energy consumer and manufacturer runs counter to its ranking as one of the world's biggest polluters and the country's rapid expansion of coal-fired power generation. About 75 per cent of China's electricity comes from coal, said Changhua Wu, China director of the Climate Group, who is based in Beijing.
"They have to do clean energy because they can't just do more and more dirty energy," said Michael Liebreich, chief executive officer of the London company New Energy Finance, which provides research to clean-energy investors. "We're seeing China as being a No 1, 2 or 3 player in lots of different sectors in this industry." China is closing older coal-fired power plants and replacing them with more efficient coal generators, Ms Wu said. While China will continue to rely on coal to fuel its rapid economic growth, state officials understand the need to move to clean energy, she said.
The Government wants to reduce the amount of energy China uses to produce each unit of economic output by 20 per cent in two years and has told its 1000 largest energy-consuming companies to cut their power consumption even more.
Meanwhile, the Government is imposing emergency traffic and industrial production restrictions to reduce pollution during the Olympic Games in Beijing. Leaders "know the urgency of the issue," Ms Wu said. "They know the impact of the issue not only to the world but to China." About 16 per cent of China's electricity came from renewable sources in 2006, led by the world's largest number of hydroelectric generators, according to the report.
China invested more than $US12 billion ($12.8 billion) in renewable energy in 2007, second only to Germany. The nation needs to invest another $US398 billion to reach its 2020 renewable energy goals, an average of $US33 billion a year, the report said.
"The system in China compared to many other countries seems to be more effective," Ms Wu said. "Basically, if the top leadership in Beijing decides to drive this kind of effort, they really get things done." China, which has doubled its output of solar panels in each of the last four years, exports them to developed countries which can afford the higher costs of generating electricity from the sun, New Energy's Mr Liebreich said. "Wind is a more mature industry," he said. "There isn't the same economic penalty today to implement wind." In 2007, each of China's 1.3 billion people emitted 5.1 tonnes of carbon, less than the 8.6 tonnes from each European and the 19.4 tonnes for each American.
Despite sceptics' noise, scientific consensus is growing
Sydney Morning Herald
Saturday 2/8/2008 Page: 31
Anyone keeping up with current affairs could be forgiven for thinking scientists are riven with doubt over climate change. Climate sceptics have enjoyed a resurgence as the federal Coalition danced around the introduction of carbon trading and heavy polluting industries began an intensive lobbying effort to convince the Federal Government of their special needs. The Page Research Centre, a think tank associated with the Nationals, last week hosted a forum that concluded that the science behind global warming was shaky.
Backbench MPs in both major parties have reportedly questioned the science on which the Federal Government's recent green paper is based. The noise has been loudest on the internet, where websites give voice to people who believe scientists are suppressing evidence to protect their careers. Unfortunately for the sceptics, and for everyone else, the evidence for human induced climate change is stronger than ever. Scientists the Herald spoke to where candid in their assessment that there was little room for doubt that global warming is happening and that the only changes in the past few months have been political changes.
"It looks as though the population believes climate change is serious and there seems to be momentum behind the issue, and there are some people who don't like that," says Chris Mitchell, head of the CSIRO's Climate, Weather and Ocean Prediction group. "There are still plenty of creationists around, and there are people who believe tobacco is not linked to serious health effects, and so there are still people who choose to ignore or doubt the amount of evidence for climate change."
Andy Pitman, an editor of the prestigious international Journal Of Climate, says there are good reasons why global warming sceptics cannot get a run in peer-reviewed scientific literature. "We would kill, literally kill, for a good paper that proved the science on global warming was wrong," Pitman says. "Then I could retire and accept my chair at Harvard. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen, and there's vast amounts of evidence why."
Pitman, who is also a lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ABC) and director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, says the reasons are simple: "In essence, the models we use to predict climate have been proven right." In the past decade, he says, refinements in computer simulations have allowed scientists to accurately predict climate in four dimensions: time, latitude, longitude and depth of the atmosphere.
"You feed in the greenhouse gas concentrations that we've seen, and the models predict extremely well the climate variations we've seen. If you don't do that, you get nothing. The mathematical probability of it being a chance mistake, or the wrong numbers, is astronomical." The claim, often cited by sceptics, that atmospheric temperature did not appear to match the levels predicted by climate models was revised by a reassessment of the data last year.
The research, partly carried out in Australia, ended up reinforcing the accuracy of existing climate models. Claims that solar activity may be causing recent global warming, reinforced in State Parliament by the Treasurer, Michael Costa, have been comprehensively demolished in peer reviewed journals. As weak spots in climate modelling have been eliminated one by one, commentators who do not believe carbon emissions lead to global warming have been retreating to smaller and smaller islands of resistance, says Pitman.
This is also the view of the Australian Academy of Science, established in 1954 along the lines of Britain's Royal Society. Its president, Kurt Lambda, told the Herald: "If there's been any change at all recently, it's that the observational evidence suggests we're moving away from the lower limits of the ABC projections towards more serious scenarios. I've certainly seen no evidence of scientists holding back on their views or suppressing findings or anything approaching that."
Concerned that debate about climate change is being muddied by slanted media reporting of the issue, the academy recently established a committee to try to present the clearest information to the public. "I think there is healthy scepticism and then there's unhealthy scepticism," Lambda says. "What you do see is people who will claim that simply because they have a PhD in engineering, that they are an expert on climate modelling." But labelling people "climate dangerous isn't helpful either, Lambda says. "The other side of the coin is the danger that people who want to discuss the legitimate scientific issues in public becoming less if they are going to be called dangers. We do need to keep giving scientists the freedom to (go) back and forth on these issues and apply their scepticism."
The CSIRO's Mitchell says any remaining doubt among Australian researchers of climate change would have surfaced in peer reviewed literature. "The fact is that a lot of the people working at the coalface of climate change research spend more time concerned they are underestimating some of the issues rather than exaggerating them."
Saturday 2/8/2008 Page: 31
Anyone keeping up with current affairs could be forgiven for thinking scientists are riven with doubt over climate change. Climate sceptics have enjoyed a resurgence as the federal Coalition danced around the introduction of carbon trading and heavy polluting industries began an intensive lobbying effort to convince the Federal Government of their special needs. The Page Research Centre, a think tank associated with the Nationals, last week hosted a forum that concluded that the science behind global warming was shaky.
Backbench MPs in both major parties have reportedly questioned the science on which the Federal Government's recent green paper is based. The noise has been loudest on the internet, where websites give voice to people who believe scientists are suppressing evidence to protect their careers. Unfortunately for the sceptics, and for everyone else, the evidence for human induced climate change is stronger than ever. Scientists the Herald spoke to where candid in their assessment that there was little room for doubt that global warming is happening and that the only changes in the past few months have been political changes.
"It looks as though the population believes climate change is serious and there seems to be momentum behind the issue, and there are some people who don't like that," says Chris Mitchell, head of the CSIRO's Climate, Weather and Ocean Prediction group. "There are still plenty of creationists around, and there are people who believe tobacco is not linked to serious health effects, and so there are still people who choose to ignore or doubt the amount of evidence for climate change."
Andy Pitman, an editor of the prestigious international Journal Of Climate, says there are good reasons why global warming sceptics cannot get a run in peer-reviewed scientific literature. "We would kill, literally kill, for a good paper that proved the science on global warming was wrong," Pitman says. "Then I could retire and accept my chair at Harvard. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen, and there's vast amounts of evidence why."
Pitman, who is also a lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ABC) and director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, says the reasons are simple: "In essence, the models we use to predict climate have been proven right." In the past decade, he says, refinements in computer simulations have allowed scientists to accurately predict climate in four dimensions: time, latitude, longitude and depth of the atmosphere.
"You feed in the greenhouse gas concentrations that we've seen, and the models predict extremely well the climate variations we've seen. If you don't do that, you get nothing. The mathematical probability of it being a chance mistake, or the wrong numbers, is astronomical." The claim, often cited by sceptics, that atmospheric temperature did not appear to match the levels predicted by climate models was revised by a reassessment of the data last year.
The research, partly carried out in Australia, ended up reinforcing the accuracy of existing climate models. Claims that solar activity may be causing recent global warming, reinforced in State Parliament by the Treasurer, Michael Costa, have been comprehensively demolished in peer reviewed journals. As weak spots in climate modelling have been eliminated one by one, commentators who do not believe carbon emissions lead to global warming have been retreating to smaller and smaller islands of resistance, says Pitman.
This is also the view of the Australian Academy of Science, established in 1954 along the lines of Britain's Royal Society. Its president, Kurt Lambda, told the Herald: "If there's been any change at all recently, it's that the observational evidence suggests we're moving away from the lower limits of the ABC projections towards more serious scenarios. I've certainly seen no evidence of scientists holding back on their views or suppressing findings or anything approaching that."
Concerned that debate about climate change is being muddied by slanted media reporting of the issue, the academy recently established a committee to try to present the clearest information to the public. "I think there is healthy scepticism and then there's unhealthy scepticism," Lambda says. "What you do see is people who will claim that simply because they have a PhD in engineering, that they are an expert on climate modelling." But labelling people "climate dangerous isn't helpful either, Lambda says. "The other side of the coin is the danger that people who want to discuss the legitimate scientific issues in public becoming less if they are going to be called dangers. We do need to keep giving scientists the freedom to (go) back and forth on these issues and apply their scepticism."
The CSIRO's Mitchell says any remaining doubt among Australian researchers of climate change would have surfaced in peer reviewed literature. "The fact is that a lot of the people working at the coalface of climate change research spend more time concerned they are underestimating some of the issues rather than exaggerating them."
Embrace alternative fuels or face higher coal use, Shell says
Canberra Times
Saturday 2/8/2008 Page: 21
Shell has warned environmentalists and ethical investors that failure to exploit tar sands and other unconventional oil products would worsen climate change because it would lead to the world burning even more carbon-heavy coal. Shell's chief executive, Jeroen van der Veer, said the world needed every kind of energy source it could find at a time of soaring demand. He said groups that had threatened to organise a ban on alternative fossil fuels should be careful because without unconventionals "the balancing fuel will be coal."
Shell revealed its tar sands operation posted 74 per cent profit growth to $351 million ($A374 million) in the second quarter, providing a relatively modest but important boost to total group profits of $A8.4 billion. A group of retail cooperative societies in Britain, known as the Co-Op, and wildlife group WWF are calling a meeting of ethical investment funds in September to try to put pressure on governments not to buy any oil supplies coming from tar sands. While environmentalists have claimed that tar sands extraction uses at least three times more energy than traditional oil, Mr Van der Veer said the "well-to-wheels" carbon footprint was only 15 per cent higher than conventional oil.
But Greenpeace questioned the carbon figures and expressed further concern at Shell's growing use of tar sands. A climate change campaigner at Greenpeace, Charlie Kronick, said,"Oil companies are increasingly dependent on these unconventionals as they get squeezed out of countries such as Nigeria and Russia. We fear tar sands are just the entrance ramp to oil shale, gas-to-liquids and other non-conventionals, which will just press the red button for climate change disaster."
Shell was upbeat about another controversial area, expressing optimism that it would be able to sign agreements "before too long" with Iraq despite non-governmental organisations claiming that British and US companies were exploiting the Western military presence there. Much would depend on the security situation, Mr Van der Veer said. Discussions are continuing over oil and gas operations in a country still riven by fighting five years after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
Shell said it could make no predictions about the future of oil prices, which have only just fallen back from recent highs of nearly $US150 a barrel. Shell said it planned for both high price and low-price scenarios but always with volatility in mind. Mr Van der Veer indicated that further analysis had led him to reconsider whether financial speculators were as much to blame for that volatility as he had suggested in the past.
Shell said it was pleased with its overall performance, which helped to produce a return on capital 26 per cent higher quarter-on-quarter, but its shares fell nearly 2 per cent to £18.08 ($A38.23) as investors worried about falling oil prices. A doubling of the price of oil to $US120 a barrel in the second quarter boosted profits, but Shell saw overall oil and gas production fall by 1.6 per cent to 3.1 million barrels in the second quarter versus a year earlier.
Saturday 2/8/2008 Page: 21
Shell has warned environmentalists and ethical investors that failure to exploit tar sands and other unconventional oil products would worsen climate change because it would lead to the world burning even more carbon-heavy coal. Shell's chief executive, Jeroen van der Veer, said the world needed every kind of energy source it could find at a time of soaring demand. He said groups that had threatened to organise a ban on alternative fossil fuels should be careful because without unconventionals "the balancing fuel will be coal."
Shell revealed its tar sands operation posted 74 per cent profit growth to $351 million ($A374 million) in the second quarter, providing a relatively modest but important boost to total group profits of $A8.4 billion. A group of retail cooperative societies in Britain, known as the Co-Op, and wildlife group WWF are calling a meeting of ethical investment funds in September to try to put pressure on governments not to buy any oil supplies coming from tar sands. While environmentalists have claimed that tar sands extraction uses at least three times more energy than traditional oil, Mr Van der Veer said the "well-to-wheels" carbon footprint was only 15 per cent higher than conventional oil.
But Greenpeace questioned the carbon figures and expressed further concern at Shell's growing use of tar sands. A climate change campaigner at Greenpeace, Charlie Kronick, said,"Oil companies are increasingly dependent on these unconventionals as they get squeezed out of countries such as Nigeria and Russia. We fear tar sands are just the entrance ramp to oil shale, gas-to-liquids and other non-conventionals, which will just press the red button for climate change disaster."
Shell was upbeat about another controversial area, expressing optimism that it would be able to sign agreements "before too long" with Iraq despite non-governmental organisations claiming that British and US companies were exploiting the Western military presence there. Much would depend on the security situation, Mr Van der Veer said. Discussions are continuing over oil and gas operations in a country still riven by fighting five years after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
Shell said it could make no predictions about the future of oil prices, which have only just fallen back from recent highs of nearly $US150 a barrel. Shell said it planned for both high price and low-price scenarios but always with volatility in mind. Mr Van der Veer indicated that further analysis had led him to reconsider whether financial speculators were as much to blame for that volatility as he had suggested in the past.
Shell said it was pleased with its overall performance, which helped to produce a return on capital 26 per cent higher quarter-on-quarter, but its shares fell nearly 2 per cent to £18.08 ($A38.23) as investors worried about falling oil prices. A doubling of the price of oil to $US120 a barrel in the second quarter boosted profits, but Shell saw overall oil and gas production fall by 1.6 per cent to 3.1 million barrels in the second quarter versus a year earlier.
Tuesday, 19 August 2008
Who is behind climate change deniers?
Age
Saturday 2/8/2008 Page: 9
WHEN the tobacco industry was feeling the heat from scientists who showed that smoking caused cancer, it took decisive action. It engaged in a decades-long public relations campaign to undermine the medical research and discredit the scientists. The aim was not to prove tobacco harmless but to cast doubt on the science. In May this year, the multibillion- dollar oil giant Exxon-Mobil acknowledged that it had been doing something similar. It announced that it would cease funding nine groups that had fuelled a global campaign to deny climate change.
Exxon-Mobil's decision comes after a shareholder revolt by members of the Rockefeller family and big superannuation funds to get the oil giant to take climate change more seriously. Exxon-Mobil (once Standard Oil) was founded by the legendary John D. Rockefeller. Last year, the chairman of the US House of Representatives oversight committee on science and technology, Brad Miller, said Exxon-Mobil's support for sceptics "appears to be an effort to distort public discussion."
The funding of an array of think tanks and institutes that house climate sceptics and deniers also worried Britain's premier scientific body, the Royal Society. It found that in 2005 Exxon-Mobil distributed nearly $3 million to 39 groups that "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence that greenhouse gases are driving climate change."
It asked Exxon-Mobil to stop the funding and its protests helped force Exxon-Mobil's recent retreat. The chief scientist of New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Dr Jim Salinger, knows all about misrepresentation. Two months ago, he was named by an Exxon-Mobil-funded group, the Heartland Institute, as a scientist whose work undermined the theory that burning carbon was a cause of global warming.
The Heartland Institute - essentially a free market lobby - emphasises that "the climate is always changing." Salinger's research studied variation in climate, so his research was enrolled in the denial campaign. Variations in the climate are normal, Salinger said, but this did not in any way weaken conclusions about the dangers of burning oil and coal. "Global warming is real," he said, and demanded reference to his work be removed. The institute refused. The Heartland Institute received almost $800,000 from Exxon-Mobil, according to Greenpeace's research based on Exxon-Mobil's corporate giving disclosures.
Another regular piece of evidence in the denial lobby's PR campaign is the "Oregon Petition." This urges the US Government to reject the Kyoto Protocol and claims there is "no convincing scientific evidence" for global warming. It is said to be signed by 31,000 graduates, most of whom appear to have nothing to do with climate science. The petition originated in 1998 with a scientist, Dr Frederick Seitz, who had been president of the US National Academy of Science in the 1960s (and a tobacco consultant in the 1970s). The petition was accompanied by a purported review of the science that was co-published by the George C.
Marshall Institute. This institute received at least $715,000 from Exxon Mobil since 1998. Claims about the world cooling, not warming, are common in the world of deniers. Cardinal George Pell referred to this possibility recently. In his recent book Heat, George Monbiot gives the example of the TV presenter and botanist, David Bellamy, who is also a climate sceptic. He told the New Scientist in 2005 that most glaciers in the world are growing, not shrinking. He said his evidence came from the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Switzerland, a reputable body.
When Monbiot checked the service they said that the Bellamy claim was "complete bullshit." Glaciers are retreating. In Australia, the main group that tries to undermine the science of global warming is the Lavoisier Group. It maintains a website with links to the Competitive Enterprise Institute (over $2 million from Exxon-Mobil), Science and Environmental Policy Project ($20,000) and the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide (at least $100,000).
The Lavoisier Group is certainly influential in the Federal Opposition. A senior figure in the group told Guy Pearse, author of High and Dry, a study of climate policy in Australia, that there "is an understanding in cabinet that all the science is crap." But perhaps the oil companies' PR campaign is not the main reason for the success of the climate change deniers.
There are at least three others. First, the implications of the science are frightening. Shifting to renewable energy will be costly and disruptive. Second, doubt is an easy product to sell. Climate denial tells us what we all secretly want to hear. Third, science is portrayed by the free market right as a political "orthodoxy" rather than objective knowledge. The tide slowly turned on tobacco denial and the science was accepted in the end. But climate is different. There are no "smoke-free areas" on the planet. Climate denial may turn out to be the world's most deadly PR campaign.
David McKnight is an associate professor at the University of New South Wales. He researches media, including public relations, and is the author of Beyond Right and Left: New Politics and the Culture Wars.
Saturday 2/8/2008 Page: 9
WHEN the tobacco industry was feeling the heat from scientists who showed that smoking caused cancer, it took decisive action. It engaged in a decades-long public relations campaign to undermine the medical research and discredit the scientists. The aim was not to prove tobacco harmless but to cast doubt on the science. In May this year, the multibillion- dollar oil giant Exxon-Mobil acknowledged that it had been doing something similar. It announced that it would cease funding nine groups that had fuelled a global campaign to deny climate change.Exxon-Mobil's decision comes after a shareholder revolt by members of the Rockefeller family and big superannuation funds to get the oil giant to take climate change more seriously. Exxon-Mobil (once Standard Oil) was founded by the legendary John D. Rockefeller. Last year, the chairman of the US House of Representatives oversight committee on science and technology, Brad Miller, said Exxon-Mobil's support for sceptics "appears to be an effort to distort public discussion."
The funding of an array of think tanks and institutes that house climate sceptics and deniers also worried Britain's premier scientific body, the Royal Society. It found that in 2005 Exxon-Mobil distributed nearly $3 million to 39 groups that "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence that greenhouse gases are driving climate change."
It asked Exxon-Mobil to stop the funding and its protests helped force Exxon-Mobil's recent retreat. The chief scientist of New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Dr Jim Salinger, knows all about misrepresentation. Two months ago, he was named by an Exxon-Mobil-funded group, the Heartland Institute, as a scientist whose work undermined the theory that burning carbon was a cause of global warming.
The Heartland Institute - essentially a free market lobby - emphasises that "the climate is always changing." Salinger's research studied variation in climate, so his research was enrolled in the denial campaign. Variations in the climate are normal, Salinger said, but this did not in any way weaken conclusions about the dangers of burning oil and coal. "Global warming is real," he said, and demanded reference to his work be removed. The institute refused. The Heartland Institute received almost $800,000 from Exxon-Mobil, according to Greenpeace's research based on Exxon-Mobil's corporate giving disclosures.
Another regular piece of evidence in the denial lobby's PR campaign is the "Oregon Petition." This urges the US Government to reject the Kyoto Protocol and claims there is "no convincing scientific evidence" for global warming. It is said to be signed by 31,000 graduates, most of whom appear to have nothing to do with climate science. The petition originated in 1998 with a scientist, Dr Frederick Seitz, who had been president of the US National Academy of Science in the 1960s (and a tobacco consultant in the 1970s). The petition was accompanied by a purported review of the science that was co-published by the George C.
Marshall Institute. This institute received at least $715,000 from Exxon Mobil since 1998. Claims about the world cooling, not warming, are common in the world of deniers. Cardinal George Pell referred to this possibility recently. In his recent book Heat, George Monbiot gives the example of the TV presenter and botanist, David Bellamy, who is also a climate sceptic. He told the New Scientist in 2005 that most glaciers in the world are growing, not shrinking. He said his evidence came from the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Switzerland, a reputable body.
When Monbiot checked the service they said that the Bellamy claim was "complete bullshit." Glaciers are retreating. In Australia, the main group that tries to undermine the science of global warming is the Lavoisier Group. It maintains a website with links to the Competitive Enterprise Institute (over $2 million from Exxon-Mobil), Science and Environmental Policy Project ($20,000) and the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide (at least $100,000).
The Lavoisier Group is certainly influential in the Federal Opposition. A senior figure in the group told Guy Pearse, author of High and Dry, a study of climate policy in Australia, that there "is an understanding in cabinet that all the science is crap." But perhaps the oil companies' PR campaign is not the main reason for the success of the climate change deniers.
There are at least three others. First, the implications of the science are frightening. Shifting to renewable energy will be costly and disruptive. Second, doubt is an easy product to sell. Climate denial tells us what we all secretly want to hear. Third, science is portrayed by the free market right as a political "orthodoxy" rather than objective knowledge. The tide slowly turned on tobacco denial and the science was accepted in the end. But climate is different. There are no "smoke-free areas" on the planet. Climate denial may turn out to be the world's most deadly PR campaign.
David McKnight is an associate professor at the University of New South Wales. He researches media, including public relations, and is the author of Beyond Right and Left: New Politics and the Culture Wars.
Despite a dull forecast, solar panel market heats up
Age
Saturday 2/8/2008 Page: 6
THE number of households applying for an $8000 government rebate on the cost of installing rooftop solar panels has risen dramatically, bucking predictions that a means test would ruin the solar energy industry. Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett will tell a clean energy conference in Melbourne today that applications have risen by more than 150 a week since a $100,000 means test was introduced in the May budget. The surge in interest comes despite claims that some businesses had lost up to 80% of clients overnight.
While some had expected he would use today's speech to announce the means test was being lifted because of public pressure, Mr Garrett will instead predict that record growth in household solar systems will continue. This confirms that the Government took the right step in bringing funds forward for this program and ensuring that they go to those Australian families that most need financial assistance to install solar systems in their homes," he said.
The clean energy industry last night dismissed Mr Garrett's interpretation as misleading, arguing that a short-term rise in applications was always likely and that the real impact would not be clear for months. Critics of the means test have argued that few households on less than $100,000 can afford solar panels, which cost between $9000 and $21,000 without the rebate. Alternative Technology Association energy policy manager Brad Shone said the figures were likely to have been distorted by the recent arrival of mass applications from several new companies offering cut-price solar panels to neighbourhoods that buy in bulk.
It would be interesting to see who is making these applications. Some of these businesses have hundreds of people on their waiting lists," he said. Mr Shone said the figures would also have been affected by households who knew their income would exceed $100,000 in the next financial year, including new parents moving back to a double income, rushing to get in before June 30.
Government figures show the highest number of applications, 794, was recorded in the last week of June. The average for the four weeks before the budget was about 350, rising to 520 for the 10 weeks since. Markus Lambert, spokesman for clean power company Energy Matters, said it had lost some business but a massive fall in sales was yet to come.
He said other factors beyond the means test were helping keep the industry afloat. These included the introduction in some states and territories of incentive schemes for people who generated solar energy at home and fed it back into the electricity grid, and fears about rising energy prices under emissions trading.
Mr Lanibert said uncertainty over how long the rebate would be offered had also prompted some households to hasten their solar energy plans. The Government brought forward funding in the budget to boost the number of rebates available each year from 3000 to
6000. It is understood it will meet demand beyond this, but there has been no announcement about how long it will continue.
"You do feel it is a little like everyone running to get in before the lights turn off," Mr Lambert said. Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt called on the Government to remove a gag on Environment Department officers giving evidence to a Senate inquiry into the means test so the figures could be properly examined.
Saturday 2/8/2008 Page: 6
THE number of households applying for an $8000 government rebate on the cost of installing rooftop solar panels has risen dramatically, bucking predictions that a means test would ruin the solar energy industry. Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett will tell a clean energy conference in Melbourne today that applications have risen by more than 150 a week since a $100,000 means test was introduced in the May budget. The surge in interest comes despite claims that some businesses had lost up to 80% of clients overnight.
While some had expected he would use today's speech to announce the means test was being lifted because of public pressure, Mr Garrett will instead predict that record growth in household solar systems will continue. This confirms that the Government took the right step in bringing funds forward for this program and ensuring that they go to those Australian families that most need financial assistance to install solar systems in their homes," he said.
The clean energy industry last night dismissed Mr Garrett's interpretation as misleading, arguing that a short-term rise in applications was always likely and that the real impact would not be clear for months. Critics of the means test have argued that few households on less than $100,000 can afford solar panels, which cost between $9000 and $21,000 without the rebate. Alternative Technology Association energy policy manager Brad Shone said the figures were likely to have been distorted by the recent arrival of mass applications from several new companies offering cut-price solar panels to neighbourhoods that buy in bulk.
It would be interesting to see who is making these applications. Some of these businesses have hundreds of people on their waiting lists," he said. Mr Shone said the figures would also have been affected by households who knew their income would exceed $100,000 in the next financial year, including new parents moving back to a double income, rushing to get in before June 30.
Government figures show the highest number of applications, 794, was recorded in the last week of June. The average for the four weeks before the budget was about 350, rising to 520 for the 10 weeks since. Markus Lambert, spokesman for clean power company Energy Matters, said it had lost some business but a massive fall in sales was yet to come.
He said other factors beyond the means test were helping keep the industry afloat. These included the introduction in some states and territories of incentive schemes for people who generated solar energy at home and fed it back into the electricity grid, and fears about rising energy prices under emissions trading.
Mr Lanibert said uncertainty over how long the rebate would be offered had also prompted some households to hasten their solar energy plans. The Government brought forward funding in the budget to boost the number of rebates available each year from 3000 to
6000. It is understood it will meet demand beyond this, but there has been no announcement about how long it will continue.
"You do feel it is a little like everyone running to get in before the lights turn off," Mr Lambert said. Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt called on the Government to remove a gag on Environment Department officers giving evidence to a Senate inquiry into the means test so the figures could be properly examined.
World Bank firmly blames biofuel boom for food price rises
www.bioenergy-business.com/
30 July, 2008
A World Bank study this week blamed large increases in biofuels production in the US and Europe as the biggest cause of large rises in food prices around the globe since January 2002. The study, a draft of which has been cited in recent weeks by opponents of the boom in biofuels, concluded that biofuels demand, plus the related consequences of lower stocks of grain, speculation, large changes in land usage and food export bans, accounted for 70-75% of food price rises. The rest of the increase has been the result of a weaker US dollar and higher energy costs and resulting increases in fertiliser and transportation costs, it said.
The study, by World Bank economist Donald Mitchell, said that the large increases in production of biofuels in the US and Europe were part because of subsidies, mandates and tariffs on imports. "Without these policies, biofuels production would have been lower and food commodity price increases would have been smaller," Mitchell concluded.
The increased production of biofuels depleted stocks of grains and oilseeds, he said: "Without these increases, global wheat and maize stocks would not have declined appreciably and price increases due to other factors would have been moderate." However, the conclusions have been criticised as unrealistic. For example, Graham Hilton, director of Energy Crops of the UK and chairman of a renewable transport fuels group at the Environmental Industries Commission trade association, said that the report is "largely positive" about biofuels. The conclusions do not reflect the main contents, he said. The negative conclusions will make it very hard to attract investment into the sector, added Hilton.
Mitchell said that biofuel produced in Brazil, from sugar cane, is cheaper than biofuel made in the US or the European Union (EU), and has not raised sugar prices significantly because sugar cane production has grown fast enough to supply both the sugar and ethanol markets. He therefore made a case for a rethink on trade restrictions on biofuels: "Removing tariffs on ethanol imports in the US and the EU would allow more efficient producers such as Brazil and other developing countries, including many African countries, to produce ethanol profitably for export to meet the mandates in the US and EU. "biofuels policies which subsidise production need to be reconsidered in light of their impact on food prices."
30 July, 2008
A World Bank study this week blamed large increases in biofuels production in the US and Europe as the biggest cause of large rises in food prices around the globe since January 2002. The study, a draft of which has been cited in recent weeks by opponents of the boom in biofuels, concluded that biofuels demand, plus the related consequences of lower stocks of grain, speculation, large changes in land usage and food export bans, accounted for 70-75% of food price rises. The rest of the increase has been the result of a weaker US dollar and higher energy costs and resulting increases in fertiliser and transportation costs, it said.
The study, by World Bank economist Donald Mitchell, said that the large increases in production of biofuels in the US and Europe were part because of subsidies, mandates and tariffs on imports. "Without these policies, biofuels production would have been lower and food commodity price increases would have been smaller," Mitchell concluded.
The increased production of biofuels depleted stocks of grains and oilseeds, he said: "Without these increases, global wheat and maize stocks would not have declined appreciably and price increases due to other factors would have been moderate." However, the conclusions have been criticised as unrealistic. For example, Graham Hilton, director of Energy Crops of the UK and chairman of a renewable transport fuels group at the Environmental Industries Commission trade association, said that the report is "largely positive" about biofuels. The conclusions do not reflect the main contents, he said. The negative conclusions will make it very hard to attract investment into the sector, added Hilton.
Mitchell said that biofuel produced in Brazil, from sugar cane, is cheaper than biofuel made in the US or the European Union (EU), and has not raised sugar prices significantly because sugar cane production has grown fast enough to supply both the sugar and ethanol markets. He therefore made a case for a rethink on trade restrictions on biofuels: "Removing tariffs on ethanol imports in the US and the EU would allow more efficient producers such as Brazil and other developing countries, including many African countries, to produce ethanol profitably for export to meet the mandates in the US and EU. "biofuels policies which subsidise production need to be reconsidered in light of their impact on food prices."
Australian Ocean Energy Group secures $6m capital funding
Australian Anthill
Tuesday 1/7/2008 Page: 92
In other capital raising news, BioPower Systems Ltd, Australia's ocean energy group, has successfully raised $6 million in private equity funding.
The private equity investment round was cornerstones by Lend Lease Ventures, with additional investment from CVC REEF and CVC Sustainable Investments. BioPower has already received a $5 million Australian Government REDI grant and aims to use this, along with the private equity funding, to run pilot test programs for its bioWAVETM ocean wave power system and bioSTREAMTM tidal current power system in Tasmania.
BioPower CEO Dr Tim Finnigan commented: "We are very pleased to have Lend Lease working closely with BioPower Systems on developing commercial opportunities for our ocean power conversion systems in Australia, Europe and North America."
Tuesday 1/7/2008 Page: 92
In other capital raising news, BioPower Systems Ltd, Australia's ocean energy group, has successfully raised $6 million in private equity funding.
The private equity investment round was cornerstones by Lend Lease Ventures, with additional investment from CVC REEF and CVC Sustainable Investments. BioPower has already received a $5 million Australian Government REDI grant and aims to use this, along with the private equity funding, to run pilot test programs for its bioWAVETM ocean wave power system and bioSTREAMTM tidal current power system in Tasmania.
BioPower CEO Dr Tim Finnigan commented: "We are very pleased to have Lend Lease working closely with BioPower Systems on developing commercial opportunities for our ocean power conversion systems in Australia, Europe and North America."
Murdoch early in `going green
Melville Times
Tuesday 22/7/2008 Page: 4
Murdoch University has become the first in Australia to sign a deal to use 15 per cent Green Power, achieving the highest percentage use of nationally accredited renewable energy of any university in the country. Currently the only other two universities to sign up to Green Power are in New South Wales and use 2.5 per cent.
The university is purchasing Green Power from Synergy Energy sourced from wind farms in Albany and Emu Downs. The contract will begin on December 1. Murdoch's initiative will prevent at least 3500 tonnes of CO2 being released into the atmosphere each year, which is equivalent to emissions generated by the electricity consumption of 500 homes.
Vice Chancellor John Yovich said Murdoch was also working with Synergy Energy to investigate other ways to reduce its energy usage and emissions, including use of photovoltaic solar panels on its buildings to generate power onsite. The university had taken the initiative to reduce its emissions several years ahead of anticipated mandatory rules for universities as part of its overall strategy to "go green."
Tuesday 22/7/2008 Page: 4
Murdoch University has become the first in Australia to sign a deal to use 15 per cent Green Power, achieving the highest percentage use of nationally accredited renewable energy of any university in the country. Currently the only other two universities to sign up to Green Power are in New South Wales and use 2.5 per cent.
The university is purchasing Green Power from Synergy Energy sourced from wind farms in Albany and Emu Downs. The contract will begin on December 1. Murdoch's initiative will prevent at least 3500 tonnes of CO2 being released into the atmosphere each year, which is equivalent to emissions generated by the electricity consumption of 500 homes.
Vice Chancellor John Yovich said Murdoch was also working with Synergy Energy to investigate other ways to reduce its energy usage and emissions, including use of photovoltaic solar panels on its buildings to generate power onsite. The university had taken the initiative to reduce its emissions several years ahead of anticipated mandatory rules for universities as part of its overall strategy to "go green."
Monday, 18 August 2008
Wong 's green gift is hardly deserved - Dinosaur industry's days are numbered
Canberra Times
Tuesday 22/7/2008 Page: 15
Never once on the countless occasions that Australian governments have restricted the sale of tobacco have they felt compelled to compensate the manufacturers for "significant reductions in their profitability." Why would they? The cigarette manufacturers knew what was coming (and had decided to invest anyway) and were blessed with rusted-on customers. But there was another - more important - reason why our governments didn't offer "compensation" to the industry they were trying to cripple.
To do it would have been to accept that the existing tobacco manufacturers had continuing "rights" that the government had to buy out in order to proceed. It would have helped create a precedent that would have undermined the right of Australia's parliaments to act as they saw fit. It would have undermined our sovereignty as voters. The Government's independent climate change adviser, Ross Garnaut, saw the danger clearly in his interim report delivered earlier this year.
As he put it,"There is no tradition in Australia for compensating capital for losses associated with economic reforms." Among the reforms for which he pointed out Australian businesses have not been compensated were the floating of the dollar, the introduction of the goods and services tax and the massive tariff cuts that Garnaut himself oversaw as Bob Hawke's economic adviser in the 1980s.
By the same token he pointed out that there had been no tradition of taking away from businesses the extraordinary windfall gains that they had enjoyed as a result of government decisions, including cuts in the company tax rate. In the case of emissions trading, businesses had been "aware of the risks of carbon pricing for many years." Many had "sought to reengineer their production processes to reduce their reliance on emissions."
He must have been worried that the argument wasn't getting through. In his draft report released just days before last week's Government green paper, he devoted an entire appendix to applying the argument explicitly to coal-fired electricity generators. There was "no basis" for the claim that generators had a "right to emit carbon dioxide and this right is being taken away by a policy change." As he put it "governments always retain the absolute right to vary policy and industry is generally cognisant of the risk."
There's no doubt that Australia's coal-fired electricity generators have been cognisant of the risk. They have been lobbying on the basis that their businesses have been at risk since way back before Australia took part in the Kyoto negotiations a decade ago. But last week, despite all they'd done, and despite all that Garnaut had said, they succeeded in convincing the Australian Government that its 2010 emissions trading scheme was unexpected and that they needed compensation.
In her green paper, Climate Change Minister Penny Wong justifies the idea this way: "If the change in regulatory arrangements was unanticipated and implemented without compensation, and investors viewed this as evidence that the Government was likely to change the regulatory regime in future in an unpredictable way, then investors might regard Australia's electricity market as a riskier investment proposition." Try submitting that sentence to the laugh test. That is, try to read it out loud without laughing.
The truth is that when it finally makes a decision on the type of emissions trading system that Australia will have from 2010, Parliament will have ended, not added to, the uncertainty that has been making Australia's electricity market a risky investment proposition.
Does Wong really think that investors will stay away from Australia's electricity market when they know what the rules are? Does she really think they haven't had a fair idea of what was coming for a decade? Apparently she does. Her green paper proposes making cash payments or payments in the form of free pollution permits to all of the coal-fired power stations that were in existence or planned before June 3, 2007. Why that date? Because it was the day on which former Prime Minister John Howard came out in support an emissions trading scheme, the day the idea "became bipartisan policy in Australia."
The Minister says that Sunday, June 3, 2007, was "the point beyond which investors could not reasonably argue that they had no knowledge of a potential carbon constraint." Where's the laugh test? It's actually worse than funny. By giving a gift to a class of firms that neither needs it nor deserves it (quite separate to the grant of free permits to exporting and import-competing carbon-intensive firms such as aluminium producers who will need them), Wong has opened the door to all sorts of special pleading.
Woodside Petroleum is just the first cab off the rank. If dirty coalburning power stations can get compensation, why not cleaner natural gas producers? It's the sort of endless special pleading for access to ever-widening and ever more complex loopholes that killed the goods and services tax the first time the Coalition proposed it. John Hewson was unable to explain why he would be taxing a cold pie but not a hot pie and lost the 1993 election.
Australia's existing coal-fired power stations won't need the compensation anyway. They will be able to pass on the extra cost of the emission permits. They will be encouraged to. It is how the scheme is meant to work. Eventually the higher price of power will prod some of us to use less of it, and eventually wind and commercial solar energy generators will become competitive against coal because they won't to buy emission permits.
But none of that will happen in a hurry. In the short term we will have no choice but to buy our power from the existing coal-fired generators. It is where our power comes from. It is likely that by the time those plants are out of commission they would have been out of commission anyway. The generators will doubtless pocket the gift Wong plans to give them (the NSW Government will be one of the biggest beneficiaries, owning many of the generators) but it won't encourage them to give up lobbying.
Why should they when another part of the minister's plan has the parliament resetting the five-yearly carbon-reduction target each year? The tobacco industry would love the opportunity. It shouldn't be given to a dinosaur industry that has served and will continue to serve Australia well and has known for years that its days were numbered.
Peter Martin is economics editor petermartin.blogspot.com
Tuesday 22/7/2008 Page: 15
Never once on the countless occasions that Australian governments have restricted the sale of tobacco have they felt compelled to compensate the manufacturers for "significant reductions in their profitability." Why would they? The cigarette manufacturers knew what was coming (and had decided to invest anyway) and were blessed with rusted-on customers. But there was another - more important - reason why our governments didn't offer "compensation" to the industry they were trying to cripple.To do it would have been to accept that the existing tobacco manufacturers had continuing "rights" that the government had to buy out in order to proceed. It would have helped create a precedent that would have undermined the right of Australia's parliaments to act as they saw fit. It would have undermined our sovereignty as voters. The Government's independent climate change adviser, Ross Garnaut, saw the danger clearly in his interim report delivered earlier this year.
As he put it,"There is no tradition in Australia for compensating capital for losses associated with economic reforms." Among the reforms for which he pointed out Australian businesses have not been compensated were the floating of the dollar, the introduction of the goods and services tax and the massive tariff cuts that Garnaut himself oversaw as Bob Hawke's economic adviser in the 1980s.
By the same token he pointed out that there had been no tradition of taking away from businesses the extraordinary windfall gains that they had enjoyed as a result of government decisions, including cuts in the company tax rate. In the case of emissions trading, businesses had been "aware of the risks of carbon pricing for many years." Many had "sought to reengineer their production processes to reduce their reliance on emissions."
He must have been worried that the argument wasn't getting through. In his draft report released just days before last week's Government green paper, he devoted an entire appendix to applying the argument explicitly to coal-fired electricity generators. There was "no basis" for the claim that generators had a "right to emit carbon dioxide and this right is being taken away by a policy change." As he put it "governments always retain the absolute right to vary policy and industry is generally cognisant of the risk."
There's no doubt that Australia's coal-fired electricity generators have been cognisant of the risk. They have been lobbying on the basis that their businesses have been at risk since way back before Australia took part in the Kyoto negotiations a decade ago. But last week, despite all they'd done, and despite all that Garnaut had said, they succeeded in convincing the Australian Government that its 2010 emissions trading scheme was unexpected and that they needed compensation.
In her green paper, Climate Change Minister Penny Wong justifies the idea this way: "If the change in regulatory arrangements was unanticipated and implemented without compensation, and investors viewed this as evidence that the Government was likely to change the regulatory regime in future in an unpredictable way, then investors might regard Australia's electricity market as a riskier investment proposition." Try submitting that sentence to the laugh test. That is, try to read it out loud without laughing.
The truth is that when it finally makes a decision on the type of emissions trading system that Australia will have from 2010, Parliament will have ended, not added to, the uncertainty that has been making Australia's electricity market a risky investment proposition.
Does Wong really think that investors will stay away from Australia's electricity market when they know what the rules are? Does she really think they haven't had a fair idea of what was coming for a decade? Apparently she does. Her green paper proposes making cash payments or payments in the form of free pollution permits to all of the coal-fired power stations that were in existence or planned before June 3, 2007. Why that date? Because it was the day on which former Prime Minister John Howard came out in support an emissions trading scheme, the day the idea "became bipartisan policy in Australia."
The Minister says that Sunday, June 3, 2007, was "the point beyond which investors could not reasonably argue that they had no knowledge of a potential carbon constraint." Where's the laugh test? It's actually worse than funny. By giving a gift to a class of firms that neither needs it nor deserves it (quite separate to the grant of free permits to exporting and import-competing carbon-intensive firms such as aluminium producers who will need them), Wong has opened the door to all sorts of special pleading.
Woodside Petroleum is just the first cab off the rank. If dirty coalburning power stations can get compensation, why not cleaner natural gas producers? It's the sort of endless special pleading for access to ever-widening and ever more complex loopholes that killed the goods and services tax the first time the Coalition proposed it. John Hewson was unable to explain why he would be taxing a cold pie but not a hot pie and lost the 1993 election.
Australia's existing coal-fired power stations won't need the compensation anyway. They will be able to pass on the extra cost of the emission permits. They will be encouraged to. It is how the scheme is meant to work. Eventually the higher price of power will prod some of us to use less of it, and eventually wind and commercial solar energy generators will become competitive against coal because they won't to buy emission permits.
But none of that will happen in a hurry. In the short term we will have no choice but to buy our power from the existing coal-fired generators. It is where our power comes from. It is likely that by the time those plants are out of commission they would have been out of commission anyway. The generators will doubtless pocket the gift Wong plans to give them (the NSW Government will be one of the biggest beneficiaries, owning many of the generators) but it won't encourage them to give up lobbying.
Why should they when another part of the minister's plan has the parliament resetting the five-yearly carbon-reduction target each year? The tobacco industry would love the opportunity. It shouldn't be given to a dinosaur industry that has served and will continue to serve Australia well and has known for years that its days were numbered.
Peter Martin is economics editor petermartin.blogspot.com
Solar rebate figures released at Clean Energy Council event
Clean Energy Council
2 Aug 2008
NATIONAL: The Clean Energy Council today welcomed the release of the rebate application figures that the federal government has received for the Solar Homes & Communities Plan, for the period just prior and since the recent federal budget. The figures were announced on the day that the Hon. Peter Garrett, Environment Minister, spoke at the national ATRAA Conference and Exhibition, the annual event for the solar photovoltaic (PV) and small-scale renewable technologies.
Rob Jackson, GM Policy for the Clean Energy Council said: "We welcome the transparency from the government in providing this information, which will be critical in enabling the solar PV industry to plan for future demand and jobs growth." "Today's release of the figures is especially timely as hundreds of representatives from the solar PV industry, including installers, distributors and dealers, are in Melbourne to discuss the challenges and opportunities facing the industry nationally."
"The rebate scheme, particularly in the last two years, has allowed the industry to build capacity and capability. However the industry is now ready to transition to a nationally consistent gross feed in tariff; this policy will deliver the long term certainty needed for investment and jobs growth." "These figures demonstrate that the Australian solar PV industry continues to move from strength to strength and we look forward to working with government to discuss the transitional rebate arrangements until the gross feed in tariff policy is in place."
The Clean Energy Council also looks forward to participating in the upcoming roundtable discussions to deliver a framework to help households improve their energy efficiency, reduce their environmental impact and save on energy bills.
2 Aug 2008
NATIONAL: The Clean Energy Council today welcomed the release of the rebate application figures that the federal government has received for the Solar Homes & Communities Plan, for the period just prior and since the recent federal budget. The figures were announced on the day that the Hon. Peter Garrett, Environment Minister, spoke at the national ATRAA Conference and Exhibition, the annual event for the solar photovoltaic (PV) and small-scale renewable technologies.Rob Jackson, GM Policy for the Clean Energy Council said: "We welcome the transparency from the government in providing this information, which will be critical in enabling the solar PV industry to plan for future demand and jobs growth." "Today's release of the figures is especially timely as hundreds of representatives from the solar PV industry, including installers, distributors and dealers, are in Melbourne to discuss the challenges and opportunities facing the industry nationally."
"The rebate scheme, particularly in the last two years, has allowed the industry to build capacity and capability. However the industry is now ready to transition to a nationally consistent gross feed in tariff; this policy will deliver the long term certainty needed for investment and jobs growth." "These figures demonstrate that the Australian solar PV industry continues to move from strength to strength and we look forward to working with government to discuss the transitional rebate arrangements until the gross feed in tariff policy is in place."
The Clean Energy Council also looks forward to participating in the upcoming roundtable discussions to deliver a framework to help households improve their energy efficiency, reduce their environmental impact and save on energy bills.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)