The Saturday Age
11 June 2011, Page: 12
It's a healthy sign that the numbers in Australia's ever simmering climate change debate are being disputed less and less. It used to be that these things went in cycles as soon as it became temporarily untenable to argue that the world had been getting cooler since 1998, someone else would start banging on about the uselessness of computer climate modelling, or maybe the urban "heat island" effect fooling our thermometers.
But now that carbon price legislation is looming, the real argument is about how people frame the numbers.Take the old chestnut of Australia's role in reducing global emissions. We pump out roughly 1.3% of human generated greenhouse gas emissions.
It is easy to make this number seem small. When broadcaster Alan Jones chanted "Oh, oh, oh, oh, point one eight of a% give me a break, Doc!" to climate scientist Professor David Karoly on radio a couple of weeks ago, it may have been wrong but it was an efficient way of delivering a rhetorical point.
But there are other ways of framing this same set of numbers. Australia's contribution to global emissions, from an environmentally conscious and thinly populated country of 22.6 million, is about 40% the total of the greenhouse bill of the entire continent of Africa. Africa has a billion people, it contains teeming, polluted cities and its resource sector has no lack of emissions intensive, trade exposed industry. Suddenly, 1.3% starts to sound a lot bigger.
Compared with Africans, Australians don't have a great deal to complain about. The Productivity Commission report released by the federal government this week makes it crystal clear that we are not exactly surging ahead when it comes to emissions abatement.
Nevertheless, sections of Australian industry continue to harp on about Australia's special brand of first world problems. We heard from the Minerals Council of Australia that the "gaping hole" in the Productivity Commission's work was the lack of a clear comparison with international competitors, such Indonesia, Brazil, Russia and South Africa.
The Australian Coal Association "assured" us that no other competitor nation was imposing costs on the fugitive emissions from its coalmines. How much additional cost would a $20 carbon price impose on a tonne of coal again? It's about $1.60 a tonne for thermal coal that sells for $120 a tonne, and the same for metallurgical coal that sells for about $300 a tonne.
But there was one example of climate change rent seeking this week that deserves a closer look. It happened in New South Wales, where an alliance of solar panel installers was able to convince the state government to perform an impressive backflip on its plan to retrospectively slash the state's solar feed in tariff from 60¢ to 40¢. NSW Energy Minister Chris Hartcher said it had left a $759 million hole in future budgets. In the interests of responsible fiscal management, it would have to go.
In retaliation, the industry got the government's figures audited by a respectable source, Ernst & Young. The government counter attacked with a surprise warning about the safety of the state's solar panels. Then the solar industry did some cross checking and found that the safety risk had been extrapolated from a single survey in northern NSW, based on flaws found in just three sets of panels. The government just looked silly. The solar installers prevailed by framing the debate around the numbers.
Australia now has the Productivity Commission report as a frame of reference for comparing the numbers on greenhouse gas cuts. It shows what most in industry have been talking about for years that a carbon price is the simplest, cheapest way of getting us back in the race.
Tuesday, 21 June 2011
Court action clouds new power plant
Herald Sun
11 June 2011, Page: 30
CONSTRUCTION of a new brown coal and gas power plant for Victoria could be on hold for a year as environment groups launch legal action. The Environment Protection Authority last month allowed HRL Dual Gas to go ahead with its dual brown coal and gas demonstration plant at Morwell in the Latrobe Valley. The plant was granted partial approval for a 300 MW plant, not the 600 MW plant HRL had proposed.
EPA chief executive John Merritt said the project would produce electricity with a 30% improvement on current greenhouse gas emissions from coalfired power stations, a "significantly better environmental outcome than other plants". The Environment Defenders Office launched an appeal against the EPA decision at VCAT on Friday, on behalf of Environment Victoria and climate action group Locals Into Victoria's Environment. They argue that the plant does not meet best practice standards for electricity generation because it was compared with other coal fired power stations, rather than cleaner technologies.
The challenge also argues that approval of the plant is inconsistent with state and federal environmental policies, including a Victorian Government target to reduce emissions by 20% by 2020. Environment Defenders Office lawyer Felicity Millner said the legal process could take up to a year, during which time construction of the plant could not go ahead. Ms Millner said the case was an important test of how well the law was protecting the environment in regard to climate change.
"There is no judicial precedent in relation to how the EPA should approach best practice, whether it should compare it against brown coal or all forms of electricity generation", she said. "There is also nothing saying how much weight the EPA has to give to state and federal policies on climate change when they are making their decision. "The Act is directed at pollution we were concerned about 40 years ago, it's not really well equipped, I don't think, to deal with issues like climate change".
Environment Victoria campaign director Mark Wakeham said the law had not caught up with the 21st century and the plant should be rejected. At the time of the plant's approval, HRL signalled a possible appeal, issuing a written statement that it had concerns with the EPA's 300 MW alternative. HRL did not return calls yesterday and the EPA declined to comment.
11 June 2011, Page: 30
CONSTRUCTION of a new brown coal and gas power plant for Victoria could be on hold for a year as environment groups launch legal action. The Environment Protection Authority last month allowed HRL Dual Gas to go ahead with its dual brown coal and gas demonstration plant at Morwell in the Latrobe Valley. The plant was granted partial approval for a 300 MW plant, not the 600 MW plant HRL had proposed.
EPA chief executive John Merritt said the project would produce electricity with a 30% improvement on current greenhouse gas emissions from coalfired power stations, a "significantly better environmental outcome than other plants". The Environment Defenders Office launched an appeal against the EPA decision at VCAT on Friday, on behalf of Environment Victoria and climate action group Locals Into Victoria's Environment. They argue that the plant does not meet best practice standards for electricity generation because it was compared with other coal fired power stations, rather than cleaner technologies.
The challenge also argues that approval of the plant is inconsistent with state and federal environmental policies, including a Victorian Government target to reduce emissions by 20% by 2020. Environment Defenders Office lawyer Felicity Millner said the legal process could take up to a year, during which time construction of the plant could not go ahead. Ms Millner said the case was an important test of how well the law was protecting the environment in regard to climate change.
"There is no judicial precedent in relation to how the EPA should approach best practice, whether it should compare it against brown coal or all forms of electricity generation", she said. "There is also nothing saying how much weight the EPA has to give to state and federal policies on climate change when they are making their decision. "The Act is directed at pollution we were concerned about 40 years ago, it's not really well equipped, I don't think, to deal with issues like climate change".
Environment Victoria campaign director Mark Wakeham said the law had not caught up with the 21st century and the plant should be rejected. At the time of the plant's approval, HRL signalled a possible appeal, issuing a written statement that it had concerns with the EPA's 300 MW alternative. HRL did not return calls yesterday and the EPA declined to comment.
Monday, 20 June 2011
Committee set to call for wind farm location restrictions
Canberra Times
14 June 2011, Page: 2
A Senate committee report into the social and economic impact of wind farms, to be issued today, is expected to call for greater restrictions on where turbines can be built. The inquiry, established last October by the Independent senator Steve Fielding, attracted 900 submissions the majority of which support rural wind farms and renewable energy in general.
But about a third of the public submissions argue wind turbines have adverse health affects on people living nearby, and point to "wind turbine syndrome", under which some people report having headaches and nausea as a result of the sound of spinning turbine blades.
A report into the syndrome by the National Health and Medical Research Council found last year there was "no published scientific evidence to positively link wind turbines with adverse health effects", and other government studies have reached the same conclusion.
But these reports were attacked during a Senate hearing in March for relying on government and industry data. The inquiry also addressed questions about the impact on rural property values, job opportunities and faun income. While some advertisements for properties with turbines are now including the revenue as a selling point, many of the submissions say that turbines ruin the character of an area, and drive away tourists.
Former television chef Peter Russell Clarke has been campaigning against the development of a wind farm near Tooborac, north of Melbourne. "The social impact is horrendous", Mr Russell Clarke said in his submission. "The economic impact in an area which depends on tourists is shattered by the intrusion on the landscape of 300 feet [91m] wind turbines,., Medical teams are cataloguing evidence of the adverse effect of noise and vibrations emitted by wind turbines on people who live near them".
Of the 900 submissions received, about 54% were supportive of wind farms, 39% negative and 7% confidential or neutral. The Clean Energy Council, a body which represents many of the major wind farm industry players, said it had encouraged its members to make submissions to the inquiry.
Across the nation, there are 54 wind farms with a total of 1092 turbines, with many more planned and being assessed by state planning bodies. As of this month, the combined output of all existing wind farms during the course of a year is 1993 MWs, enough energy to power 800,000 average Australian households for a year.
14 June 2011, Page: 2
A Senate committee report into the social and economic impact of wind farms, to be issued today, is expected to call for greater restrictions on where turbines can be built. The inquiry, established last October by the Independent senator Steve Fielding, attracted 900 submissions the majority of which support rural wind farms and renewable energy in general.
But about a third of the public submissions argue wind turbines have adverse health affects on people living nearby, and point to "wind turbine syndrome", under which some people report having headaches and nausea as a result of the sound of spinning turbine blades.
A report into the syndrome by the National Health and Medical Research Council found last year there was "no published scientific evidence to positively link wind turbines with adverse health effects", and other government studies have reached the same conclusion.
But these reports were attacked during a Senate hearing in March for relying on government and industry data. The inquiry also addressed questions about the impact on rural property values, job opportunities and faun income. While some advertisements for properties with turbines are now including the revenue as a selling point, many of the submissions say that turbines ruin the character of an area, and drive away tourists.
Former television chef Peter Russell Clarke has been campaigning against the development of a wind farm near Tooborac, north of Melbourne. "The social impact is horrendous", Mr Russell Clarke said in his submission. "The economic impact in an area which depends on tourists is shattered by the intrusion on the landscape of 300 feet [91m] wind turbines,., Medical teams are cataloguing evidence of the adverse effect of noise and vibrations emitted by wind turbines on people who live near them".
Of the 900 submissions received, about 54% were supportive of wind farms, 39% negative and 7% confidential or neutral. The Clean Energy Council, a body which represents many of the major wind farm industry players, said it had encouraged its members to make submissions to the inquiry.
Across the nation, there are 54 wind farms with a total of 1092 turbines, with many more planned and being assessed by state planning bodies. As of this month, the combined output of all existing wind farms during the course of a year is 1993 MWs, enough energy to power 800,000 average Australian households for a year.
Carbon price delay slows projects
Age
14 June 2011, Page: 6
AUSTRALIAN institutional investors, worth hundreds of billions of dollars, are trailing their European counterparts in funding projects to tackle climate change because of delays getting a carbon price established. In a global survey of 90 firms owning and managing assets of $12 trillion Australian respondents said they were eager to develop an approach to climate change in their investment decisions but the uncertainty around domestic policy was an impediment.
Chief executive of the Australian based Investor Group on Climate Change (IGCC), Nathan Fabian, said yesterday that his members were "actively preparing to invest [in climate projects]. But there is no doubt a lack of clarity over a carbon price is impeding investment".
Of the total assets managed or owned by the firms surveyed for the report, on average 0.3% were invested in climate change projects such as renewable energy and clean technologies. European firms led the way, investing 0.5% of assets in climate change related projects, with Australian firms following on 0.3% and US firms lagging behind on 0.1%.
The survey conducted by three international climate change investor networks, including the IGCC also found that Australian firms had a growing recognition of the physical impacts of climate change exacerbated by the recent droughts and flooding, especially in real estate and major infrastructure investments.
The investor report follows last week's Productivity Commission review showing Australia falling behind Germany and Britain in investing in carbon abatement from the power sector, but roughly in line with China and the US. A domestic carbon price is being negotiated between the government, Greens and independents, with more meetings between the groups expected this week.
The government will also hold a meeting with its business roundtable on climate change on Friday as it hammers out a compensation package for industry under a carbon tax. The Gillard government will today release a snapshot of potential climate change impacts in Victoria. The snapshot warns that climate change could drive days over 35° in Melbourne from the current nine a year to up to 26 by 2070.
In Mildura, days over 35° may increase from 32 days currently to 76. The extra hot days could drive up heat related deaths but would decrease deaths related to cold weather, more prevalent in Victoria. Rising temperatures could also drive more days of high and extreme bushfire risks, the snapshot shows.
14 June 2011, Page: 6
AUSTRALIAN institutional investors, worth hundreds of billions of dollars, are trailing their European counterparts in funding projects to tackle climate change because of delays getting a carbon price established. In a global survey of 90 firms owning and managing assets of $12 trillion Australian respondents said they were eager to develop an approach to climate change in their investment decisions but the uncertainty around domestic policy was an impediment.
Chief executive of the Australian based Investor Group on Climate Change (IGCC), Nathan Fabian, said yesterday that his members were "actively preparing to invest [in climate projects]. But there is no doubt a lack of clarity over a carbon price is impeding investment".
Of the total assets managed or owned by the firms surveyed for the report, on average 0.3% were invested in climate change projects such as renewable energy and clean technologies. European firms led the way, investing 0.5% of assets in climate change related projects, with Australian firms following on 0.3% and US firms lagging behind on 0.1%.
The survey conducted by three international climate change investor networks, including the IGCC also found that Australian firms had a growing recognition of the physical impacts of climate change exacerbated by the recent droughts and flooding, especially in real estate and major infrastructure investments.
The investor report follows last week's Productivity Commission review showing Australia falling behind Germany and Britain in investing in carbon abatement from the power sector, but roughly in line with China and the US. A domestic carbon price is being negotiated between the government, Greens and independents, with more meetings between the groups expected this week.
The government will also hold a meeting with its business roundtable on climate change on Friday as it hammers out a compensation package for industry under a carbon tax. The Gillard government will today release a snapshot of potential climate change impacts in Victoria. The snapshot warns that climate change could drive days over 35° in Melbourne from the current nine a year to up to 26 by 2070.
In Mildura, days over 35° may increase from 32 days currently to 76. The extra hot days could drive up heat related deaths but would decrease deaths related to cold weather, more prevalent in Victoria. Rising temperatures could also drive more days of high and extreme bushfire risks, the snapshot shows.
Origin leaves green council
Adelaide Advertiser
8 June 2011, Page: 66
Origin Energy has decided against renewing its membership of the nation's peak clean energy industry body, but a spokeswoman says the company remains committed to the deployment of renewable energy technologies. The spokeswoman for the company said Origin Energy "has not at this stage renewed its membership of the Clean Energy Council" but "will continue to explore avenues of involvement with the Clean Energy Council in the future, and support its initiatives".
The Clean Energy Council says it is the peak clean energy industry advocacy group with more than 500 members. Its 18 top tier sponsoring members, including TRUEnergy, AGL Energy, BP Solar, Beacon Lighting and Pacific Hydro, pay $48,950 a year to join. This membership gets them a place on the council's key policy and advocacy advisory committee along with seats on up to five CEC directorates and 20 annual general meeting votes. Origin Energy is a large investor in renewable energy, including solar, wind and geothermal, and lower emission gas is also a key part of the company's portfolio.
It is still a member of other energy industry groups, the Energy Supply Association of Australia and Energy Retailers Association of Australia, but has also withdrawn from the National Generator's Forum. The CEC's primary focus is to advocate policy development at the federal and state levels of government.
8 June 2011, Page: 66
Origin Energy has decided against renewing its membership of the nation's peak clean energy industry body, but a spokeswoman says the company remains committed to the deployment of renewable energy technologies. The spokeswoman for the company said Origin Energy "has not at this stage renewed its membership of the Clean Energy Council" but "will continue to explore avenues of involvement with the Clean Energy Council in the future, and support its initiatives".
The Clean Energy Council says it is the peak clean energy industry advocacy group with more than 500 members. Its 18 top tier sponsoring members, including TRUEnergy, AGL Energy, BP Solar, Beacon Lighting and Pacific Hydro, pay $48,950 a year to join. This membership gets them a place on the council's key policy and advocacy advisory committee along with seats on up to five CEC directorates and 20 annual general meeting votes. Origin Energy is a large investor in renewable energy, including solar, wind and geothermal, and lower emission gas is also a key part of the company's portfolio.
It is still a member of other energy industry groups, the Energy Supply Association of Australia and Energy Retailers Association of Australia, but has also withdrawn from the National Generator's Forum. The CEC's primary focus is to advocate policy development at the federal and state levels of government.
Friday, 17 June 2011
It's lights out for solar firm
Age
7 June 2011, Page: 7
ONE of AUSTRALIA'S largest rooftop solar panel retailers Clear Solar has gone into receivership, costing up to 40 jobs and prompting warnings from the industry of more closures in coming months. But household customers have been spared, with Clear Solar being bought out by one of its creditors electrical wholesaler Middy's which has guaranteed 500 outstanding contracts to install solar panels.
Clear Solar which boasts on its website to have done 10,000 solar installations across the country called in administrators Pitcher Partners yesterday morning. Secured Clear Solar creditors include Middy's and the ANZ, among others. The company's administrators were unable to say last night what debts were owed. Middy's is backing a new company, Akora Energy, to carry out the existing 500 contracts with customers and suppliers, which equates to about two months' work.
Akora Energy director Michael Carew said the new company had taken on 50 Clear Solar staff, and was committed to retaining them beyond existing contracts with an eye to expanding the business. But he said up to 40 staff had been told they would be let go. Clean energy groups were yesterday pointing to the fall of Clear Solar as a warning for governments about the state of the solar industry following sharp cuts to state and federal subsidies for rooftop solar.
Clean Energy Council chief executive Matt Warren said "sudden changes to government schemes can quickly undo any gains towards developing a competitive solar industry". But Mr Warren added: "The fact that there is a buyer for the company is a good reflection of long term confidence in solar as part of Australia's energy future".
Australian Solar Energy Society chief executive John Grimes said it was an absolute certainty further firms would collapse in the current environment, adding that 8000 jobs were at stake. The federal government said yesterday it would keep its commitment of a $75 million grant to the troubled large scale solar power project proposed for Victorian Murray town Mildura, after a new owner was found for the project last year.
7 June 2011, Page: 7
ONE of AUSTRALIA'S largest rooftop solar panel retailers Clear Solar has gone into receivership, costing up to 40 jobs and prompting warnings from the industry of more closures in coming months. But household customers have been spared, with Clear Solar being bought out by one of its creditors electrical wholesaler Middy's which has guaranteed 500 outstanding contracts to install solar panels.
Clear Solar which boasts on its website to have done 10,000 solar installations across the country called in administrators Pitcher Partners yesterday morning. Secured Clear Solar creditors include Middy's and the ANZ, among others. The company's administrators were unable to say last night what debts were owed. Middy's is backing a new company, Akora Energy, to carry out the existing 500 contracts with customers and suppliers, which equates to about two months' work.
Akora Energy director Michael Carew said the new company had taken on 50 Clear Solar staff, and was committed to retaining them beyond existing contracts with an eye to expanding the business. But he said up to 40 staff had been told they would be let go. Clean energy groups were yesterday pointing to the fall of Clear Solar as a warning for governments about the state of the solar industry following sharp cuts to state and federal subsidies for rooftop solar.
Clean Energy Council chief executive Matt Warren said "sudden changes to government schemes can quickly undo any gains towards developing a competitive solar industry". But Mr Warren added: "The fact that there is a buyer for the company is a good reflection of long term confidence in solar as part of Australia's energy future".
Australian Solar Energy Society chief executive John Grimes said it was an absolute certainty further firms would collapse in the current environment, adding that 8000 jobs were at stake. The federal government said yesterday it would keep its commitment of a $75 million grant to the troubled large scale solar power project proposed for Victorian Murray town Mildura, after a new owner was found for the project last year.
Industry welcomes ray of light for NSW solar
www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au
7 June 2011
The Clean Energy Council has welcomed a decision by the NSW Government to honour the level of support for more than 120,000 households that have installed solar power systems. Clean Energy Council Chief Executive Matthew Warren said the O'Farrell Government was to be congratulated for its demonstrated commitment to the solar industry in NSW.
"The new government has inherited a difficult situation, but it has honoured the investment of solar households while working hard to ensure the development of this important emerging clean energy industry," he said. "The retention of the 60¢ gross feed-in tariff is great news for those households which have made the commitment to generating clean solar power from their homes. "The Clean Energy Council has been advocating on behalf of the industry with the government throughout this process."
Mr Warren said it was crucial the government finished the job with the development of a long-term strategy to sustainably develop solar power in NSW. "solar panels will be the Hills Hoist of the 21st century. It is important to ensure we have a safe and efficient industry to deliver this as the cost of the technology continues to fall and the cost of electricity continues to increase," Mr warren said.
"The industry has come a long way in a short time. The Clean Energy Council has been working closely with the government throughout this process towards the best outcome for the industry. "The primary objective now is to ensure this exciting transformation in clean energy is delivered affordably, efficiently, safely and responsibly."
7 June 2011
The Clean Energy Council has welcomed a decision by the NSW Government to honour the level of support for more than 120,000 households that have installed solar power systems. Clean Energy Council Chief Executive Matthew Warren said the O'Farrell Government was to be congratulated for its demonstrated commitment to the solar industry in NSW."The new government has inherited a difficult situation, but it has honoured the investment of solar households while working hard to ensure the development of this important emerging clean energy industry," he said. "The retention of the 60¢ gross feed-in tariff is great news for those households which have made the commitment to generating clean solar power from their homes. "The Clean Energy Council has been advocating on behalf of the industry with the government throughout this process."
Mr Warren said it was crucial the government finished the job with the development of a long-term strategy to sustainably develop solar power in NSW. "solar panels will be the Hills Hoist of the 21st century. It is important to ensure we have a safe and efficient industry to deliver this as the cost of the technology continues to fall and the cost of electricity continues to increase," Mr warren said.
"The industry has come a long way in a short time. The Clean Energy Council has been working closely with the government throughout this process towards the best outcome for the industry. "The primary objective now is to ensure this exciting transformation in clean energy is delivered affordably, efficiently, safely and responsibly."
Broome gloom over solar moratorium
Weekend Australian
4 June 2011, Page: 9
RESIDENTS of the West Kimberley town of Broome have taken to grid connect solar power with such enthusiasm that they have nearly outstripped the capacity of their local power station to handle it. Now, regional electricity supplier Horizon Power has stepped in to control the situation. On March 2, Horizon announced future applications under its Renewable Energy Buyback Scheme would be restricted to systems no bigger than 1.5kW.
As residential installations in Broome average 5 7kW, this action is seen by locals as effectively a moratorium on solar power. Grid connect solar has taken off in Broome in the past six months, spurred by increasing power costs, generous federal and state government incentives and cheaper import prices for solar panels and inverters. An aggressive marketing campaign by Sydney based firm Solar CHOICE also generated strong interest in solar, leading to new orders both for Solar CHOICE and for local installers.
Horizon Power supplies electricity to 34 grids that service small communities throughout regional WA. Broome is the second town, after Carnarvon, to face restrictions on grid connect solar, and it won't be the last. Horizon's product manager Ashley Dixon says these isolated grids lack the size, flexibility and diversity of infrastructure of large interconnected grids such as those in the southwest.
"Our priority is to provide our customers with an electricity supply that's safe and reliable, while keeping supply interruptions down to an absolute minimum", Dixon says. "So our engineers have looked at these separate, isolated networks and calculated the level of renewable energy that each system can handle".
She says the restrictions are based on concerns about how effectively a power station can respond in the event of a sudden drop in output from all the solar systems connected to the grid, caused by, say, a drastic change in the weather. Dixon says the restriction imposed on Broome is temporary but she could not put a time frame on it.
"We've sensed a lot of frustration in Broome and we want to get back to normal as soon as possible", she adds. "That means finding a solution that will allow us to lift the network limits in the systems we operate. "Our engineers are looking at all sorts of technical and engineering solutions".
Electrical contractor Rob Gulberti, who installs solar systems in Broome under his trading banner Kimberley Enviro Solutions, says he has installed as many in the past 12 months as in the previous four years. He accepts the theory behind Horizon's actions but doesn't agree with the company's calculations of the system's capacity for solar.
Gulberti says the moratorium, though disappointing, is not the end of the world because it gives Horizon Power an opportunity to take stock of the system and improve it for the future. "There are a few crinkles in the system that we need to iron out", he says. "These include the way applications are processed, ensuring that meters are connected when they should be and making sure that customers have been approved for the feed in tariff and actually get paid what they should".
He said more should be done to educate customers about issues such as price versus quality and to give them an understanding of what a solar system can do for them. "Sometimes I feel that no one has really cared about the customer, the one who's actually forking out the money to invest in renewable energy. "We should aim to make the system so easy that we can see solar on the roof of any house in the Kimberley".
4 June 2011, Page: 9
RESIDENTS of the West Kimberley town of Broome have taken to grid connect solar power with such enthusiasm that they have nearly outstripped the capacity of their local power station to handle it. Now, regional electricity supplier Horizon Power has stepped in to control the situation. On March 2, Horizon announced future applications under its Renewable Energy Buyback Scheme would be restricted to systems no bigger than 1.5kW.
As residential installations in Broome average 5 7kW, this action is seen by locals as effectively a moratorium on solar power. Grid connect solar has taken off in Broome in the past six months, spurred by increasing power costs, generous federal and state government incentives and cheaper import prices for solar panels and inverters. An aggressive marketing campaign by Sydney based firm Solar CHOICE also generated strong interest in solar, leading to new orders both for Solar CHOICE and for local installers.
Horizon Power supplies electricity to 34 grids that service small communities throughout regional WA. Broome is the second town, after Carnarvon, to face restrictions on grid connect solar, and it won't be the last. Horizon's product manager Ashley Dixon says these isolated grids lack the size, flexibility and diversity of infrastructure of large interconnected grids such as those in the southwest.
"Our priority is to provide our customers with an electricity supply that's safe and reliable, while keeping supply interruptions down to an absolute minimum", Dixon says. "So our engineers have looked at these separate, isolated networks and calculated the level of renewable energy that each system can handle".
She says the restrictions are based on concerns about how effectively a power station can respond in the event of a sudden drop in output from all the solar systems connected to the grid, caused by, say, a drastic change in the weather. Dixon says the restriction imposed on Broome is temporary but she could not put a time frame on it.
"We've sensed a lot of frustration in Broome and we want to get back to normal as soon as possible", she adds. "That means finding a solution that will allow us to lift the network limits in the systems we operate. "Our engineers are looking at all sorts of technical and engineering solutions".
Electrical contractor Rob Gulberti, who installs solar systems in Broome under his trading banner Kimberley Enviro Solutions, says he has installed as many in the past 12 months as in the previous four years. He accepts the theory behind Horizon's actions but doesn't agree with the company's calculations of the system's capacity for solar.
Gulberti says the moratorium, though disappointing, is not the end of the world because it gives Horizon Power an opportunity to take stock of the system and improve it for the future. "There are a few crinkles in the system that we need to iron out", he says. "These include the way applications are processed, ensuring that meters are connected when they should be and making sure that customers have been approved for the feed in tariff and actually get paid what they should".
He said more should be done to educate customers about issues such as price versus quality and to give them an understanding of what a solar system can do for them. "Sometimes I feel that no one has really cared about the customer, the one who's actually forking out the money to invest in renewable energy. "We should aim to make the system so easy that we can see solar on the roof of any house in the Kimberley".
Thursday, 16 June 2011
Chinese lead world in clean energy spending
Weekend Australian
4 June 2011, Page: 8
MOST of us know China is leading world economic growth but it will surprise many to learn another category where the Chinese are also ahead of the rest. Private investment in China's clean energy sector increased by 39% last year to a world record $54.4 billion, according to the report Who's Winning the Clean Energy Race?, published by Pew Research Center Charitable Trusts.
The report says China is the world's leading producer of wind turbines and solar modules, and in 2009 it surpassed the US as the country with the most installed clean energy capacity. Worldwide investment in clean power assets alone could reach $2.3 trillion over the 2010 20 period, according to Pew Research Center research.
"One of the key reasons for China developing clean technology is to find solutions to their own environmental problems, which are significant", says John O'Brien, Australian CleanTech managing director. "There are a lot of Chinese investors keen to invest in both renewable energy and clean technology. A lot of the drive comes from the central government, [which provides] a lot of financial incentives such as [access to government loans] to fund your project, especially in the area of wind turbines".
One company benefiting enormously from the Chinese green push is Goldwind. "Goldwind is the leading supplier of permanent magnet, direct drive wind turbines in China and the world", says managing director John Titchen. "Permanent magnets replace part of the generator, increasing efficiency and reducing the size of the generator. Direct drive refers to the absence of a gear box that is used in most wind turbines this eliminates a major wind turbine maintenance issue and improves efficiency".
Goldwind supplied about 21% of the 19 GW Chinese wind turbine market last year This represents about 10% of the global wind power market and, as a result, Goldwind was last year ranked the world's fourth largest wind turbine supplier. Goldwind was established in 1986 (under the name of the Xinjiang Wind Energy Company) and now has 3900 employees and operates 14 factories with a total annual production of 4000 wind turbines. Goldwind Australia was established in late 2009.
"Goldwind Australia's first project is the Mortons Lane wind farm where 131.5 MW turbines will be installed in Western Victoria later this year", Titchen says. China installed 17 GW of wind power last year, helping the nation move quickly toward its 2020 target for installing 150 GW of wind. In fact, China accounted for 47% of all wind power investments globally, with $45bn tallied, the report says.
4 June 2011, Page: 8
MOST of us know China is leading world economic growth but it will surprise many to learn another category where the Chinese are also ahead of the rest. Private investment in China's clean energy sector increased by 39% last year to a world record $54.4 billion, according to the report Who's Winning the Clean Energy Race?, published by Pew Research Center Charitable Trusts.
The report says China is the world's leading producer of wind turbines and solar modules, and in 2009 it surpassed the US as the country with the most installed clean energy capacity. Worldwide investment in clean power assets alone could reach $2.3 trillion over the 2010 20 period, according to Pew Research Center research.
"One of the key reasons for China developing clean technology is to find solutions to their own environmental problems, which are significant", says John O'Brien, Australian CleanTech managing director. "There are a lot of Chinese investors keen to invest in both renewable energy and clean technology. A lot of the drive comes from the central government, [which provides] a lot of financial incentives such as [access to government loans] to fund your project, especially in the area of wind turbines".
One company benefiting enormously from the Chinese green push is Goldwind. "Goldwind is the leading supplier of permanent magnet, direct drive wind turbines in China and the world", says managing director John Titchen. "Permanent magnets replace part of the generator, increasing efficiency and reducing the size of the generator. Direct drive refers to the absence of a gear box that is used in most wind turbines this eliminates a major wind turbine maintenance issue and improves efficiency".
Goldwind supplied about 21% of the 19 GW Chinese wind turbine market last year This represents about 10% of the global wind power market and, as a result, Goldwind was last year ranked the world's fourth largest wind turbine supplier. Goldwind was established in 1986 (under the name of the Xinjiang Wind Energy Company) and now has 3900 employees and operates 14 factories with a total annual production of 4000 wind turbines. Goldwind Australia was established in late 2009.
"Goldwind Australia's first project is the Mortons Lane wind farm where 131.5 MW turbines will be installed in Western Victoria later this year", Titchen says. China installed 17 GW of wind power last year, helping the nation move quickly toward its 2020 target for installing 150 GW of wind. In fact, China accounted for 47% of all wind power investments globally, with $45bn tallied, the report says.
Has the nation lost its confidence when it comes to carbon policy?
Australian
6 June 2011, Page: 14
Australia is wrong to think it is too small to matter in the greenhouse abatement stakes.
AFTER a recent visit to Australia discussing international developments on climate change, I think three things stand out in the national debate: the extent to which virulent rhetoric is pushing out reasoned analysis; the belief that doing nothing is an option without serious cost; and the apparent loss of Australia's confidence in itself.
The first is the most immediately damaging to Australia and its industry, the second is plain wrong and restoring the third holds the key. The atmosphere is finite and we are dumping more than 30 billion tonnes of CO₂, each year into it. The physics by which this warms the planet's surface is a scientific fact, not a political football. Global warming is proving robust in both theory and observation; each year traps more energy in the lower atmosphere.
Australia's recent tragic pattern of extreme weather events has included both temperature extremes and wildfire conditions way above the historic range: does it really make sense to bet a nation's future on hoping this to be a coincidence? Yet I was consistently told that even mentioning the probable link was considered impolite, somehow distasteful, and risked vicious abuse.
European industry faced up to the basic realities after unprecedented heatwaves in Europe. Business leaders accepted that industry's best bet is to have a price on carbon rather than a barrage of central government interventions in individual investment and technology choices, that industry would be best served by having a seat at the table of a coherent and long term strategy for building a low carbon economy, with carbon pricing through the EU's emissions trading scheme at the core.
All participating sectors in the EU ETS have to date profited from it. The price was at first volatile but has in the past two years stabilised as the system has matured. The next phase, out to 2020, has been adopted with the power sector cooperating with the move to end free allowances to this sector after accepting the reality that carbon costs are anyway passed on.
To argue that one of the world's highest per capita emitters, Australia, is too small to matter and that free riding on the actions of others is an acceptable policy approach without consequence is delusional. Australia's fossil fuel emissions are close to those of Brazil, a country with some nine times the population.
Brazil is leading the world in renewable energy and the state of Sao Paulo, its industrial powerhouse with about 30 million people, has adopted a fixed cap on its CO₂ emissions. South Korea's stimulus package focuses on green technology and it plans emissions trading. India, with per capita emissions about one-tenth of those of Australia, is introducing an efficiency based, target and trading scheme across power and heavy industry. China is adopting low carbon development zones that cover a population comparable with Australia's and has built pilot trading schemes and a focus on key low carbon sectors into its five year plan.
Australian politics seems unable to keep up with the pace of developments in the emerging economies; Europe is building low carbon collaboration with them. Within a decade, I would guess, the resulting coalition of decarbonising economies will be charging carbon on the imports of carbon intensive commodities. Australia needs to decide which side it wants to be on.
Which brings me to the third observation. Two decades ago, when I cut my teeth in research, Australia was at the forefront of many developments in clean energy technology. Now there seems a fateful sense of helplessness. An assumption that Australia's future is as Asia's quarry, not a strategic partner with common cause in addressing one of the defining challenges of our era. There are so many technology options in energy efficiency, smart grids, low carbon steel and cement processes.
Australia has contributed some key ideas but the gains will go to those countries and companies that innovate, both in response to a carbon price and with government backed funding using some of the carbon revenues.
Instead, during my time in Australia the headlines were all about industries demanding to be exempt from the challenge and union demands that not a single job should be lost. If that's net jobs, fine: there are plenty of opportunities for expanding employment in decarbonising economies. The most exposed sectors do have a case for assistance to help them manage the transition. But it sounds like resisting all change, never a good economic strategy.
Opposing carbon pricing while Europe and Asia forge a decarbonising path looks like a Faustian bargain. Of course Australia has cheap coal, but as the recent Grattan Institute report on options for Australian electricity noted, it also has world class resources in all of the major low carbon electricity options as well as massive natural gas resources.
That report charted immense potential for innovation and cost reductions. To plan industrial development on coal based power instead of its unrivalled renewable resources to bet the economy on high carbon exports in a world where its major consumers are moving over to a low carbon road risks being on a road to ruin. It is for Australia to make its choice. Just don't do so with earphones plying false stories and a blindfold to the consequences.
Michael Grubb is senior research associate in Cambridge University's faculty of economics and chairman of the international research organisation Climate Strategies. He holds a number or senior advisory positions with the British government on climate change and energy policy.
6 June 2011, Page: 14
Australia is wrong to think it is too small to matter in the greenhouse abatement stakes.
AFTER a recent visit to Australia discussing international developments on climate change, I think three things stand out in the national debate: the extent to which virulent rhetoric is pushing out reasoned analysis; the belief that doing nothing is an option without serious cost; and the apparent loss of Australia's confidence in itself.
The first is the most immediately damaging to Australia and its industry, the second is plain wrong and restoring the third holds the key. The atmosphere is finite and we are dumping more than 30 billion tonnes of CO₂, each year into it. The physics by which this warms the planet's surface is a scientific fact, not a political football. Global warming is proving robust in both theory and observation; each year traps more energy in the lower atmosphere.
Australia's recent tragic pattern of extreme weather events has included both temperature extremes and wildfire conditions way above the historic range: does it really make sense to bet a nation's future on hoping this to be a coincidence? Yet I was consistently told that even mentioning the probable link was considered impolite, somehow distasteful, and risked vicious abuse.
European industry faced up to the basic realities after unprecedented heatwaves in Europe. Business leaders accepted that industry's best bet is to have a price on carbon rather than a barrage of central government interventions in individual investment and technology choices, that industry would be best served by having a seat at the table of a coherent and long term strategy for building a low carbon economy, with carbon pricing through the EU's emissions trading scheme at the core.
All participating sectors in the EU ETS have to date profited from it. The price was at first volatile but has in the past two years stabilised as the system has matured. The next phase, out to 2020, has been adopted with the power sector cooperating with the move to end free allowances to this sector after accepting the reality that carbon costs are anyway passed on.
To argue that one of the world's highest per capita emitters, Australia, is too small to matter and that free riding on the actions of others is an acceptable policy approach without consequence is delusional. Australia's fossil fuel emissions are close to those of Brazil, a country with some nine times the population.
Brazil is leading the world in renewable energy and the state of Sao Paulo, its industrial powerhouse with about 30 million people, has adopted a fixed cap on its CO₂ emissions. South Korea's stimulus package focuses on green technology and it plans emissions trading. India, with per capita emissions about one-tenth of those of Australia, is introducing an efficiency based, target and trading scheme across power and heavy industry. China is adopting low carbon development zones that cover a population comparable with Australia's and has built pilot trading schemes and a focus on key low carbon sectors into its five year plan.
Australian politics seems unable to keep up with the pace of developments in the emerging economies; Europe is building low carbon collaboration with them. Within a decade, I would guess, the resulting coalition of decarbonising economies will be charging carbon on the imports of carbon intensive commodities. Australia needs to decide which side it wants to be on.
Which brings me to the third observation. Two decades ago, when I cut my teeth in research, Australia was at the forefront of many developments in clean energy technology. Now there seems a fateful sense of helplessness. An assumption that Australia's future is as Asia's quarry, not a strategic partner with common cause in addressing one of the defining challenges of our era. There are so many technology options in energy efficiency, smart grids, low carbon steel and cement processes.
Australia has contributed some key ideas but the gains will go to those countries and companies that innovate, both in response to a carbon price and with government backed funding using some of the carbon revenues.
Instead, during my time in Australia the headlines were all about industries demanding to be exempt from the challenge and union demands that not a single job should be lost. If that's net jobs, fine: there are plenty of opportunities for expanding employment in decarbonising economies. The most exposed sectors do have a case for assistance to help them manage the transition. But it sounds like resisting all change, never a good economic strategy.
Opposing carbon pricing while Europe and Asia forge a decarbonising path looks like a Faustian bargain. Of course Australia has cheap coal, but as the recent Grattan Institute report on options for Australian electricity noted, it also has world class resources in all of the major low carbon electricity options as well as massive natural gas resources.
That report charted immense potential for innovation and cost reductions. To plan industrial development on coal based power instead of its unrivalled renewable resources to bet the economy on high carbon exports in a world where its major consumers are moving over to a low carbon road risks being on a road to ruin. It is for Australia to make its choice. Just don't do so with earphones plying false stories and a blindfold to the consequences.
Michael Grubb is senior research associate in Cambridge University's faculty of economics and chairman of the international research organisation Climate Strategies. He holds a number or senior advisory positions with the British government on climate change and energy policy.
Wednesday, 15 June 2011
Renewable energy set to surge
Age
6 June 2011, Page: 4
AUSTRALIA is expected to generate six times more renewable energy and up to three times more gas fired power in 2050 under a carbon price than it does today, according to Treasury modelling for the multiparty climate policy committee.
Consultants at Green Energy Markets recently estimated coal provides about 76% of Australia's electricity; gas 16% and renewable sources 7%. Although few details were released, it is understood the Treasury projections assume a starting carbon price of $20 to $30 a tonne of CO₂ the range being considered by the multi party committee.
Assumptions about the pace at which a carbon price would increase, or how rapidly Australia would cut emissions, were not available. The snapshot said gas fired power which in baseload form has about two-thirds fewer emissions than coal would generate 2 to 3 times more output in 40 years than today.
Australian Conservation Foundation executive director Don Henry said the shift to a cleaner economy was expected to involve more gas fired power but should only be developed if it included technology to capture and store emissions. He said the proportion of power from burning coal must be dramatically reduced unless carbon capture proved viable. "It is a little hard to judge, based on what has been released, but we'd be looking for much stronger growth in renewables than appears to be indicated by Treasury figures", Mr Henry said.
Opposition climate action spokesman Greg Hunt used World Environment Day to call on the government to organise, with Indonesia, a global conference to set targets for saving the world's rainforests. He called for a global rainforest recovery program before the end of the year.
"The single best thing you can do right now to help reduce emissions on a grand scale and to help protect the world's biodiversity is a global rainforest recovery program", Mr Hunt told the Ten Network. "If you can reduce the emissions by half from the destruction of rainforests by 2020, up to 4 billion tonnes of emissions could be saved". He said the government should expand a $200 million Howard government policy to protect rainforests, which Labor has continued but not escalated.
Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said Australia was working with other countries through the UN to develop a global plan to cut emissions from rainforest logging and degradation.
6 June 2011, Page: 4
AUSTRALIA is expected to generate six times more renewable energy and up to three times more gas fired power in 2050 under a carbon price than it does today, according to Treasury modelling for the multiparty climate policy committee.
Consultants at Green Energy Markets recently estimated coal provides about 76% of Australia's electricity; gas 16% and renewable sources 7%. Although few details were released, it is understood the Treasury projections assume a starting carbon price of $20 to $30 a tonne of CO₂ the range being considered by the multi party committee.
Assumptions about the pace at which a carbon price would increase, or how rapidly Australia would cut emissions, were not available. The snapshot said gas fired power which in baseload form has about two-thirds fewer emissions than coal would generate 2 to 3 times more output in 40 years than today.
Australian Conservation Foundation executive director Don Henry said the shift to a cleaner economy was expected to involve more gas fired power but should only be developed if it included technology to capture and store emissions. He said the proportion of power from burning coal must be dramatically reduced unless carbon capture proved viable. "It is a little hard to judge, based on what has been released, but we'd be looking for much stronger growth in renewables than appears to be indicated by Treasury figures", Mr Henry said.
Opposition climate action spokesman Greg Hunt used World Environment Day to call on the government to organise, with Indonesia, a global conference to set targets for saving the world's rainforests. He called for a global rainforest recovery program before the end of the year.
"The single best thing you can do right now to help reduce emissions on a grand scale and to help protect the world's biodiversity is a global rainforest recovery program", Mr Hunt told the Ten Network. "If you can reduce the emissions by half from the destruction of rainforests by 2020, up to 4 billion tonnes of emissions could be saved". He said the government should expand a $200 million Howard government policy to protect rainforests, which Labor has continued but not escalated.
Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said Australia was working with other countries through the UN to develop a global plan to cut emissions from rainforest logging and degradation.
Wind behind energy push
Courier Mail
3 June 2011, Page: 38
A $1.5 BILLION powerline project that would unleash billions of investment in power plants using climate safe, renewable energy in north Queensland is moving to the final development stage after securing agreements with major energy users.
As a result, Canberra based wind farm developer Windlab Systems which aims to use the powerline said it could move forward with its plan to next year start building a giant, 750 MW wind farm near Hughenden, southwest of Townsville, which would be one of Australia's largest renewable energy projects. The $1.5 billion wind farm would create 1000 jobs and boost Queensland's power generation capacity by 6%.
Leighton Holdings Contractors and CuString said their CopperString project to build a $1.5 billion, 720km high voltage transmission link between Townsville and Mount Isa now has initial agreements with energy users, which are believed to include Anglo Swiss miner Xstrata, owner of Mount Isa Mines. The partners aim to seal final contracts with energy users by late October, with construction from March to have the link operational by late 2014.
Major energy users, including Xstrata, BHP Billiton and Incitec Pivot, have been in talks with CopperString, CS Energy and APA Group on three rival proposals for expanding energy capacity in the minerals rich northwest. Talks with CS Energy and APA Group continue. CS Energy's Mica Creek power plant is the northwest's sole power source, but is stranded from the grid, coming up against capacity constraints and ageing units.
CopperString, which will create up to 750 jobs during construction and 30 permanent jobs, will provide up to 400 MW of power transfer capacity and will link the northwest to the eastern grid, tapping coal and gas fired power until renewable projects come on line. CopperString supporters, including local councils and regional economic development groups, say it could underpin enough renewable energy projects for north Queensland to supply up to a fifth of a federally mandated target to source 20% of Australia's power from renewable sources by 2020.
The Federal Government has conditionally pledged $335 million for CopperString, plus up to $350 million for a large solar plant to connect to it. The most advanced project seeking to connect to Copper String is Windlab Systems's Kennedy wind farm, which would install up to 300 turbines on the slopes of the Great Dividing Range. Other projects include a 300 MW solar farm and a biodiesel/biomass plant. Origin Energy is also looking at developing a 1800 MW hydropower project in Papua New Guinea to feed power to north Queensland. That proposal would benefit from CopperString's expansion of power transfer capacity.
3 June 2011, Page: 38
A $1.5 BILLION powerline project that would unleash billions of investment in power plants using climate safe, renewable energy in north Queensland is moving to the final development stage after securing agreements with major energy users.
As a result, Canberra based wind farm developer Windlab Systems which aims to use the powerline said it could move forward with its plan to next year start building a giant, 750 MW wind farm near Hughenden, southwest of Townsville, which would be one of Australia's largest renewable energy projects. The $1.5 billion wind farm would create 1000 jobs and boost Queensland's power generation capacity by 6%.
Leighton Holdings Contractors and CuString said their CopperString project to build a $1.5 billion, 720km high voltage transmission link between Townsville and Mount Isa now has initial agreements with energy users, which are believed to include Anglo Swiss miner Xstrata, owner of Mount Isa Mines. The partners aim to seal final contracts with energy users by late October, with construction from March to have the link operational by late 2014.
Major energy users, including Xstrata, BHP Billiton and Incitec Pivot, have been in talks with CopperString, CS Energy and APA Group on three rival proposals for expanding energy capacity in the minerals rich northwest. Talks with CS Energy and APA Group continue. CS Energy's Mica Creek power plant is the northwest's sole power source, but is stranded from the grid, coming up against capacity constraints and ageing units.
CopperString, which will create up to 750 jobs during construction and 30 permanent jobs, will provide up to 400 MW of power transfer capacity and will link the northwest to the eastern grid, tapping coal and gas fired power until renewable projects come on line. CopperString supporters, including local councils and regional economic development groups, say it could underpin enough renewable energy projects for north Queensland to supply up to a fifth of a federally mandated target to source 20% of Australia's power from renewable sources by 2020.
The Federal Government has conditionally pledged $335 million for CopperString, plus up to $350 million for a large solar plant to connect to it. The most advanced project seeking to connect to Copper String is Windlab Systems's Kennedy wind farm, which would install up to 300 turbines on the slopes of the Great Dividing Range. Other projects include a 300 MW solar farm and a biodiesel/biomass plant. Origin Energy is also looking at developing a 1800 MW hydropower project in Papua New Guinea to feed power to north Queensland. That proposal would benefit from CopperString's expansion of power transfer capacity.
Tuesday, 14 June 2011
Lucas caught in fracking furore
Age
3 June 2011, Page: 3
LIKE BHP Billiton before it, Sydney based AJ Lucas has been snared by the international environmental furore over the gas extraction technique, hydraulic fracturing (fracking). Lucas's 41% owned Cuadrilla Resources has suspended fracking at a shale gas drilling site near Blackpool in Britain after the British Geological Survey recorded an earthquake about two kilometres from the drill site.
BGS said: 'Any process that injects pressurised water into rocks at depths will cause the rock to fracture and possibly produce earthquakes". BusinessDay last week revealed that BHP Billiton was facing class action law suits in the US over the impact of fracking in Arkansas. Arkansas landowners allege BHP Billiton's recently acquired $US4.75 billion ($A4.44 billion) Fayetteville shale gas business is causing earthquakes, poisoning their water and polluting the soil and air.
Fracking involves injecting high pressure water, sand and chemicals into shale or coal seam gass to liberate tightly held gas. The fracking of deeply buried shale beds for gas is in its infancy in Britain, with the Cuadrilla Resources well the first for the country It is also in its infancy in Australia, but it is integral to the $50 billion coal seam gas industry being developed in Queensland.
Lucas is this country's biggest drilling services provider to the Australian coal seam gas industry It has invested more than $60 million in Cuadrilla Resources, which is developing an unconventional (shale and coal seam gas) business in Britain, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary and the Netherlands.
Cuadrilla Resources chief executive Mark Miller said the suspension of operations near Blackpool showed it took its responsibilities seriously. The BGS recorded an earthquake early on May 27 at two kilometres and with a magnitude of 1.5. It said it had installed seismic measuring equipment near the well after a 2.3 magnitude earthquake was detected on April 1.
Lucas's shares have been suspended from the ASX since May 23 while it works on a recapitalisation plan. Lucas has previously laid the blame for its financial woes on its September 2008 acquisition of Mitchell Drilling. The US shale gas industry is the most developed but it too is causing environmental concerns. The US Energy Department is under directions from President Barack Obama to develop safety and environmental guidelines for fracking.
Fracking is a hot issue in Europe. France, which does not need a new gas source because of a reliance on nuclear power, is debating banning it. But last month the Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee in Britain said there was no evidence that a ban of shale gas drilling was warranted. Queensland Treasurer Andrew Fraser has said his state's booming coal seam gas industry has its supporters.
3 June 2011, Page: 3
LIKE BHP Billiton before it, Sydney based AJ Lucas has been snared by the international environmental furore over the gas extraction technique, hydraulic fracturing (fracking). Lucas's 41% owned Cuadrilla Resources has suspended fracking at a shale gas drilling site near Blackpool in Britain after the British Geological Survey recorded an earthquake about two kilometres from the drill site.BGS said: 'Any process that injects pressurised water into rocks at depths will cause the rock to fracture and possibly produce earthquakes". BusinessDay last week revealed that BHP Billiton was facing class action law suits in the US over the impact of fracking in Arkansas. Arkansas landowners allege BHP Billiton's recently acquired $US4.75 billion ($A4.44 billion) Fayetteville shale gas business is causing earthquakes, poisoning their water and polluting the soil and air.
Fracking involves injecting high pressure water, sand and chemicals into shale or coal seam gass to liberate tightly held gas. The fracking of deeply buried shale beds for gas is in its infancy in Britain, with the Cuadrilla Resources well the first for the country It is also in its infancy in Australia, but it is integral to the $50 billion coal seam gas industry being developed in Queensland.
Lucas is this country's biggest drilling services provider to the Australian coal seam gas industry It has invested more than $60 million in Cuadrilla Resources, which is developing an unconventional (shale and coal seam gas) business in Britain, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary and the Netherlands.
Cuadrilla Resources chief executive Mark Miller said the suspension of operations near Blackpool showed it took its responsibilities seriously. The BGS recorded an earthquake early on May 27 at two kilometres and with a magnitude of 1.5. It said it had installed seismic measuring equipment near the well after a 2.3 magnitude earthquake was detected on April 1.
Lucas's shares have been suspended from the ASX since May 23 while it works on a recapitalisation plan. Lucas has previously laid the blame for its financial woes on its September 2008 acquisition of Mitchell Drilling. The US shale gas industry is the most developed but it too is causing environmental concerns. The US Energy Department is under directions from President Barack Obama to develop safety and environmental guidelines for fracking.
Fracking is a hot issue in Europe. France, which does not need a new gas source because of a reliance on nuclear power, is debating banning it. But last month the Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee in Britain said there was no evidence that a ban of shale gas drilling was warranted. Queensland Treasurer Andrew Fraser has said his state's booming coal seam gas industry has its supporters.
Solar group relocates to USSolar group relocates to US
Australian
2 June 2011, Page: 6
AN Adelaide solar cell manufacturer has closed its doors and is relocating to the US after deciding that an Australian based operation cannot be viable. In a cautionary tale for governments desperate to embrace smart, sustainable jobs in a clean energy future, Origin Energy Solar is heading to the Boise, Idaho, headquarters of silicon chip maker Micron Technology.
Micron Technology can deliver the semiconductor capability necessary for Origin Energy Solar to commercially develop super slim solar panels that use SLIVER photovoltaic technology pioneered at the Australian National University in Canberra. But the US relocation means state and federal grants totalling $8 million will produce nothing in terms of sustainable green energy jobs.
Since 2005, the Origin Energy subsidiary has received $2m from a state federal structural adjustment fund, $lm from the Australian Greenhouse Office and $5m from an AusIndustry renewable energy development initiative. The AusIndustry money helped buy capital equipment that is now being dismantled for transport to Idaho.
In 2006, Origin Energy Solar said it was "committed to the continuing development of our Regency Park SLIVER pilot plant and to the likely employment opportunities that are expected to flow". But, since then, competition from cheaper Chinese made solar panels has increased and Indian manufacturers have also entered the market. Both countries are also making significant progress in developing their own photovoltaic technologies.
South Australian Industries Minister Tom Koutsantonis said he was disappointed by Origin Energy Solar's decision to leave, but stressed the company would be refunding the state's full grant allocation of $243,900. "This is risky business, but the biggest risk is in doing nothing because renewable energy is the way of the future", Mr Koutsantonis said. A spokeswoman for Origin Energy said some of the 62 fulltime equivalent employees at Origin Energy Solar would transfer to Idaho, some had taken redundancies and some had transferred to the parent company.
2 June 2011, Page: 6
AN Adelaide solar cell manufacturer has closed its doors and is relocating to the US after deciding that an Australian based operation cannot be viable. In a cautionary tale for governments desperate to embrace smart, sustainable jobs in a clean energy future, Origin Energy Solar is heading to the Boise, Idaho, headquarters of silicon chip maker Micron Technology.
Micron Technology can deliver the semiconductor capability necessary for Origin Energy Solar to commercially develop super slim solar panels that use SLIVER photovoltaic technology pioneered at the Australian National University in Canberra. But the US relocation means state and federal grants totalling $8 million will produce nothing in terms of sustainable green energy jobs.
Since 2005, the Origin Energy subsidiary has received $2m from a state federal structural adjustment fund, $lm from the Australian Greenhouse Office and $5m from an AusIndustry renewable energy development initiative. The AusIndustry money helped buy capital equipment that is now being dismantled for transport to Idaho.
In 2006, Origin Energy Solar said it was "committed to the continuing development of our Regency Park SLIVER pilot plant and to the likely employment opportunities that are expected to flow". But, since then, competition from cheaper Chinese made solar panels has increased and Indian manufacturers have also entered the market. Both countries are also making significant progress in developing their own photovoltaic technologies.
South Australian Industries Minister Tom Koutsantonis said he was disappointed by Origin Energy Solar's decision to leave, but stressed the company would be refunding the state's full grant allocation of $243,900. "This is risky business, but the biggest risk is in doing nothing because renewable energy is the way of the future", Mr Koutsantonis said. A spokeswoman for Origin Energy said some of the 62 fulltime equivalent employees at Origin Energy Solar would transfer to Idaho, some had taken redundancies and some had transferred to the parent company.
Monday, 13 June 2011
SA renewable energy hopes left up in air
Adelaide Advertiser
1 June 2011, Page: 67
PLANS to unlock wind power to generate thousands of MWs from the Eyre Peninsula have received a blow with a crucial rule change being rejected by the key regulatory body. RenewablesSA Commissioner Tim O'Loughlin said the ruling blocked a new incentive for companies to develop one of Australia's best wind resources and it was "flawed".
Developers had hoped the change would mean consumers would underwrite part of the estimated $613 million cost to build a transmission line from Port Augusta to Eyre Peninsula. "We think this is a blinkered and short sighted decision", Mr O'Loughlin said. He said South Australia was by far the most affected by the ruling, as other states did not have the same opportunity to tap high quality wind resources at the edge of the national grid.
A RenewablesSA Green Grid report had identified a potential 2000 MW of wind power on Eyre Peninsula, compared to the state's existing installed wind power capacity of 1018 MW. At the moment, wind farm developers pay the full cost of ElectraNet installing a transmission line. The suggested rule change would have allowed a wind farm developer to contribute to the cost of the transmission line based on a portion of the projected 2000 MW that they expected to produce. Remaining costs would be recouped by ElectraNet for consumers as other developers came on line.
Mr O'Loughlin said most developers would not now risk such a large investment up front. The Australian Energy Market Commission was originally asked by the Ministerial Council on Energy in 2010 to consider allowing energy generators to have consumers partially underwrite transmission line costs. Its draft determination "stunned everybody by saying we don't want to look at any of the five options", Mr O'Loughlin said. The options were variations on consumers bearing some of the initial costs.
Mr O'Loughlin argued that the cost of building wind farms under existing grid lines was continually rising as the best wind generation sites were already taken and new, tougher rules on siting turbines closer to housing were making them less economic. "In Eyre Peninsula, what you've got is an area with lots of wind that's the size of Tasmania with the population of 55,000 people. "There are ideal sites in sparsely populated inland areas", he said.
The draft determination would now receive submissions, including one by Mr O'Loughlin with Acciona Energy, Transfield Services, Origin Energy and Pacific Hydro. But Mr O'Loughlin said the final ruling which is due to be made by June 30 was unlikely to be changed. He believed the need for extra renewable energy would eventually make the economics work for Eyre Peninsula.
"They say they don't want to subject consumers to the risk of having to pay for surplus transmission capacity", Mr O'Loughlin said. "My complaint is that they don't recognise the opposite set of risks which is the opportunity of tapping resources like Eyre Peninsula and the rising cost of wind power production in the existing framework".
1 June 2011, Page: 67
PLANS to unlock wind power to generate thousands of MWs from the Eyre Peninsula have received a blow with a crucial rule change being rejected by the key regulatory body. RenewablesSA Commissioner Tim O'Loughlin said the ruling blocked a new incentive for companies to develop one of Australia's best wind resources and it was "flawed".Developers had hoped the change would mean consumers would underwrite part of the estimated $613 million cost to build a transmission line from Port Augusta to Eyre Peninsula. "We think this is a blinkered and short sighted decision", Mr O'Loughlin said. He said South Australia was by far the most affected by the ruling, as other states did not have the same opportunity to tap high quality wind resources at the edge of the national grid.
A RenewablesSA Green Grid report had identified a potential 2000 MW of wind power on Eyre Peninsula, compared to the state's existing installed wind power capacity of 1018 MW. At the moment, wind farm developers pay the full cost of ElectraNet installing a transmission line. The suggested rule change would have allowed a wind farm developer to contribute to the cost of the transmission line based on a portion of the projected 2000 MW that they expected to produce. Remaining costs would be recouped by ElectraNet for consumers as other developers came on line.
Mr O'Loughlin said most developers would not now risk such a large investment up front. The Australian Energy Market Commission was originally asked by the Ministerial Council on Energy in 2010 to consider allowing energy generators to have consumers partially underwrite transmission line costs. Its draft determination "stunned everybody by saying we don't want to look at any of the five options", Mr O'Loughlin said. The options were variations on consumers bearing some of the initial costs.
Mr O'Loughlin argued that the cost of building wind farms under existing grid lines was continually rising as the best wind generation sites were already taken and new, tougher rules on siting turbines closer to housing were making them less economic. "In Eyre Peninsula, what you've got is an area with lots of wind that's the size of Tasmania with the population of 55,000 people. "There are ideal sites in sparsely populated inland areas", he said.
The draft determination would now receive submissions, including one by Mr O'Loughlin with Acciona Energy, Transfield Services, Origin Energy and Pacific Hydro. But Mr O'Loughlin said the final ruling which is due to be made by June 30 was unlikely to be changed. He believed the need for extra renewable energy would eventually make the economics work for Eyre Peninsula.
"They say they don't want to subject consumers to the risk of having to pay for surplus transmission capacity", Mr O'Loughlin said. "My complaint is that they don't recognise the opposite set of risks which is the opportunity of tapping resources like Eyre Peninsula and the rising cost of wind power production in the existing framework".
Human activity emissions surge
Sydney Morning Herald
31 May 2011, Page: 1
GLOBAL greenhouse gas emissions from human activity have spiralled to their highest level, meaning there is now little hope of holding temperature rises below 2°, the International Energy Agency has revealed. Emissions fell slightly during the global financial crisis but surged back to an estimated 30.6 billion tonnes last year.
The trajectory is now veering away from the path agreed at the most recent United Nations climate conference in Cancun, which guarantees that talks will be fraught at the next meeting, in Durban, South Africa, in November.
"This significant increase in CO₂ emissions and the locking in of future emissions due to infrastructure investments represent a serious setback to our hopes of limiting the global rise in temperature to no more than 2°", the agency's chief economist, Fatih Birol, said in a statement. Burning coal was responsible for 44% of human emissions last year, oil for 36% and natural gas 20%, the report said.
31 May 2011, Page: 1
GLOBAL greenhouse gas emissions from human activity have spiralled to their highest level, meaning there is now little hope of holding temperature rises below 2°, the International Energy Agency has revealed. Emissions fell slightly during the global financial crisis but surged back to an estimated 30.6 billion tonnes last year.
The trajectory is now veering away from the path agreed at the most recent United Nations climate conference in Cancun, which guarantees that talks will be fraught at the next meeting, in Durban, South Africa, in November.
"This significant increase in CO₂ emissions and the locking in of future emissions due to infrastructure investments represent a serious setback to our hopes of limiting the global rise in temperature to no more than 2°", the agency's chief economist, Fatih Birol, said in a statement. Burning coal was responsible for 44% of human emissions last year, oil for 36% and natural gas 20%, the report said.
Germany to switch off nuclear power
Australian
31 May 2011, Page: 10
BERLIN: Germany yesterday announced plans to become the first major industrialised power to shut down all its nuclear plants in the wake of the Fukushima disaster in Japan, with a phase out due to be wrapped up by 2022. Environment Minister Norbert Roettgen announced the decision by the centre Right coalition, describing it as "irreversible".
"After long consultations, there is now an agreement by the coalition to end nuclear power", Mr Roettgen said after seven hours of negotiations into the early hours at Chancellor Angela Merkel's offices. "This decision is consistent, decisive and clear".
Germany has 17 nuclear reactors on its territory, eight of which are currently off the electricity grid. Seven of those offline are the country's oldest nuclear reactors, which the federal government shut down for three months pending a safety probe after the Japanese atomic emergency at Fukushima following the March earthquake and tsunami.
The eighth reactor is the Kruemmel plant in northern Germany, which has been mothballed for years due to technical problems. The decision makes Germany the first major industrial power to announce plans to give up atomic energy entirely. But it also means the country will have to find the 22% of its electricity needs currently covered by nuclear reactors from another source.
Mr Roettgen insisted there was no danger of blackouts. "We assure that the electricity supply will be ensured at all times and for all users", he said, without providing details. Last Friday, the environment ministers from all 16 German regional states called for the temporary order on the seven plants to be made permanent.
Mr Roettgen yesterday said none of the eight reactors offline would be reactivated. Six further reactors would be shut down by the end of 2021 and the three most modern would cease operation by the end of 2022. Yesterday's decision is effectively a return to the timetable set by the previous Social Democrat Green coalition government a decade ago.
And it is a humbling U turn for Ms Merkel, who at the end of last year decided to extend the lifetime of Germany's 17 reactors by an average of 12 years, which would have kept them open until the mid 2030s. That decision was unpopular in Germany even before the earthquake and tsunami damaged the Fukushima facility.
Ms Merkel's zig zagging on Source: European Nuclear Society, what has been a highly emotive issue in the country since the 1970s has cost her at the ballot box. Ms Merkel has blamed the nuclear disaster at Fukushima for recent defeats in state elections. In the latest, on May 23, the anti nuclear Greens pushed her conservative party into third place in a vote in the northern state of Bremen, the first time they had scored more votes than the conservatives in a regional or federal election.
In the late night wrangling in Ms Merkel's fractious team, the pro business Free Democrats (FDP) argued against a fixed end date for nuclear power, and to maintain two reserve reactors in case of energy shortages.
FDP sources said there would be a contingency plan with one reactor, but did not provide details. The Christian Social Union, the Bavarian sister party of Ms Merkel's Christian Democrats, fought for an exit within 10 years. Some coalition members had called for a built in review clause, which could have allowed the decision to be revisited, but this was thrown out.
Mr Roettgen said the government had largely followed the recommendations of an ethics panel, appointed by Ms Merkel after the Japan meltdown, which called for an end to nuclear power in Germany within a decade.
31 May 2011, Page: 10
BERLIN: Germany yesterday announced plans to become the first major industrialised power to shut down all its nuclear plants in the wake of the Fukushima disaster in Japan, with a phase out due to be wrapped up by 2022. Environment Minister Norbert Roettgen announced the decision by the centre Right coalition, describing it as "irreversible".
"After long consultations, there is now an agreement by the coalition to end nuclear power", Mr Roettgen said after seven hours of negotiations into the early hours at Chancellor Angela Merkel's offices. "This decision is consistent, decisive and clear".
Germany has 17 nuclear reactors on its territory, eight of which are currently off the electricity grid. Seven of those offline are the country's oldest nuclear reactors, which the federal government shut down for three months pending a safety probe after the Japanese atomic emergency at Fukushima following the March earthquake and tsunami.
The eighth reactor is the Kruemmel plant in northern Germany, which has been mothballed for years due to technical problems. The decision makes Germany the first major industrial power to announce plans to give up atomic energy entirely. But it also means the country will have to find the 22% of its electricity needs currently covered by nuclear reactors from another source.
Mr Roettgen insisted there was no danger of blackouts. "We assure that the electricity supply will be ensured at all times and for all users", he said, without providing details. Last Friday, the environment ministers from all 16 German regional states called for the temporary order on the seven plants to be made permanent.
Mr Roettgen yesterday said none of the eight reactors offline would be reactivated. Six further reactors would be shut down by the end of 2021 and the three most modern would cease operation by the end of 2022. Yesterday's decision is effectively a return to the timetable set by the previous Social Democrat Green coalition government a decade ago.
And it is a humbling U turn for Ms Merkel, who at the end of last year decided to extend the lifetime of Germany's 17 reactors by an average of 12 years, which would have kept them open until the mid 2030s. That decision was unpopular in Germany even before the earthquake and tsunami damaged the Fukushima facility.
Ms Merkel's zig zagging on Source: European Nuclear Society, what has been a highly emotive issue in the country since the 1970s has cost her at the ballot box. Ms Merkel has blamed the nuclear disaster at Fukushima for recent defeats in state elections. In the latest, on May 23, the anti nuclear Greens pushed her conservative party into third place in a vote in the northern state of Bremen, the first time they had scored more votes than the conservatives in a regional or federal election.
In the late night wrangling in Ms Merkel's fractious team, the pro business Free Democrats (FDP) argued against a fixed end date for nuclear power, and to maintain two reserve reactors in case of energy shortages.
FDP sources said there would be a contingency plan with one reactor, but did not provide details. The Christian Social Union, the Bavarian sister party of Ms Merkel's Christian Democrats, fought for an exit within 10 years. Some coalition members had called for a built in review clause, which could have allowed the decision to be revisited, but this was thrown out.
Mr Roettgen said the government had largely followed the recommendations of an ethics panel, appointed by Ms Merkel after the Japan meltdown, which called for an end to nuclear power in Germany within a decade.
Fringe homes not so green: report
Age
31 May 2011, Page: 4
SO YOU thought you had gone green, buying a seven star house with a water tank in a new estate with a sprinkling of gum trees. But it turns out your innercity cousins might still have the edge. New houses on Melbourne's urban fringe are responsible for much greater levels of greenhouse gas emissions than city apartments or high density suburban housing.
Despite the push to introduce six and seven star energy ratings for new houses, the appetite for new household appliances and the increasing reliance on car travel has negated many of the benefits, according to a study from University of Melbourne.
While the operational use of energy in homes has come down because of star ratings, the embodied energy and energy used for commuting to far flung developments has risen, it found. The embodied energy used to make the product in the typical new house has risen more than 400% since the 1950s, mainly driven by the size of the house and the declining number of occupants.
And the average house size has soared, with many new houses well over 200 m², more than double the average in the same period. But it is travel emissions that have ballooned at the greatest rate about 1400%. While Melbourne's suburban fringe in the 1950s was about six kilometres from the CBD Energy, it is now about 35 kilometres away. At this distance, Melbourne's public infrastructure simply cannot keep up, the study's author Dr Robert Crawford said.
Choosing a seven star house was better than a five or six star, but not if the owners lived a "two or three star lifestyle", he said. "When people actually get into their houses and install inefficient heating or cooling systems, or run them all day long, the star system become meaningless".
The study looked at three types of new housing: highrise apartments in Docklands; inner suburban, medium density housing, such as the K2 development in Windsor; and new, outer suburban detached houses. All were more efficient than houses built three years ago (when five star homes were the standard), but energy use in seven star homes was only 13% less than in 2008. High rise apartments were up to 70% less.
Since the start of this month, all new houses have to have a minimum six star energy rating. This applies to the thermal performance of a home, as well as requiring the installation of a solar hot water system or a rainwater tank for toilet flushing. Australia is one of the highest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world on a per person basis.
31 May 2011, Page: 4
SO YOU thought you had gone green, buying a seven star house with a water tank in a new estate with a sprinkling of gum trees. But it turns out your innercity cousins might still have the edge. New houses on Melbourne's urban fringe are responsible for much greater levels of greenhouse gas emissions than city apartments or high density suburban housing.
Despite the push to introduce six and seven star energy ratings for new houses, the appetite for new household appliances and the increasing reliance on car travel has negated many of the benefits, according to a study from University of Melbourne.
While the operational use of energy in homes has come down because of star ratings, the embodied energy and energy used for commuting to far flung developments has risen, it found. The embodied energy used to make the product in the typical new house has risen more than 400% since the 1950s, mainly driven by the size of the house and the declining number of occupants.
And the average house size has soared, with many new houses well over 200 m², more than double the average in the same period. But it is travel emissions that have ballooned at the greatest rate about 1400%. While Melbourne's suburban fringe in the 1950s was about six kilometres from the CBD Energy, it is now about 35 kilometres away. At this distance, Melbourne's public infrastructure simply cannot keep up, the study's author Dr Robert Crawford said.
Choosing a seven star house was better than a five or six star, but not if the owners lived a "two or three star lifestyle", he said. "When people actually get into their houses and install inefficient heating or cooling systems, or run them all day long, the star system become meaningless".
The study looked at three types of new housing: highrise apartments in Docklands; inner suburban, medium density housing, such as the K2 development in Windsor; and new, outer suburban detached houses. All were more efficient than houses built three years ago (when five star homes were the standard), but energy use in seven star homes was only 13% less than in 2008. High rise apartments were up to 70% less.
Since the start of this month, all new houses have to have a minimum six star energy rating. This applies to the thermal performance of a home, as well as requiring the installation of a solar hot water system or a rainwater tank for toilet flushing. Australia is one of the highest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world on a per person basis.
Wednesday, 8 June 2011
Solar panels idle in race for rebate
Sunday Mail Brisbane
29 May 2011, Page: 12
THE solar panels are on but there's no electricity flowing to the homes of hundreds of families who have rushed to have systems installed before federal rebates are slashed by more than $1000. In a desperate attempt to qualify for extra cash, The Sunday Mail has learned some operators have guaranteed homeowners they will install the panels by the end of June. But operators have told them they will have to wait until the new financial year before the systems are operational.
That's because the homes need switchboard upgrades for the system to work, or checks by state electricity authorities. From July 1, the federal solar credits scheme will be reduced, with the average rebate to households installing a 1.5kW system in Sydney, Brisbane, Perth or Adelaide dropping from $6200 to $5000. The Gillard Government's Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator has confirmed the systems do not have to be operational by July 1 to qualify. They simply have to be on the roof and capable of generating electricity.
Opposition climate change spokesman Greg Hunt said that after the debacle of the home insulation scheme and Green Loans, the Government should launch an immediate investigation into the scheme. "We do not want unacceptable delays before the solar panels actually generate electricity", Mr Hunt said. "I call on Climate Change Minister Greg Combet to launch an urgent review into these allegations, to report by June 15. "The review should ensure consumer protection, and investigate whether there is any improper or collusive practice. "We don't want solar panels to go the way of Pink Batts".
29 May 2011, Page: 12
THE solar panels are on but there's no electricity flowing to the homes of hundreds of families who have rushed to have systems installed before federal rebates are slashed by more than $1000. In a desperate attempt to qualify for extra cash, The Sunday Mail has learned some operators have guaranteed homeowners they will install the panels by the end of June. But operators have told them they will have to wait until the new financial year before the systems are operational.
That's because the homes need switchboard upgrades for the system to work, or checks by state electricity authorities. From July 1, the federal solar credits scheme will be reduced, with the average rebate to households installing a 1.5kW system in Sydney, Brisbane, Perth or Adelaide dropping from $6200 to $5000. The Gillard Government's Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator has confirmed the systems do not have to be operational by July 1 to qualify. They simply have to be on the roof and capable of generating electricity.
Opposition climate change spokesman Greg Hunt said that after the debacle of the home insulation scheme and Green Loans, the Government should launch an immediate investigation into the scheme. "We do not want unacceptable delays before the solar panels actually generate electricity", Mr Hunt said. "I call on Climate Change Minister Greg Combet to launch an urgent review into these allegations, to report by June 15. "The review should ensure consumer protection, and investigate whether there is any improper or collusive practice. "We don't want solar panels to go the way of Pink Batts".
Carbon debate appeal
Adelaide Advertiser
30 May 2011, Page: 65
A GROUP of 15 energy companies has called for the urgent introduction of an effective price on carbon. In an open letter to major political parties released yesterday, the Clean Energy Council, which represents the 15 energy companies and others in the renewable energy sector, urged federal politicians to participate constructively in the debate on the final form of carbon pricing.
"Australians want action on climate change and a clean energy future", the letter said. "Business wants certainty to invest in more clean energy projects". Clean Energy Council chief Matthew Warren said there was support for emissions reduction of 5% below 2000 levels by 2020.
30 May 2011, Page: 65
A GROUP of 15 energy companies has called for the urgent introduction of an effective price on carbon. In an open letter to major political parties released yesterday, the Clean Energy Council, which represents the 15 energy companies and others in the renewable energy sector, urged federal politicians to participate constructively in the debate on the final form of carbon pricing.
"Australians want action on climate change and a clean energy future", the letter said. "Business wants certainty to invest in more clean energy projects". Clean Energy Council chief Matthew Warren said there was support for emissions reduction of 5% below 2000 levels by 2020.
Energy options ignored
West Australian
27 May 2011 Page: 22
The directions paper released recently by the Department of Energy introduces itself as detailing a smarter energy future for West Australians. Lip service is made about cleaner energy, with use of renewable energy sources. However, renewable energy options are repeatedly dismissed with a bias to maintain the continued burning of fossil fuels.
There is also no mention of the looming onset of peak oil.Gas, which is presented as a major player, is also a significant greenhouse gas contributor and in the short term may be of value only if it gets rid of the polluting use of coal in power stations.
Even more alarming is the invitation of coal seam gas frackers to infiltrate WA as part of the plan. Dangers to our health and environment are becoming all apparent from this vile form of mining in other parts of the world and greenhouse pollution resulting is probably the same as with coal because of fugitive methane emissions. Finally, carbon capture and storage is included as a solution but this technology is unproved, costly and would divert resources from development of renewables.
The recommendation of this paper will lock WA into many more years of fossil fuel pollution. Instead, what is needed is a healthy, secure and sustainable energy future and significant reduction of this State's carbon emissions by 2030.
Greg Glazov, Gnangara.
27 May 2011 Page: 22
The directions paper released recently by the Department of Energy introduces itself as detailing a smarter energy future for West Australians. Lip service is made about cleaner energy, with use of renewable energy sources. However, renewable energy options are repeatedly dismissed with a bias to maintain the continued burning of fossil fuels.
There is also no mention of the looming onset of peak oil.Gas, which is presented as a major player, is also a significant greenhouse gas contributor and in the short term may be of value only if it gets rid of the polluting use of coal in power stations.
Even more alarming is the invitation of coal seam gas frackers to infiltrate WA as part of the plan. Dangers to our health and environment are becoming all apparent from this vile form of mining in other parts of the world and greenhouse pollution resulting is probably the same as with coal because of fugitive methane emissions. Finally, carbon capture and storage is included as a solution but this technology is unproved, costly and would divert resources from development of renewables.
The recommendation of this paper will lock WA into many more years of fossil fuel pollution. Instead, what is needed is a healthy, secure and sustainable energy future and significant reduction of this State's carbon emissions by 2030.
Greg Glazov, Gnangara.
NSW Solar Changes - Industry response
Clean Energy Council
24 May 2011
The NSW Government's solar power decision today will anger many households, but will save more than 5000 jobs in this vital industry, according to the Clean Energy Council. Clean Energy Council Chief Executive Matthew Warren said the O'Farrell Government had been forced to deal with a diabolical policy problem in cleaning up the oversubscribed Solar Bonus Scheme.
The government announced a support package to help solar households in hardship as part of its decision to reduce the feed in tariff from 60¢ to 40¢ and honour existing applications. "The Clean Energy Council argued strongly for the honouring of existing applications, avoiding any cuts to existing household support and the evolution of a new scheme to continue the success of the solar industry in NSW", Mr Warren said.
"Today's announcement shows the Government is committed to sustaining a viable solar industry, but it comes at a terrible price. "The retrospective reduction in the feed in tariff remains unacceptable for solar households and we remain committed to the retention of the existing rate for those who signed up to the scheme in good faith".
More than 40,000 applications lodged with the government under the scheme were on the line and solar companies had invested hundreds of millions of dollars in stock for these new systems. "Failing to honour these deals would immediately send the industry to the wall", Mr Warren said. "There are still significant uncertainties going forward. The survival of the solar industry in Australia remains at stake. "The challenge remains to quickly develop a new scheme that continues to deliver affordable clean energy to NSW households and businesses and continue to build this vital new NSW industry".
24 May 2011
The NSW Government's solar power decision today will anger many households, but will save more than 5000 jobs in this vital industry, according to the Clean Energy Council. Clean Energy Council Chief Executive Matthew Warren said the O'Farrell Government had been forced to deal with a diabolical policy problem in cleaning up the oversubscribed Solar Bonus Scheme.
The government announced a support package to help solar households in hardship as part of its decision to reduce the feed in tariff from 60¢ to 40¢ and honour existing applications. "The Clean Energy Council argued strongly for the honouring of existing applications, avoiding any cuts to existing household support and the evolution of a new scheme to continue the success of the solar industry in NSW", Mr Warren said.
"Today's announcement shows the Government is committed to sustaining a viable solar industry, but it comes at a terrible price. "The retrospective reduction in the feed in tariff remains unacceptable for solar households and we remain committed to the retention of the existing rate for those who signed up to the scheme in good faith".
More than 40,000 applications lodged with the government under the scheme were on the line and solar companies had invested hundreds of millions of dollars in stock for these new systems. "Failing to honour these deals would immediately send the industry to the wall", Mr Warren said. "There are still significant uncertainties going forward. The survival of the solar industry in Australia remains at stake. "The challenge remains to quickly develop a new scheme that continues to deliver affordable clean energy to NSW households and businesses and continue to build this vital new NSW industry".
Green energy costs 'out of date'
Sydney Morning Herald
26 May 2011, Page: 7
THE federal government and the power industry have massively overestimated the cost of renewable energy, according to new University of Melbourne research, commissioned by the government's own Garnaut climate change review. Forecasts prepared last year for the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism as it helped plan the future electricity network suggest solar and wind power are far more costly than they actually are.
In some cases, rooftop solar panels are already cheaper than the prices they were predicted to fall to in the year 2030. "If you make the international comparisons to the US Department of Energy and the IEA [International Energy Agency], Australia is really relying on information that's very out of date", said Patrick Hearps, a University of Melbourne research fellow and technical director at the group Beyond Zero Emissions. "If you're looking at how we should be planning energy over the next 10 or 20 years, and you are using the data provided to the government, you are not going to be looking at large scale renewables.
You are going to be looking at gas as an interim measure". The report Renewable Energy Technology Cost Review, launched last night, says that the "cost curve", dictating that solar, wind and hydropower power becomes cheaper as more people use it, has dipped more sharply than predicted five years ago, suggesting that billions of investment could be misdirected.
It critiques the most recent assessment of the nation's future energy mix late last year by Australia's electricity generators, which used data developed by the Electric Power Research Institute, a non profit US research organisation funded by energy companies. The report found that photovoltaic panels produce energy at a cost of about $300 a MW the cost predicted for 2030.
Wind power today can cost about $130 a MW, but the generator's data said it would not dip to that price until 2030. solar thermal energy, which can directly replace "baseload" coalfired power, is also dropping quickly in price. The Minister for Resources and Energy, Martin Ferguson, said changes to the cost of renewable energy would be noted.
26 May 2011, Page: 7
THE federal government and the power industry have massively overestimated the cost of renewable energy, according to new University of Melbourne research, commissioned by the government's own Garnaut climate change review. Forecasts prepared last year for the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism as it helped plan the future electricity network suggest solar and wind power are far more costly than they actually are.
In some cases, rooftop solar panels are already cheaper than the prices they were predicted to fall to in the year 2030. "If you make the international comparisons to the US Department of Energy and the IEA [International Energy Agency], Australia is really relying on information that's very out of date", said Patrick Hearps, a University of Melbourne research fellow and technical director at the group Beyond Zero Emissions. "If you're looking at how we should be planning energy over the next 10 or 20 years, and you are using the data provided to the government, you are not going to be looking at large scale renewables.
You are going to be looking at gas as an interim measure". The report Renewable Energy Technology Cost Review, launched last night, says that the "cost curve", dictating that solar, wind and hydropower power becomes cheaper as more people use it, has dipped more sharply than predicted five years ago, suggesting that billions of investment could be misdirected.
It critiques the most recent assessment of the nation's future energy mix late last year by Australia's electricity generators, which used data developed by the Electric Power Research Institute, a non profit US research organisation funded by energy companies. The report found that photovoltaic panels produce energy at a cost of about $300 a MW the cost predicted for 2030.
Wind power today can cost about $130 a MW, but the generator's data said it would not dip to that price until 2030. solar thermal energy, which can directly replace "baseload" coalfired power, is also dropping quickly in price. The Minister for Resources and Energy, Martin Ferguson, said changes to the cost of renewable energy would be noted.
Airlines back biofuels
Age
26 May 2011, Page: 8
The development of commercially viable and sustainable biofuels is essential for the aviation industry to become carbon neutral by 2020, industry players say. The International Civil Aviation Organisation has earmarked 2020 as the year when the industry will achieve carbon neutral growth. It is targeting 2% annual fuel efficiency improvements from now until then.
Boeing Australia and South Pacific president Ian Thomas says initiatives such as lighter, more aerodynamic aircraft, advances in engine technology and better air traffic control systems will help, but aren't enough to achieve the desired result. "That will probably get us to about half way in terms of our goal of carbon neutrality", Dr Thomas said at the launch of a CSIRO report, Flight Path to Sustainable Aviation, yesterday. "The other half of the picture is biofuels sustainable aviation biofuels. "Not taking farm produce off somebody's plate, but really using byproducts of current industries that don't threaten food stocks".
The CSIRO report was commissioned by the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Users Group, which includes Air New Zealand, Qantas and Virgin Australia, as well as aircraft manufactures Boeing and Airbus. The report was also prepared with the Defence Science and Technology Organisation and The Climate Group. "Sustainable aviation fuels derived from biomass are a feasible option", the report said. "There is sufficient existing sustainable biomass to support a local bio derived jet fuel industry".
The report says Australia and New Zealand are strongly positioned to produce sustainable aviation fuels that comply with social, environmental and economic criteria. This includes not impacting on food security or the environment. CSIRO economist Paul Graham says sources of biomass include crop stubble, forest residues and urban waste. Potential new sources are grasses, Jatropha seeds and algae, among others.
Climate Group global director of energy Rupert Posner says effectively dealing with climate change means finding solutions that maintain or improve people's quality of life. "Not flying is simply not a solution", he said. The report says turning biomass into jet fuel may generate more than 12,000 jobs in Australia and New Zealand over the next 20 years and reduce aviation fuel imports by $2 billion a year. Crude oil prices are about $US100 a barrel.
The development of a local biofuel production industry requires government support, and Virgin Australia executive Merren McArthur is urging Canberra to get on board. The CSIRO report found the global aviation industry was responsible for 2% of annual greenhouse emissions.
26 May 2011, Page: 8
The development of commercially viable and sustainable biofuels is essential for the aviation industry to become carbon neutral by 2020, industry players say. The International Civil Aviation Organisation has earmarked 2020 as the year when the industry will achieve carbon neutral growth. It is targeting 2% annual fuel efficiency improvements from now until then.Boeing Australia and South Pacific president Ian Thomas says initiatives such as lighter, more aerodynamic aircraft, advances in engine technology and better air traffic control systems will help, but aren't enough to achieve the desired result. "That will probably get us to about half way in terms of our goal of carbon neutrality", Dr Thomas said at the launch of a CSIRO report, Flight Path to Sustainable Aviation, yesterday. "The other half of the picture is biofuels sustainable aviation biofuels. "Not taking farm produce off somebody's plate, but really using byproducts of current industries that don't threaten food stocks".
The CSIRO report was commissioned by the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Users Group, which includes Air New Zealand, Qantas and Virgin Australia, as well as aircraft manufactures Boeing and Airbus. The report was also prepared with the Defence Science and Technology Organisation and The Climate Group. "Sustainable aviation fuels derived from biomass are a feasible option", the report said. "There is sufficient existing sustainable biomass to support a local bio derived jet fuel industry".
The report says Australia and New Zealand are strongly positioned to produce sustainable aviation fuels that comply with social, environmental and economic criteria. This includes not impacting on food security or the environment. CSIRO economist Paul Graham says sources of biomass include crop stubble, forest residues and urban waste. Potential new sources are grasses, Jatropha seeds and algae, among others.
Climate Group global director of energy Rupert Posner says effectively dealing with climate change means finding solutions that maintain or improve people's quality of life. "Not flying is simply not a solution", he said. The report says turning biomass into jet fuel may generate more than 12,000 jobs in Australia and New Zealand over the next 20 years and reduce aviation fuel imports by $2 billion a year. Crude oil prices are about $US100 a barrel.
The development of a local biofuel production industry requires government support, and Virgin Australia executive Merren McArthur is urging Canberra to get on board. The CSIRO report found the global aviation industry was responsible for 2% of annual greenhouse emissions.
Tuesday, 7 June 2011
Stricter rules for wind turbines than for coal plants
Age
25 May 2011, Page: 4
WHICH would you rather have built near your home: a wind turbine or a coal power plant? Under Baillieu government policy, it appears you have some say about the former, but not the latter. The Coalition last year said that if elected it would return fairness to a lopsided planning system by not approving a wind turbine within two kilometres of a home without a signed contract with the resident. That policy is yet to be fleshed out.
By contrast, the Environment Protection Authority last week applied state law to grant Melbourne company HRL approval to build a 300 MW coal fuelled plant at Morwell. It would be built within two kilometres of about 250 houses. Lobby group Environment Victoria said the Coalition was making it easier for new electricity generation to come from coal than wind, at odds with national and state climate goals. "It obviously sends the wrong signal when we are trying to clean up the energy supply and reduce greenhouse gas emissions", campaigns director Mark Wakeham said.
There was a mixed response yesterday from those living within two kilometres of the proposed plant site.. Catherine, who did not want to give her surname, was not happy about it. "It seems to me that the coal plants they are building are coming closer and closer to the township of Morwell, and that will mean that residents will have to move further out from the town to get away from them".
She said her asthma had worsened since she moved to the Latrobe Valley, and blamed air pollution from the stacks visible from her backyard. "If we get a choice of a wind turbine going in instead of another coal plant, that would certainly be the way to go". Another resident, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said people in the valley were used to living near coal fired power stations and did not object to a new one.
Doubt remains whether the plant will be built after the EPA approved a plant only half the size of what the company wanted, and The Saturday Age revealed that Australia's four big banks had refused finance. Federal government documents suggest the plant, trialling new coal gasification technology, needs to be at least 400 MWs to be viable.
About 300 people rallied at State Parliament yesterday to protest against the plant's approval, calling on the federal and state governments to withdraw financial backing. A state government spokeswoman said details of a wind turbine buffer policy were still being developed, but it would be specific to wind farms, not to coal or gas plants.
25 May 2011, Page: 4
WHICH would you rather have built near your home: a wind turbine or a coal power plant? Under Baillieu government policy, it appears you have some say about the former, but not the latter. The Coalition last year said that if elected it would return fairness to a lopsided planning system by not approving a wind turbine within two kilometres of a home without a signed contract with the resident. That policy is yet to be fleshed out.
By contrast, the Environment Protection Authority last week applied state law to grant Melbourne company HRL approval to build a 300 MW coal fuelled plant at Morwell. It would be built within two kilometres of about 250 houses. Lobby group Environment Victoria said the Coalition was making it easier for new electricity generation to come from coal than wind, at odds with national and state climate goals. "It obviously sends the wrong signal when we are trying to clean up the energy supply and reduce greenhouse gas emissions", campaigns director Mark Wakeham said.
There was a mixed response yesterday from those living within two kilometres of the proposed plant site.. Catherine, who did not want to give her surname, was not happy about it. "It seems to me that the coal plants they are building are coming closer and closer to the township of Morwell, and that will mean that residents will have to move further out from the town to get away from them".
She said her asthma had worsened since she moved to the Latrobe Valley, and blamed air pollution from the stacks visible from her backyard. "If we get a choice of a wind turbine going in instead of another coal plant, that would certainly be the way to go". Another resident, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said people in the valley were used to living near coal fired power stations and did not object to a new one.
Doubt remains whether the plant will be built after the EPA approved a plant only half the size of what the company wanted, and The Saturday Age revealed that Australia's four big banks had refused finance. Federal government documents suggest the plant, trialling new coal gasification technology, needs to be at least 400 MWs to be viable.
About 300 people rallied at State Parliament yesterday to protest against the plant's approval, calling on the federal and state governments to withdraw financial backing. A state government spokeswoman said details of a wind turbine buffer policy were still being developed, but it would be specific to wind farms, not to coal or gas plants.
Monday, 6 June 2011
Climate for change
Adelaide Advertiser
25 May 2011, Page: 23
While Australian politicians variously run hot or cold on global warming, our UK motherland is putting its foot down. Carbon emissions there will be halved by 2025, British Prime Minister David Cameron promised last week. This puts our proposed 5% cut in the shade and our bickering very much in the spotlight. Prime Minister Julia Gillard is struggling to get her Parliament to agree global warming is real, never mind what to do about it.
She wants a tax on carbon; Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says that's "toxic" and he wants to plant more trees. Climate Change Minister Greg Combet was gushing after the UK announcement and probably more than a little envious. "The Australian Government welcomes efforts by the UK to increase the level of action it is taking to combat climate change", he said.
University of Adelaide climate change Professor Barry Brook says it would be a good idea to examine the UK energy policy and see how they hope to achieve such steep cuts in emissions. "Britain has come out with an extremely ambitious plan", he says. "They are going to have to have some strong policy underpinning that. "They're going to be picking technologies to drive forward. "One is to build a whole bunch of new nuclear power stations, as well as a large deployment of offshore wind (turbines)".
Australia, on the other hand, has set weak short term targets and stronger longterm targets, in the hope energy policy will be sorted out in the meantime. "There's the climate science imperative and then there's the reality of what Australia can do right now", Professor Brook says. "The White Paper on energy still hasn't materialised and until the carbon tax comes in, an energy plan isn't worth a lot really. "Australia seems to be waiting for all these things to happen before it does anything".
The British Government's 50% target is one giant step in its legally mandated commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60% by 2030, and 80% by 2050. Most of the world's major economies have given undertakings on what they hope to achieve by 2020. For Australia, it's a 5% reduction on its 2000 emissions. The European Union promises between 20 and 30% on its 1990 levels, Japan and Russia are going for 25% over the same timeframe and the US is aiming for a 17% reduction on 2005 emissions. Britain's energy intensive industries, such as steel manufacturers, are warning the country risks making itself uncompetitive unless other European countries follow its lead.
They have pressured the Government to put in an escape clause that allows for the target to be dumped as early as 2014 if Britain's European partners fail to implement their own CO₂, cuts. Mr Cameron agrees. "It doesn't actually help climate change if you simply drive an energy intensive industry to locate in Poland rather than Britain", he said last week. "We believe that Europe should follow our lead and go for a 30% reduction".
Because Europe yet has to make the same commitment, Mr Cameron has sanctioned a review in 2014 "to make sure that if they are not on that pathway, then we shouldn't put ourselves on it too". The European Union's Climate Action Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, says Britain's pledge is "an outstanding example of strong willingness to act despite difficult economic times". On Monday, Australia's Climate Commission declared evidence of global warming "beyond doubt". The commission's report advocates a different "pathway" to emission reductions which would support initially small targets, such as Australia's 5%.
"The budget approach sees far more flexibility so that your emissions might be far larger now, but with a payoff in the future and that's allowed for", says Professor Will Steffen, a climate science expert and the executive director of the Australian National University's Climate Change Institute, said. "You could be a big emitter but it's because you are building new infrastructure which in 10 years will see a big reduction in emissions. "It allows more flexible strategies".
25 May 2011, Page: 23
While Australian politicians variously run hot or cold on global warming, our UK motherland is putting its foot down. Carbon emissions there will be halved by 2025, British Prime Minister David Cameron promised last week. This puts our proposed 5% cut in the shade and our bickering very much in the spotlight. Prime Minister Julia Gillard is struggling to get her Parliament to agree global warming is real, never mind what to do about it.
She wants a tax on carbon; Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says that's "toxic" and he wants to plant more trees. Climate Change Minister Greg Combet was gushing after the UK announcement and probably more than a little envious. "The Australian Government welcomes efforts by the UK to increase the level of action it is taking to combat climate change", he said.
University of Adelaide climate change Professor Barry Brook says it would be a good idea to examine the UK energy policy and see how they hope to achieve such steep cuts in emissions. "Britain has come out with an extremely ambitious plan", he says. "They are going to have to have some strong policy underpinning that. "They're going to be picking technologies to drive forward. "One is to build a whole bunch of new nuclear power stations, as well as a large deployment of offshore wind (turbines)".
Australia, on the other hand, has set weak short term targets and stronger longterm targets, in the hope energy policy will be sorted out in the meantime. "There's the climate science imperative and then there's the reality of what Australia can do right now", Professor Brook says. "The White Paper on energy still hasn't materialised and until the carbon tax comes in, an energy plan isn't worth a lot really. "Australia seems to be waiting for all these things to happen before it does anything".
The British Government's 50% target is one giant step in its legally mandated commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60% by 2030, and 80% by 2050. Most of the world's major economies have given undertakings on what they hope to achieve by 2020. For Australia, it's a 5% reduction on its 2000 emissions. The European Union promises between 20 and 30% on its 1990 levels, Japan and Russia are going for 25% over the same timeframe and the US is aiming for a 17% reduction on 2005 emissions. Britain's energy intensive industries, such as steel manufacturers, are warning the country risks making itself uncompetitive unless other European countries follow its lead.
They have pressured the Government to put in an escape clause that allows for the target to be dumped as early as 2014 if Britain's European partners fail to implement their own CO₂, cuts. Mr Cameron agrees. "It doesn't actually help climate change if you simply drive an energy intensive industry to locate in Poland rather than Britain", he said last week. "We believe that Europe should follow our lead and go for a 30% reduction".
Because Europe yet has to make the same commitment, Mr Cameron has sanctioned a review in 2014 "to make sure that if they are not on that pathway, then we shouldn't put ourselves on it too". The European Union's Climate Action Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, says Britain's pledge is "an outstanding example of strong willingness to act despite difficult economic times". On Monday, Australia's Climate Commission declared evidence of global warming "beyond doubt". The commission's report advocates a different "pathway" to emission reductions which would support initially small targets, such as Australia's 5%.
"The budget approach sees far more flexibility so that your emissions might be far larger now, but with a payoff in the future and that's allowed for", says Professor Will Steffen, a climate science expert and the executive director of the Australian National University's Climate Change Institute, said. "You could be a big emitter but it's because you are building new infrastructure which in 10 years will see a big reduction in emissions. "It allows more flexible strategies".
Time for physicians to step up campaign on climate change
Canberra Times
Tuesday 24/5/2011 Page: 10
Tony McMichael ("Folly to ignore climate change dangers on health", May 20, p17) is absolutely right in criticising the Royal Australasian College of Physicians for their myopic failure to support a carbon tax. The college is a champion of evidence based medicine in the treatment of individual patients. It also favours increased cigarette pricing for the prevention of tobacco related diseases.
Yet the evidence for human induced climate disruption through increased greenhouse gas emissions from our prodigious combustion of fossil fuels is no less compelling than the links between smoking and disease. Potential climate effects both globally and in Australia are far more widespread and dangerous than tobacco toxicity. The tremendous political and financial clout of the fossil fuel industry promotes misinformation about scientifically well established facts on the impact of CO₂, pollution on the environment, including loss of biodiversity and the health of humans.
The good state of human health and life expectancy, at least in industrialised countries, is predominantly due to the infrastructure of public health measures introduced in the 19th century and immunisation procedures during the 20th century. It is regrettable that the RACP, supposedly an independent professional organisation, is failing to provide leadership on the mitigation of the greatest public health hazard facing Australia and the world in the 21st century, namely anthropogenic global warming.
Bryan Furnass, Hughes
Tuesday 24/5/2011 Page: 10
Tony McMichael ("Folly to ignore climate change dangers on health", May 20, p17) is absolutely right in criticising the Royal Australasian College of Physicians for their myopic failure to support a carbon tax. The college is a champion of evidence based medicine in the treatment of individual patients. It also favours increased cigarette pricing for the prevention of tobacco related diseases.
Yet the evidence for human induced climate disruption through increased greenhouse gas emissions from our prodigious combustion of fossil fuels is no less compelling than the links between smoking and disease. Potential climate effects both globally and in Australia are far more widespread and dangerous than tobacco toxicity. The tremendous political and financial clout of the fossil fuel industry promotes misinformation about scientifically well established facts on the impact of CO₂, pollution on the environment, including loss of biodiversity and the health of humans.
The good state of human health and life expectancy, at least in industrialised countries, is predominantly due to the infrastructure of public health measures introduced in the 19th century and immunisation procedures during the 20th century. It is regrettable that the RACP, supposedly an independent professional organisation, is failing to provide leadership on the mitigation of the greatest public health hazard facing Australia and the world in the 21st century, namely anthropogenic global warming.
Bryan Furnass, Hughes
Renewables are key to the future
Age
Tuesday 24/5/2011 Page: 10
THE elephant in the room, or rather the elephant absent from the room where they develop Australian climate policy, is any government declaration of renewable energy programs ("Climate science audit slams skeptics", The Age, 23/5), While the US, Europe, China and India are making firm commitments to renewables through tax and fiscal policies, Australia is reticent, coy or just plain terrified of the fossil fuel bullies when it comes to talking up large scale solar, wind and tidal power generation.
That there has yet to be any commitment as to how the other 50% of the collected carbon tax will be deployed should suggest that it will be used to compensate the same polluters who are causing the problem. That there is not one renewable energy expert on Greg Combet's six person Climate Commission also suggests that the government is window dressing a product that it has no intention of selling.
John Ashton, North Fitzroy
Tuesday 24/5/2011 Page: 10
THE elephant in the room, or rather the elephant absent from the room where they develop Australian climate policy, is any government declaration of renewable energy programs ("Climate science audit slams skeptics", The Age, 23/5), While the US, Europe, China and India are making firm commitments to renewables through tax and fiscal policies, Australia is reticent, coy or just plain terrified of the fossil fuel bullies when it comes to talking up large scale solar, wind and tidal power generation.
That there has yet to be any commitment as to how the other 50% of the collected carbon tax will be deployed should suggest that it will be used to compensate the same polluters who are causing the problem. That there is not one renewable energy expert on Greg Combet's six person Climate Commission also suggests that the government is window dressing a product that it has no intention of selling.
John Ashton, North Fitzroy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)