From: Reuters in London
June 22, 2006
MANY countries may be grossly underestimating the quantity of greenhouse gases they emit according to a new method of monitoring output, scientists said today.
The new "top-down" system measures the actual amount of gases such as carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere, compared with the traditional "bottom-up" method which estimates what is likely to be produced on the ground.
The findings, still the subject of scientific debate, could destabilise the European Union's fledgling carbon trading system and have implications for the Kyoto Treaty.
"Work at the (European Commission's) Joint Research Centre (JRC) in Italy suggests huge under-reporting of many national CH4 (methane) emissions," said Euan Nisbet of London's Royal Holloway University.
"Top-down science is still somewhat in its infancy. But the gas they measure is there, not an estimate of what they think should be there."
According to work by Peter Bergamaschi at the JRC in Ispra, Italy, top-down science suggests Britain may be reporting only half its actual methane emissions and France only two-thirds, the magazine New Scientist said today.
By contrast, Ireland and Finland may be over-reporting the methane coming from their peat bogs.
Britain defended its estimates today, saying they were calculated in line with international guidelines reviewed each year by independent international experts.
The government's Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) said in a statement it believed Mr Bergamaschi overestimated British methane emissions by at least half.
"Bergamaschi's work cannot separate natural methane emissions from man-made ones. There is significant uncertainty in how much natural methane is produced in the UK, which is carried into Bergamaschi's model," DEFRA said.
Mr Nisbet said making the same calculations for carbon dioxide, more plentiful but less damaging, was more complicated.
The world needed a chain of monitoring stations, similar to the seismic system set up in the 1950s to monitor nuclear bomb tests, he said.
Mr Nisbet said China, which is building a coal-fired power station a week to fuel its booming economy, had good monitoring as had Canada and Kyoto refuseniks the United States and Australia.
There was virtually no monitoring in South Asia, very little in Africa and the tropical oceans were scantily covered.
Thursday, 22 June 2006
Wednesday, 21 June 2006
Debating nuclear, but what about our rich renewable resource?
Rashida Nuridin
20 June 2006
We produce the highest amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) per capita in the world. One third of this pollution comes solely from the production of electricity. It is imperative that we take urgent action now to reduce our CO2 emissions.
The Federal Government is calling for a “full blooded” debate on nuclear power in Australia, with the pretense that it will be a solution to our GHG emissions. This doesn't make sense when we are not seriously harvesting the free, safe and rich renewable resources that are available.
Wind farms and other renewables can be up and running in a matter of months. Nuclear power stations take many years. In the US, the most recent nuclear power station to come on line took 24 years from start of construction to commercial production!
Don't be fooled by the “clean” tag the government is giving nuclear. The production of nuclear power is a multi stage process. The nuclear “cycle” includes mining, milling, enrichment, power production and waste management, with transportation needed between each of these processes. Although the emissions of GHG's attributed to the power generation phase may be low, this is not the case for the remainder of the cycle. Transport is also required between each one of these processes adding further to the emissions attributable to the full cycle of nuclear power. They also require an enormous quantity of water for cooling.
Renewables such as solar, wind, wave and hydro are simple; they directly convert the raw energy source into electricity with no harmful side effects and minimal full energy cycle GHG emissions, particularly in the case of wind.
Further, high-grade uranium deposits are only expected to last a few decades and when demand increases this will be depleted much sooner. If we then turn to using lower-grade uranium “the CO2 emissions become similar to those of a combined cycle gas fired power station” (Dr. Diesendorf, UNSW).
After 50 years there is still no safe long term solution to waste disposal. It will be 240,000 years before the radioactivity of the “high level waste” is no longer a concern. Are you prepared to leave this legacy for your children and future generations to deal with?
Nuclear power is high risk. With an increased terrorist threat, weapons proliferation and sabotage are a reality. No other energy source requires the substantial level of security as nuclear power.
Twenty years on, have we forgotten the lessons of Chernobyl? Even today's nuclear experts concede that nuclear accidents are inevitable. As more nuclear plants are built, so too does the risk of the next major accident.
Nuclear energy is uneconomical. It requires massive subsidies (the most highly subsidised power of all) and isn't self supporting anywhere in the world . The estimated cost of subsidies to the nuclear power industry in the US, for example, is “US$115 billion in direct subsidies, compared to less than $10 billion for wind and solar combined” (ACF). Just one nuclear waste repository in Nevada is expected to cost US$50 billion. As soon as it is opened in 2010, it will be filled to capacity by the nuclear waste accumulated in the US.
The average lifespan of a nuclear power station is only 21 years (similar to that of a wind turbine) and the cost of dismantling Britain’s nuclear power stations for example is estimated at around 70 billion pounds sterling.
Perhaps those who argue against the economics of wind don’t realise that nuclear power is more expensive. On a global scale, renewable energy already supplies more power than nuclear.
Renewable energy made up an average of 20% of Australia’s electricity from the 1960’s through to the mid 1970’s. It has gradually declined to 8% and projected to make up only 8.8% of our electricity by 2010 (ABARE). Compare this to an EU wide target of 21% by the same year.
Worldwide, wind power is the fastest growing energy sector with energy capacity doubling every 3 years - in 2005 it increased by 43% more than the previous year. Australia has one of the best and most consistent wind resources in the world, but without community and government we are being left behind.
Countries such as Germany have one third of our renewable resource, yet are one of the world leaders in both solar and wind installations. Germany's commitment to renewables is reflected in their decision to phase out all of its nuclear power stations by 2020. Countries with a high ratio of nuclear power such as France and even Sweden, the nuclear power capital of the world, are increasing their renewables.
There is a small vocal minority in the community who oppose wind farm developments. Hype created by these individuals is a smokescreen to a “nimbyism” based primarily on aesthetics. The recurring fictional rhetoric they preach regarding bird kills, noise and unreliability have long been proven false by independent scientists and engineers the world over.
WWF, Greenpeace, ACF, David Attenborough, David Suzuki, The Royal Society For The Protection Of Birds In Britain and most other world leading environmentalists all publicly promote wind energy along with other renewables as being the way forward for electricity production. They would not take this stance if they believed wind farms posed a threat to bird or animal populations.
As far as noise is concerned, you can hold a conversation at the base of the biggest modern wind tower, while the turbine is working at full speed, without raising your voice (35-45 dB (A) at 350m ) and at 97-99% reliability, wind turbines far exceed the performance of coal plants.
I am a visual artist and aesthetics is very important to me, but I don't let it cloud my judgment. Let's put things in perspective. What is more important, your view being “spoilt” or addressing global warming?
The vocal minority should not be allowed to jeopardise the benefit to the silent majority on such a critical issue. We all share the same atmosphere. It is not a localised issue, it crosses all borders and affects us all.
I have focused on wind power because it is currently one of the most economical ways to increase the mix of renewable energy in the overall production of electricity. We all want electricity. I’m sure given a choice most of us would prefer to have clean power.
Next time you flick the switch on, think about where your power is coming from, and your contribution to GHG emissions.
20 June 2006
We produce the highest amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) per capita in the world. One third of this pollution comes solely from the production of electricity. It is imperative that we take urgent action now to reduce our CO2 emissions.
The Federal Government is calling for a “full blooded” debate on nuclear power in Australia, with the pretense that it will be a solution to our GHG emissions. This doesn't make sense when we are not seriously harvesting the free, safe and rich renewable resources that are available.
Wind farms and other renewables can be up and running in a matter of months. Nuclear power stations take many years. In the US, the most recent nuclear power station to come on line took 24 years from start of construction to commercial production!
Don't be fooled by the “clean” tag the government is giving nuclear. The production of nuclear power is a multi stage process. The nuclear “cycle” includes mining, milling, enrichment, power production and waste management, with transportation needed between each of these processes. Although the emissions of GHG's attributed to the power generation phase may be low, this is not the case for the remainder of the cycle. Transport is also required between each one of these processes adding further to the emissions attributable to the full cycle of nuclear power. They also require an enormous quantity of water for cooling.
Renewables such as solar, wind, wave and hydro are simple; they directly convert the raw energy source into electricity with no harmful side effects and minimal full energy cycle GHG emissions, particularly in the case of wind.
Further, high-grade uranium deposits are only expected to last a few decades and when demand increases this will be depleted much sooner. If we then turn to using lower-grade uranium “the CO2 emissions become similar to those of a combined cycle gas fired power station” (Dr. Diesendorf, UNSW).
After 50 years there is still no safe long term solution to waste disposal. It will be 240,000 years before the radioactivity of the “high level waste” is no longer a concern. Are you prepared to leave this legacy for your children and future generations to deal with?
Nuclear power is high risk. With an increased terrorist threat, weapons proliferation and sabotage are a reality. No other energy source requires the substantial level of security as nuclear power.
Twenty years on, have we forgotten the lessons of Chernobyl? Even today's nuclear experts concede that nuclear accidents are inevitable. As more nuclear plants are built, so too does the risk of the next major accident.
Nuclear energy is uneconomical. It requires massive subsidies (the most highly subsidised power of all) and isn't self supporting anywhere in the world . The estimated cost of subsidies to the nuclear power industry in the US, for example, is “US$115 billion in direct subsidies, compared to less than $10 billion for wind and solar combined” (ACF). Just one nuclear waste repository in Nevada is expected to cost US$50 billion. As soon as it is opened in 2010, it will be filled to capacity by the nuclear waste accumulated in the US.
The average lifespan of a nuclear power station is only 21 years (similar to that of a wind turbine) and the cost of dismantling Britain’s nuclear power stations for example is estimated at around 70 billion pounds sterling.
Perhaps those who argue against the economics of wind don’t realise that nuclear power is more expensive. On a global scale, renewable energy already supplies more power than nuclear.
Renewable energy made up an average of 20% of Australia’s electricity from the 1960’s through to the mid 1970’s. It has gradually declined to 8% and projected to make up only 8.8% of our electricity by 2010 (ABARE). Compare this to an EU wide target of 21% by the same year.
Worldwide, wind power is the fastest growing energy sector with energy capacity doubling every 3 years - in 2005 it increased by 43% more than the previous year. Australia has one of the best and most consistent wind resources in the world, but without community and government we are being left behind.
Countries such as Germany have one third of our renewable resource, yet are one of the world leaders in both solar and wind installations. Germany's commitment to renewables is reflected in their decision to phase out all of its nuclear power stations by 2020. Countries with a high ratio of nuclear power such as France and even Sweden, the nuclear power capital of the world, are increasing their renewables.
There is a small vocal minority in the community who oppose wind farm developments. Hype created by these individuals is a smokescreen to a “nimbyism” based primarily on aesthetics. The recurring fictional rhetoric they preach regarding bird kills, noise and unreliability have long been proven false by independent scientists and engineers the world over.
WWF, Greenpeace, ACF, David Attenborough, David Suzuki, The Royal Society For The Protection Of Birds In Britain and most other world leading environmentalists all publicly promote wind energy along with other renewables as being the way forward for electricity production. They would not take this stance if they believed wind farms posed a threat to bird or animal populations.
As far as noise is concerned, you can hold a conversation at the base of the biggest modern wind tower, while the turbine is working at full speed, without raising your voice (35-45 dB (A) at 350m ) and at 97-99% reliability, wind turbines far exceed the performance of coal plants.
I am a visual artist and aesthetics is very important to me, but I don't let it cloud my judgment. Let's put things in perspective. What is more important, your view being “spoilt” or addressing global warming?
The vocal minority should not be allowed to jeopardise the benefit to the silent majority on such a critical issue. We all share the same atmosphere. It is not a localised issue, it crosses all borders and affects us all.
I have focused on wind power because it is currently one of the most economical ways to increase the mix of renewable energy in the overall production of electricity. We all want electricity. I’m sure given a choice most of us would prefer to have clean power.
Next time you flick the switch on, think about where your power is coming from, and your contribution to GHG emissions.
Tuesday, 20 June 2006
Green power for the future
The Australian
June 10, 2006
Impressive advances are being made in clean coal technologies, writes Andrew Trounson
IT seems almost too good to be true. Can we really make our dirty coal-fired power stations green? Have we discovered the silver bullet to slay the monster that has transformed our abundant coal reserves into sources of evil greenhouse gases?
As the Prime Minister's crusade to reassess the potential for nuclear power gained momentum this week, the coal industry was claiming that by the time nuclear power could become a reality in Australia, the technologies for effectively plugging greenhouse gas emissions from coal power plants will have been commercially proven.
The idea is to commercialise technologies that "clean" coal before it is burnt to bring down emissions closer to natural gas, which generates about half the emissions of brown coal. Carbon dioxide emissions would then be captured and compressed into almost liquid vapor that could then be piped to geological sites and injected hundreds of metres underground.
But while achieving this energy nirvana for the world's coal resources is feasible, it will be expensive, making alternative sources, such as natural gas and renewables, such as sun and wind, relatively more competitive.
According to numbers from the National Generators Forum that represent the country's main coal and gas-fired generators, by 2015-20 the generating cost of coal with carbon capture and burial, or sequestration, will be roughly the same as that for nuclear and wind.
Critics such as the environment lobby are concerned that carbon capture and sequestration technologies are unlikely to be widely enough employed to significantly cut global emissions until 2020 or more. That, they say, is too long a wait while we continue to burn coal, and that we should stop building new coal-fired plants and extending the life of new plants in favour of proven gas and renewable energy. It is why Victoria's decision last year to extend the life of the Hazelwood brown coal power plant from 2009 to 2031 so angered the environment lobby and renewable energy industry.
Nevertheless, there hasn't been a new coal-fired plant built in either Victoria or NSW in the past 10 years, with new capacity already largely coming from gas.
The seductive attraction of the self-styled clean coal technologies is the huge potential gain to be had from sequestering carbon emissions from coal, given its importance as a power source.
Australians get nearly 80 per cent of their electricity from coal-fired generation and the country has coal resources big enough to last hundreds of years.
And despite the threat of climate change, the energy-hungry populations of China, India and the rest of the developing world will be demanding ever more cheap fossil fuels to raise them out of poverty.
Globally, fossil fuels are expected to remain the planet's primary energy source until at least 2050, by which time scientists warn that we need to have stabilised carbon levels in the atmosphere or face serious, and in some places devastating, climate change. Many already think climate change is under way with the rising incidence of floods, hurricanes and other events.
China, where coal supplies 69per cent of the country's power, is effectively installing the equivalent of Australia's total coal power industry every year.
The International Energy Agency expects China to account for 26 per cent of all new global emissions between 2002 and 2030, more than all the emissions from the developed world combined. And in the 20 years to 2025, the IEA expects coal to account for 33per cent of global carbon dioxide growth.
Clearly, finding a solution to coal emissions is where the biggest dividends can be made in cutting global emissions. According to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, scenario analysts suggest that including carbon capture and sequestration in a carbon dioxide mitigation portfolio could cut the cost of stabilising its levels in the atmosphere by 30 per cent or more.
"There is no reason why by 2020 we can't be putting a quarter of our emissions from coal and gas back into the ground, and no reason why by 2030 it wouldn't be about half," Mark O'Neill, chief executive of the Australian Coal Association, says.
It is the huge size of this tantalising alchemist's cherry that has driven the formation this year of the six-nation Asia-Pacific partnership on clean development and climate that is betting on technology to beat climate change.
It brings together Kyoto rebels Australia and the US, with the world's emerging energy consumption giants China and India. In the US the Government has teamed with industry, including coal giants Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton, to invest $US1 billion ($1.34 billion) in the FutureGen project that aims to have the world's first commercial scale emissions-free coal-fired generator in operation by 2012 using carbon capture and sequestration.
In Australia the coal industry is putting $300 million into a technology development fund. Low emission technologies for fossil fuels are also expected to take the bulk of the Government's $500million low-emission fund announced last year, much to the chagrin of the renewable industry that complains the Government is punting too heavily on coal.
There are several low-emission coal demonstration projects under way in Australia aimed at reducing and or capturing coal emissions. But the most important is a $30 million trial of geo-sequestration in Victoria's Otway Basin by the Government-backed Co-operative Research Centre for greenhouse gas technologies.
Late this year the CRC plans to start injecting carbon dioxide underground into an old gas well at Nirranda, 20km east of Warrnambool in western Victoria. It will be piped from a naturally occurring underground reservoir some 2km away, with 100,000 tonnes of the gas to be re-injected underground over two years.
That compares with the 400million tonnes of carbon dioxide Australia emits every year. The CRC estimates that Australia has enough geological capacity to store up to six billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, which, assuming an injection rate of 50 million tonnes a year, would give us 120 years of storage.
But while the capture and sequestration technology is feasible and is used to varying degrees already in the oil and gas industry, the challenges of achieving carbon capture and sequestration shouldn't be underestimated.
To get a feeling for the scale of the undertaking to capture and store coal emissions, it has been estimated that the volume of flue gas emitted by coal-fired power stations across Australia every year is equivalent to about 20 times the amount of natural gas produced every year from Australian gas fields.
Capturing, compressing and storing such vast quantities of gas would be a Herculean undertaking. But since only 14 per cent of this vapour from a coal-fired power station is actually carbon dioxide, the key is using various technologies to strip out the nitrogen, oxygen and water vapour and significantly reduce the amount of gas that needs to be captured.
The other challenge is finding places to store the gas. While potential geological sites have been identified within reasonable distances of population centres in Victoria and Queensland, no such sites have been indentified within a 500km radius of Sydney or Newcastle. In an age when proposals for a gas pipeline between Papua New Guinea and Queensland are close to becoming a reality, this isn't an insurmountable problem, but it adds significantly to the overall cost.
There are also inevitable concerns over the safety of transporting and storing large quantities of concentrated carbon dioxide. Concentrated carbon dioxide is nasty stuff. In 1986, a freak geological disaster released a massive natural bubble of carbon dioxide from under Lake Nyos in Cameroon that asphyxiated more than 1700 people.
However, an IPCC assessment found that piping carbon dioxide posed no greater risk to the public than piping natural gas, and could be lower. And storing the carbon dioxide would involve injecting the gas hundreds of metres underground into reservoir rocks that have held oil and gas for millions of years.
June 10, 2006
Impressive advances are being made in clean coal technologies, writes Andrew Trounson
IT seems almost too good to be true. Can we really make our dirty coal-fired power stations green? Have we discovered the silver bullet to slay the monster that has transformed our abundant coal reserves into sources of evil greenhouse gases?
As the Prime Minister's crusade to reassess the potential for nuclear power gained momentum this week, the coal industry was claiming that by the time nuclear power could become a reality in Australia, the technologies for effectively plugging greenhouse gas emissions from coal power plants will have been commercially proven.
The idea is to commercialise technologies that "clean" coal before it is burnt to bring down emissions closer to natural gas, which generates about half the emissions of brown coal. Carbon dioxide emissions would then be captured and compressed into almost liquid vapor that could then be piped to geological sites and injected hundreds of metres underground.
But while achieving this energy nirvana for the world's coal resources is feasible, it will be expensive, making alternative sources, such as natural gas and renewables, such as sun and wind, relatively more competitive.
According to numbers from the National Generators Forum that represent the country's main coal and gas-fired generators, by 2015-20 the generating cost of coal with carbon capture and burial, or sequestration, will be roughly the same as that for nuclear and wind.
Critics such as the environment lobby are concerned that carbon capture and sequestration technologies are unlikely to be widely enough employed to significantly cut global emissions until 2020 or more. That, they say, is too long a wait while we continue to burn coal, and that we should stop building new coal-fired plants and extending the life of new plants in favour of proven gas and renewable energy. It is why Victoria's decision last year to extend the life of the Hazelwood brown coal power plant from 2009 to 2031 so angered the environment lobby and renewable energy industry.
Nevertheless, there hasn't been a new coal-fired plant built in either Victoria or NSW in the past 10 years, with new capacity already largely coming from gas.
The seductive attraction of the self-styled clean coal technologies is the huge potential gain to be had from sequestering carbon emissions from coal, given its importance as a power source.
Australians get nearly 80 per cent of their electricity from coal-fired generation and the country has coal resources big enough to last hundreds of years.
And despite the threat of climate change, the energy-hungry populations of China, India and the rest of the developing world will be demanding ever more cheap fossil fuels to raise them out of poverty.
Globally, fossil fuels are expected to remain the planet's primary energy source until at least 2050, by which time scientists warn that we need to have stabilised carbon levels in the atmosphere or face serious, and in some places devastating, climate change. Many already think climate change is under way with the rising incidence of floods, hurricanes and other events.
China, where coal supplies 69per cent of the country's power, is effectively installing the equivalent of Australia's total coal power industry every year.
The International Energy Agency expects China to account for 26 per cent of all new global emissions between 2002 and 2030, more than all the emissions from the developed world combined. And in the 20 years to 2025, the IEA expects coal to account for 33per cent of global carbon dioxide growth.
Clearly, finding a solution to coal emissions is where the biggest dividends can be made in cutting global emissions. According to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, scenario analysts suggest that including carbon capture and sequestration in a carbon dioxide mitigation portfolio could cut the cost of stabilising its levels in the atmosphere by 30 per cent or more.
"There is no reason why by 2020 we can't be putting a quarter of our emissions from coal and gas back into the ground, and no reason why by 2030 it wouldn't be about half," Mark O'Neill, chief executive of the Australian Coal Association, says.
It is the huge size of this tantalising alchemist's cherry that has driven the formation this year of the six-nation Asia-Pacific partnership on clean development and climate that is betting on technology to beat climate change.
It brings together Kyoto rebels Australia and the US, with the world's emerging energy consumption giants China and India. In the US the Government has teamed with industry, including coal giants Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton, to invest $US1 billion ($1.34 billion) in the FutureGen project that aims to have the world's first commercial scale emissions-free coal-fired generator in operation by 2012 using carbon capture and sequestration.
In Australia the coal industry is putting $300 million into a technology development fund. Low emission technologies for fossil fuels are also expected to take the bulk of the Government's $500million low-emission fund announced last year, much to the chagrin of the renewable industry that complains the Government is punting too heavily on coal.
There are several low-emission coal demonstration projects under way in Australia aimed at reducing and or capturing coal emissions. But the most important is a $30 million trial of geo-sequestration in Victoria's Otway Basin by the Government-backed Co-operative Research Centre for greenhouse gas technologies.
Late this year the CRC plans to start injecting carbon dioxide underground into an old gas well at Nirranda, 20km east of Warrnambool in western Victoria. It will be piped from a naturally occurring underground reservoir some 2km away, with 100,000 tonnes of the gas to be re-injected underground over two years.
That compares with the 400million tonnes of carbon dioxide Australia emits every year. The CRC estimates that Australia has enough geological capacity to store up to six billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, which, assuming an injection rate of 50 million tonnes a year, would give us 120 years of storage.
But while the capture and sequestration technology is feasible and is used to varying degrees already in the oil and gas industry, the challenges of achieving carbon capture and sequestration shouldn't be underestimated.
To get a feeling for the scale of the undertaking to capture and store coal emissions, it has been estimated that the volume of flue gas emitted by coal-fired power stations across Australia every year is equivalent to about 20 times the amount of natural gas produced every year from Australian gas fields.
Capturing, compressing and storing such vast quantities of gas would be a Herculean undertaking. But since only 14 per cent of this vapour from a coal-fired power station is actually carbon dioxide, the key is using various technologies to strip out the nitrogen, oxygen and water vapour and significantly reduce the amount of gas that needs to be captured.
The other challenge is finding places to store the gas. While potential geological sites have been identified within reasonable distances of population centres in Victoria and Queensland, no such sites have been indentified within a 500km radius of Sydney or Newcastle. In an age when proposals for a gas pipeline between Papua New Guinea and Queensland are close to becoming a reality, this isn't an insurmountable problem, but it adds significantly to the overall cost.
There are also inevitable concerns over the safety of transporting and storing large quantities of concentrated carbon dioxide. Concentrated carbon dioxide is nasty stuff. In 1986, a freak geological disaster released a massive natural bubble of carbon dioxide from under Lake Nyos in Cameroon that asphyxiated more than 1700 people.
However, an IPCC assessment found that piping carbon dioxide posed no greater risk to the public than piping natural gas, and could be lower. And storing the carbon dioxide would involve injecting the gas hundreds of metres underground into reservoir rocks that have held oil and gas for millions of years.
Climate is biggest security challenge
The Australian
June 10, 2006
Patrick Walters, National security editor
CLIMATE change now poses a graver long-term security risk to Australia than terrorism, with a high likelihood it will produce destabilising civil conflict and unregulated population movements in Asia and the Pacific. That is the conclusion of leading Australian security expert Alan Dupont, the co-author of a new study on climate change and security to be published next week.
The report concludes that the "now irrefutable" evidence the planet is heating up will generate major national security challenges for Australia.
"It is the most significant issue confronting us because of its global dimensions and because it's almost certain to happen," Dr Dupont said yesterday.
"In probability and magnitude, it's well ahead of terrorism and just about anything else I can think of, short of a major global war or a nuclear exchange."
The study, to be published by the Lowy Institute, argues that the wider security implications of climate change have been largely ignored and seriously underestimated in public policy, academia and the media.
It calls on the Howard Government to adopt a more strategic approach to climate change, including setting up a taskforce to examine the policy connections between climate change and national security.
The Australian intelligence community, led by the Office of National Assessments, should co-ordinate a wide-scale assessment of the climate change risk to Australia, the report says.
"The likely speed and magnitude of climate change in the 21st century will be unprecedented in human experience, posing daunting challenges of adaptation and mitigation for all life forms on the planet," Dr Dupont and leading climate scientist Graeme Pearman conclude after analysing the latest scientific evidence of climate change.
Dr Pearman, former head of the CSIRO's division of atmospheric research, says the evidence the earth is heating up is irrefutable. "We are in no doubt that the planet has warmed," he told The Weekend Australian.
"We are highly confident that most of that warming has been due to greenhouse gas increases and that those will continue into the future, at least for some time, because of the momentum of our energy systems. We can anticipate further warming through this century."
Scientists now concede there is a real risk that previously forecast estimates of a 1.4C to 5.8C rise in global temperatures could be exceeded by 2100.
Climate scientists now "overwhelmingly accept" that the world's glaciers and northern ice cap are melting at faster rates and sea-level rises will threaten many coastal and low-lying areas.
Weather extremes, including droughts and severe floods, could lead to food, water and energy shortages in Asia-Pacific nations.
Climate change could also lead to "destabilising and unregulated population movements in Asia and the Pacific" as well as the threat of state collapse in the most severely affected developing nations.
June 10, 2006
Patrick Walters, National security editor
CLIMATE change now poses a graver long-term security risk to Australia than terrorism, with a high likelihood it will produce destabilising civil conflict and unregulated population movements in Asia and the Pacific. That is the conclusion of leading Australian security expert Alan Dupont, the co-author of a new study on climate change and security to be published next week.
The report concludes that the "now irrefutable" evidence the planet is heating up will generate major national security challenges for Australia.
"It is the most significant issue confronting us because of its global dimensions and because it's almost certain to happen," Dr Dupont said yesterday.
"In probability and magnitude, it's well ahead of terrorism and just about anything else I can think of, short of a major global war or a nuclear exchange."
The study, to be published by the Lowy Institute, argues that the wider security implications of climate change have been largely ignored and seriously underestimated in public policy, academia and the media.
It calls on the Howard Government to adopt a more strategic approach to climate change, including setting up a taskforce to examine the policy connections between climate change and national security.
The Australian intelligence community, led by the Office of National Assessments, should co-ordinate a wide-scale assessment of the climate change risk to Australia, the report says.
"The likely speed and magnitude of climate change in the 21st century will be unprecedented in human experience, posing daunting challenges of adaptation and mitigation for all life forms on the planet," Dr Dupont and leading climate scientist Graeme Pearman conclude after analysing the latest scientific evidence of climate change.
Dr Pearman, former head of the CSIRO's division of atmospheric research, says the evidence the earth is heating up is irrefutable. "We are in no doubt that the planet has warmed," he told The Weekend Australian.
"We are highly confident that most of that warming has been due to greenhouse gas increases and that those will continue into the future, at least for some time, because of the momentum of our energy systems. We can anticipate further warming through this century."
Scientists now concede there is a real risk that previously forecast estimates of a 1.4C to 5.8C rise in global temperatures could be exceeded by 2100.
Climate scientists now "overwhelmingly accept" that the world's glaciers and northern ice cap are melting at faster rates and sea-level rises will threaten many coastal and low-lying areas.
Weather extremes, including droughts and severe floods, could lead to food, water and energy shortages in Asia-Pacific nations.
Climate change could also lead to "destabilising and unregulated population movements in Asia and the Pacific" as well as the threat of state collapse in the most severely affected developing nations.
Monday, 19 June 2006
Danes seek broader research links
About The House, Page: 26 Friday,
16 June 2006
Danish scientists have told a delegation of Australian parliamentarians that more formalised links between Australian and Danish research institutions would be of benefit to both countries. The scientists, working at the Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences Foulum Research Centre, told the delegation while there are many personal contacts between Danish and Australian scientists and some specific project collaboration, broader contacts through formal research agreements would be welcome.
In the recently released report on its visit to Denmark and Sweden, the delegation, led by Speaker David Hawker, called for broader research links to be explored, given the strong interest that Australia and Denmark share in agricultural production and research. At the Foulum Research Centre, the delegation met with Australian scientist Dr Mark Henryon who briefed the delegation on projects in which the research centre had been involved. These included projects to breed disease resistant pigs and better trout andmarron. Dr Henryon told the delegation such projects could provide Australia with some "good food for thought". Other scientists told the delegation they would welcome Australian collaboration in the field of cloning.
Warnings about the future of the wind energy industry in Australia were also issued to the delegation during inspections of the Vestas Wind Systems headquarters in Denmark. Vestas has wind turbine manufacturing operations in Portland, Victoria and Wynyard, Tasmania. Vestas representatives told the delegation a lack of certainty regarding future renewable energy targets in Australia, coupled with public opposition to wind turbines in some areas, have generated significant concerns about the future viability of their Australian operations."Given the impact this could have on jobs in Australia and the potential loss of an alternative energy producer, these concerns need to be taken seriously, ' the delegation said in its report.
The delegation also urged the federal government to examine the feasibility of bringing the Nobel Prize Centennial Exhibition to Australia. During an inspection of the Nobel Museum in Stockholm the delegation was informed by the museum director that the Nobel Prize exhibition was being taken on a world tour, but Australia was not one or the planned destinations for the exhibition. The delegation felt this matter should be looked into, given Australia's impressive involvement with the Nobel Prize over many decades, including the recent awarding of the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine to Australians Barry Marshall and Robin Warren.
16 June 2006
Danish scientists have told a delegation of Australian parliamentarians that more formalised links between Australian and Danish research institutions would be of benefit to both countries. The scientists, working at the Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences Foulum Research Centre, told the delegation while there are many personal contacts between Danish and Australian scientists and some specific project collaboration, broader contacts through formal research agreements would be welcome.
In the recently released report on its visit to Denmark and Sweden, the delegation, led by Speaker David Hawker, called for broader research links to be explored, given the strong interest that Australia and Denmark share in agricultural production and research. At the Foulum Research Centre, the delegation met with Australian scientist Dr Mark Henryon who briefed the delegation on projects in which the research centre had been involved. These included projects to breed disease resistant pigs and better trout andmarron. Dr Henryon told the delegation such projects could provide Australia with some "good food for thought". Other scientists told the delegation they would welcome Australian collaboration in the field of cloning.
Warnings about the future of the wind energy industry in Australia were also issued to the delegation during inspections of the Vestas Wind Systems headquarters in Denmark. Vestas has wind turbine manufacturing operations in Portland, Victoria and Wynyard, Tasmania. Vestas representatives told the delegation a lack of certainty regarding future renewable energy targets in Australia, coupled with public opposition to wind turbines in some areas, have generated significant concerns about the future viability of their Australian operations."Given the impact this could have on jobs in Australia and the potential loss of an alternative energy producer, these concerns need to be taken seriously, ' the delegation said in its report.
The delegation also urged the federal government to examine the feasibility of bringing the Nobel Prize Centennial Exhibition to Australia. During an inspection of the Nobel Museum in Stockholm the delegation was informed by the museum director that the Nobel Prize exhibition was being taken on a world tour, but Australia was not one or the planned destinations for the exhibition. The delegation felt this matter should be looked into, given Australia's impressive involvement with the Nobel Prize over many decades, including the recent awarding of the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine to Australians Barry Marshall and Robin Warren.
Crows Nest firm in wind farm flap
Rural Weekly, Page: 6 Friday,
16 June 2006
IT ISN'T easy being green, as Crows Nest Shire Council has found. Council chief executive officer Dave McEvoy was at the Energy Resources Information Forum in Dalby last month to update participants on the progress of the Energreen wind farm, which has brought Crows Nest Shire Council and a group of opposing residents to the Planning and Environment Court. On August 7 the Planning and Environment Court will hear an appeal against Crows Nest Shire Council's approval of the wind farm at Upper Pinelands on two grounds: that approval was not in accordance with the shire's planning scheme and that the wind farm would be a detriment to flora and fauna in the area."The council saw major economic benefits in this project, mainly in carbon dioxide savings," Mr McEvoy said.
"This installation is capable of supplying one-third of the generating output of Tarong Power Station or enough electricity to supply a city twice the size of Toowoomba."But council also understands the concerns of residents -it was a matter of weighing the good against the bad."You just can't hide 85 metretowers behind a few trees," he said. Mr McEvoy said it was important that Commonwealth and state governments looked at extending their renewable energy targets, as without a stronger commitment to renewable energy it would remain difficult to attract more investment and development into the sector.
"We need to use a range of solutions and develop a range of technologies to meet our future energy needs," Mr McEvoy said. The Crows Nest wind farm was first proposed in June 2004: the initial proposal was for 65 turbine towers to be built in Crows Nest Shire and another 10 in neighbouring Rosalie Shire, with Crows Nest Shire Council leading the project. It was approved in late August last year, with Mayor Geoff Patch using his casting vote in favour of the proposal, worth an estimated $250 million and 16 local jobs. The appeal was lodged in January.
16 June 2006
IT ISN'T easy being green, as Crows Nest Shire Council has found. Council chief executive officer Dave McEvoy was at the Energy Resources Information Forum in Dalby last month to update participants on the progress of the Energreen wind farm, which has brought Crows Nest Shire Council and a group of opposing residents to the Planning and Environment Court. On August 7 the Planning and Environment Court will hear an appeal against Crows Nest Shire Council's approval of the wind farm at Upper Pinelands on two grounds: that approval was not in accordance with the shire's planning scheme and that the wind farm would be a detriment to flora and fauna in the area."The council saw major economic benefits in this project, mainly in carbon dioxide savings," Mr McEvoy said.
"This installation is capable of supplying one-third of the generating output of Tarong Power Station or enough electricity to supply a city twice the size of Toowoomba."But council also understands the concerns of residents -it was a matter of weighing the good against the bad."You just can't hide 85 metretowers behind a few trees," he said. Mr McEvoy said it was important that Commonwealth and state governments looked at extending their renewable energy targets, as without a stronger commitment to renewable energy it would remain difficult to attract more investment and development into the sector.
"We need to use a range of solutions and develop a range of technologies to meet our future energy needs," Mr McEvoy said. The Crows Nest wind farm was first proposed in June 2004: the initial proposal was for 65 turbine towers to be built in Crows Nest Shire and another 10 in neighbouring Rosalie Shire, with Crows Nest Shire Council leading the project. It was approved in late August last year, with Mayor Geoff Patch using his casting vote in favour of the proposal, worth an estimated $250 million and 16 local jobs. The appeal was lodged in January.
Saturday, 10 June 2006
Gorbachev warns against new nuclear power plants
© 2005 www.abc.net.au
Last Update: Friday, June 9, 2006. 5:47am (AEST)
Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, whose time in office included the world's worst nuclear accident, says countries building new nuclear power plants to tackle global warming should think again. From Japan to the United States, governments seeking an alternative to burning fossil fuels for power are reviewing the de facto ban on building new nuclear plants that followed the explosion at Chernobyl nuclear station in Ukraine in April 1986. "Think again, think seven times again before you leap and start construction of new nuclear power plants," Mr Gorbachev told a meeting of British lawmakers at London's Houses of Parliament, speaking through an interpreter. "With my experience of Chernobyl I know what is involved."
The explosion of one reactor required a superpower country to spend tens of billions of roubles. "Still there was the longer pollution of the soil, the deaths of a number of people and consequences that will be far reaching." Nuclear advocates, who argue that nuclear power emits little of the major greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, reject comparisons with Chernobyl. They say the Chernobyl design was flawed and the plant badly run, and that the accident could not be repeated with new designs, fail-safe mechanisms and technology.
But Mr Gorbachev says climate change can only be stopped through a combination of developing new energy sources like solar and wind and increasing efficiency of energy usage. New predictions being studied by UN scientists for a report next year point to average global temperatures rising by three degrees Celsius this century, melting ice caps and causing floods, storms and famines. Environmentalists mostly agree with Mr Gorbachev that the answer lies in non-nuclear and non-carbon alternatives to traditional power sources like nuclear, coal, gas and oil.
Last Update: Friday, June 9, 2006. 5:47am (AEST)
Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, whose time in office included the world's worst nuclear accident, says countries building new nuclear power plants to tackle global warming should think again. From Japan to the United States, governments seeking an alternative to burning fossil fuels for power are reviewing the de facto ban on building new nuclear plants that followed the explosion at Chernobyl nuclear station in Ukraine in April 1986. "Think again, think seven times again before you leap and start construction of new nuclear power plants," Mr Gorbachev told a meeting of British lawmakers at London's Houses of Parliament, speaking through an interpreter. "With my experience of Chernobyl I know what is involved."
The explosion of one reactor required a superpower country to spend tens of billions of roubles. "Still there was the longer pollution of the soil, the deaths of a number of people and consequences that will be far reaching." Nuclear advocates, who argue that nuclear power emits little of the major greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, reject comparisons with Chernobyl. They say the Chernobyl design was flawed and the plant badly run, and that the accident could not be repeated with new designs, fail-safe mechanisms and technology.
But Mr Gorbachev says climate change can only be stopped through a combination of developing new energy sources like solar and wind and increasing efficiency of energy usage. New predictions being studied by UN scientists for a report next year point to average global temperatures rising by three degrees Celsius this century, melting ice caps and causing floods, storms and famines. Environmentalists mostly agree with Mr Gorbachev that the answer lies in non-nuclear and non-carbon alternatives to traditional power sources like nuclear, coal, gas and oil.
Court sets August date to hear wind farm challenge
© 2005 www.abc.net.au
Last Update: Thursday, June 8, 2006. 1:00pm (AEST)
The Federal Court has set aside four days to hear the Victorian Government's attempt to overturn a ban on the Bald Hills wind farm in the state's south-east. The State Government approved the wind farm near Wilson's Promontory, despite strong objections from locals. After a two-year study, the Federal Government banned the wind farm to protect the orange-bellied parrot. The State Government and generation company Windpower are challenging the ban in the Federal Court.
The case is scheduled to start on August 28 before Justice Weinberg.
Last Update: Thursday, June 8, 2006. 1:00pm (AEST)
The Federal Court has set aside four days to hear the Victorian Government's attempt to overturn a ban on the Bald Hills wind farm in the state's south-east. The State Government approved the wind farm near Wilson's Promontory, despite strong objections from locals. After a two-year study, the Federal Government banned the wind farm to protect the orange-bellied parrot. The State Government and generation company Windpower are challenging the ban in the Federal Court.
The case is scheduled to start on August 28 before Justice Weinberg.
Greener water and light
The Australian,
June 08, 2006
Why the need for nuclear when carbon pricing is more efficient energy use?
By Nic Frances
WE all know the federal Government is touting nuclear energy as a solution to global warming and as a "clean" way to power giant water desalination plants. But there is a far more immediate and cheaper alternative. And one state is showing the way. In NSW, more than 100,000 households have already received free of charge, a six-pack of low-energy light globes and many of them a water-saving shower head as well.
That number could easily grow to a million or more households before the end of this year.
Yes, in the halls of power, promoting simple consumer energy efficiency in the suburbs and regions may sound pretty uninspiring alongside grand visions of multi-billion-dollar nuclear power plants lining our coast, next to similarly expensive desalination plants. Yet it's an amazingly easy, if low-key way for Australia to avoid building a number of new base load power stations altogether - whether coal, gas or nuclear - and save huge volumes of water.
So, as the nuclear debate we're being told we have to have gathers fury, and carbon dioxide emissions rise at the same rates as the political hot air in Canberra, one state is quietly fighting climate change through a very simple market-friendly action. It put a price on carbon.
The NSW Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme, Australia's only mandated carbon trading system, has started a quiet revolution in the suburbs. A revolution that could soon spread around the world.
It may surprise many people to learn that carbon trading is now a dynamic, multi-million-dollar a year market in NSW with buyers, sellers, brokers, watchful regulators and new businesses rushing to compete.
In a little more than two years, about 20 million tradeable carbon credits, worth more than $250 million at today's market prices, have been created via accredited carbon dioxide emission reductions from 159 separate projects, and more than six million have been traded.
Globally the world's carbon trades totalled more than $US10 billion in value in 2005, up from $US1 billion in 2004. According to a World Bank carbon trading expert, last year's figure is considerably more than the entire trade value of the US wheat crop, at about $US7.1 billion, making carbon a commodity on the make internationally.
Unlike nuclear power stations, a price on carbon is no longer a theory, at least in NSW. And it lets ordinary people make a difference. When customers take the crucial step of installing the globes and shower head, they can on average cut more than $150 a year off their energy and water bills, while also reducing annual carbon dioxide emissions by up to one tonne and water use by about 21,000 litres a year. If one home does it the savings are worthwhile but small. If a million homes do it, the economic and environmental benefits from this energy and water-saving activity are large. And that's the plan in the next year, a million homes.
Installation in a million homes would reduce pressure on government to increase supply by building new power stations and dams, cut carbon dioxide pollution by about one million tonnes a year (equivalent to taking 300,000 cars off the road permanently) and save about 21 billion of litres of drinking water a year. So it's good economics and good politics. It saves money for those who shop and vote. It helps the environment. And it creates economic activity and jobs.
Replicate that across most of the six million or so homes in Australia and the savings both financially and environmentally will get very big indeed. And all governments need to do is put a price on carbon. If this approach was taken nationally, the benefits would be considerably greater than the entertainment created by the nuclear debate. We'd see consumers benefiting financially, the environment being protected, and government avoiding some costly and politically unpalatable infrastructure decisions. Add to this the entrepreneurial businesses that are finding creative ways to seize the opportunity the market has created and that's a lot of winners.
Having spent much of my working life searching for innovative ways to help the socially disadvantaged - among other things, I ran the Brotherhood of St Laurence for five years - I reckon I know a good deal for people when I see one. For my money, a nuclear future isn't the debate we need at all. Certainly not until we've exhausted the opportunities for simple energy efficiency in all walks of life, from our homes to our grandest infrastructure. It may seem an old-fashioned ethic, but "waste not want not" - in this case of energy and water - makes more sense than creating hot air and nuclear waste.
Nic Frances, an Anglican priest, is founder of Easy Being Green, a company with a goal to make 70 per cent of Australian homes 30 per cent more energy and water efficient within 10 years.
June 08, 2006
Why the need for nuclear when carbon pricing is more efficient energy use?
By Nic Frances
WE all know the federal Government is touting nuclear energy as a solution to global warming and as a "clean" way to power giant water desalination plants. But there is a far more immediate and cheaper alternative. And one state is showing the way. In NSW, more than 100,000 households have already received free of charge, a six-pack of low-energy light globes and many of them a water-saving shower head as well.
That number could easily grow to a million or more households before the end of this year.
Yes, in the halls of power, promoting simple consumer energy efficiency in the suburbs and regions may sound pretty uninspiring alongside grand visions of multi-billion-dollar nuclear power plants lining our coast, next to similarly expensive desalination plants. Yet it's an amazingly easy, if low-key way for Australia to avoid building a number of new base load power stations altogether - whether coal, gas or nuclear - and save huge volumes of water.
So, as the nuclear debate we're being told we have to have gathers fury, and carbon dioxide emissions rise at the same rates as the political hot air in Canberra, one state is quietly fighting climate change through a very simple market-friendly action. It put a price on carbon.
The NSW Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme, Australia's only mandated carbon trading system, has started a quiet revolution in the suburbs. A revolution that could soon spread around the world.
It may surprise many people to learn that carbon trading is now a dynamic, multi-million-dollar a year market in NSW with buyers, sellers, brokers, watchful regulators and new businesses rushing to compete.
In a little more than two years, about 20 million tradeable carbon credits, worth more than $250 million at today's market prices, have been created via accredited carbon dioxide emission reductions from 159 separate projects, and more than six million have been traded.
Globally the world's carbon trades totalled more than $US10 billion in value in 2005, up from $US1 billion in 2004. According to a World Bank carbon trading expert, last year's figure is considerably more than the entire trade value of the US wheat crop, at about $US7.1 billion, making carbon a commodity on the make internationally.
Unlike nuclear power stations, a price on carbon is no longer a theory, at least in NSW. And it lets ordinary people make a difference. When customers take the crucial step of installing the globes and shower head, they can on average cut more than $150 a year off their energy and water bills, while also reducing annual carbon dioxide emissions by up to one tonne and water use by about 21,000 litres a year. If one home does it the savings are worthwhile but small. If a million homes do it, the economic and environmental benefits from this energy and water-saving activity are large. And that's the plan in the next year, a million homes.
Installation in a million homes would reduce pressure on government to increase supply by building new power stations and dams, cut carbon dioxide pollution by about one million tonnes a year (equivalent to taking 300,000 cars off the road permanently) and save about 21 billion of litres of drinking water a year. So it's good economics and good politics. It saves money for those who shop and vote. It helps the environment. And it creates economic activity and jobs.
Replicate that across most of the six million or so homes in Australia and the savings both financially and environmentally will get very big indeed. And all governments need to do is put a price on carbon. If this approach was taken nationally, the benefits would be considerably greater than the entertainment created by the nuclear debate. We'd see consumers benefiting financially, the environment being protected, and government avoiding some costly and politically unpalatable infrastructure decisions. Add to this the entrepreneurial businesses that are finding creative ways to seize the opportunity the market has created and that's a lot of winners.
Having spent much of my working life searching for innovative ways to help the socially disadvantaged - among other things, I ran the Brotherhood of St Laurence for five years - I reckon I know a good deal for people when I see one. For my money, a nuclear future isn't the debate we need at all. Certainly not until we've exhausted the opportunities for simple energy efficiency in all walks of life, from our homes to our grandest infrastructure. It may seem an old-fashioned ethic, but "waste not want not" - in this case of energy and water - makes more sense than creating hot air and nuclear waste.
Nic Frances, an Anglican priest, is founder of Easy Being Green, a company with a goal to make 70 per cent of Australian homes 30 per cent more energy and water efficient within 10 years.
Great pall of China
The Bulletin, Page: 60
Tuesday, 13 June 2006
GLOBAL warming is the classic boiling frog issue. It's done very slowly. Too quickly, and the frog jumps out. The global-warming frog has been a long time aboiling.
A continuing debate among experts as to whether the temperature is even rising has kept the issue docile. (I have always accepted Mark Twain's version of "an expert" as being just somebody from out of town.) But it's now settled that boiling is actually occurring. Even the US Climate Change Science Program, the George W. Bush administration's co-ordinating agency for global-warming research, conceded last month that it had found "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system".
That falls rather short of British Prime Minister Tony Blair's recent description of climate change as "a challenge so far-reaching in its impact and irreversible in its destructive power that it alters radically human existence". Our own prime minister, John Howard, has eschewed the apocalyptic approach. With his trademark pragmatism and political guile, he has declared that it's time Australia had a full scale national debate on nuclear power.
The knee-jerk reaction of the Canberra commentariat has been to define the Howard initiative as an exercise in wedge politics aimed at exploiting Labor Party differences over this policy space. There might be more than a grain of truth in this. But the global-warming issue has reached a point where it can no longer be ignored. Of course, some people have been saying that for years.
But in the democracies of the developed world, such warnings have had little currency among elected officials. The long-term nature of the threat meant that consideration, let alone actual action, could be postponed because its solution involved unpopular measures. This complacency has now been displaced by an emerging sense of urgency. A major contributing factor to this mood shift has been the fast-gathering economic implications of China's rapid industrialisation.
It's not just that Howard has suddenly focused on our absence of a nuclear policy in an Australia that has significant uranium reserves. We will have to deal with China, a country that proposes to build 30 nuclear reactors during the next two decades to supplement its present nine reactors. That's part of it. Doubtless Washington would be much more comfortable with such a trading prospect if uranium was enriched in Australia, not China but that could require considerable marketing on the domestic political front.
However, China's voracious appetite for energy represents a larger, more vexed and pressing issue than potential Australian uranium sales. Its industrialisation drive has been a major global disinflationary force in recent years. As Morgan Stanley's Andy Xie points out, manufacturing production has relocated to China on a massive scale in the past five years, due to the country's cheap labour and lax enforcement of environmental standards. Xie believes that the lack of enforcement of environmental rules may have been more important than labour costs in attracting production relocation.
Whether that's been the case or not, the reality has been that the world has dumped a large quantum of its industrial pollution in China in the past five years. According to China's Environmental Protection Agency, pollution is 12 times the world average per unit of GDP. The emission of sulphur dioxide is 22.5 million tonnes compared with a maximum carrying capacity of 12 million tonnes for the country.
The World Health Organisation estimates that (500 million people are exposed to SO2 levels above their emission standards. When mixed with nitrogen oxides and chemically transformed, SO2 causes acid rain -which devastates crops and forests. WHO estimates that 30% of China is seriously affected by acid rain. Two-fifths of the country's major river bases are polluted.
Ninety per cent of the rivers running through cities are severely polluted. Some 300 million rural residents have no access to purified water. Two-thirds of the population suffers from poor air quality. China is estimated to emit 13% of global carbon emission from fossil fuels -second only to the US, This share is projected to rise to 18% by 2025. The health costs, mostly paid in terms of life quality and age expectancy, implicit in these environmental statistics are huge and growing.
Not surprisingly, there are disturbing implications in terms of social and political stability, especially from peasants dispossessed of land to make way for factories. The Beijing government is conscious of this and has moved pollution control up its political agenda. But just as China's large and growing contribution to greenhouse warming is a global, not simply a Chinese problem, so too are the economic consequences. China's policy of export-led growth through rapid industrialisation on the back of low-cost labour and minimal pollution costs has been a major factor in delivering low inflation to developed economies, especially the US.
China now acknowledges the need to normalise pollution costs. As Xie puts it: "Part of the unsustainable disinflation from 2002 through 2005 has to be regurgitated." That could be very difficult for a US economy that is struggling with high oil costs and a heavily indebted household sector to handle. Recent volatility in financial markets partly reflects concerns about how the Federal Reserve will react should inflation pick up.
With the strong correlation we see across global financial markets, any shock on Wall Street will cascade through the global system. Under such circumstances, especially given the unknown dimensions of the global market in leveraged derivatives, we could see the financial market tail wagging the non-financial economy dog. The uneasy relationship between global warming and global financial-economic health is not going to be a phase. The linkage will be ongoing.
The imminent dilemma involves China and the US, but the populous developing economies of India, Brazil and Russia are also engaged in industrial catch-up. That has obvious implications in terms of energy production and greenhouse emissions. The China situation further underlines the flawed nature of the Kyoto treaty. Kyoto's failure is usually ascribed to the refusal of the US and Australia to ratify the agreement.
Even had they done so, Kyoto would not have solved the pollution problem driven by the breakneck industrialisation of China. Importantly, Kyoto has not been a waste of time. It has launched a carbon-trading market that, despite early teething problems, holds out the real prospect of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the developed countries where it is operating. Kyoto also demonstrated the practical futility of imposing a top-down command model on environmental policy.
There is no way the US Senate will ever accept a UN direction on domestic economic policy. Even Australia, with no history of intransigence, would not go along with Kyoto. The major flaw in the Kyoto approach, however, is that it had no answer to the developing economies' demands that they had a moral right to catch up with the developed world. One way to address this issue is to point to China's experience in discounting the social and political costs of pollution.
Warwick McKibbin from the Australian National University believes that individual countries could address their economic aspirations with locally based carbon-trading markets. It's a model he has been developing and refining for nearly a decade. The concept has been successfully pioneered in the US where acid-rain pollution has been dramatically reduced. While there is no costless way to stop and then reduce global warming, the impact of a long-term, gradual approach is far from draconian.
But the delays involved in conceding that global warming was actually a problem have increased the costs. The devil has not been so much in the detail as in the politics. And, to be honest, that's still the case.
Tuesday, 13 June 2006
GLOBAL warming is the classic boiling frog issue. It's done very slowly. Too quickly, and the frog jumps out. The global-warming frog has been a long time aboiling.
A continuing debate among experts as to whether the temperature is even rising has kept the issue docile. (I have always accepted Mark Twain's version of "an expert" as being just somebody from out of town.) But it's now settled that boiling is actually occurring. Even the US Climate Change Science Program, the George W. Bush administration's co-ordinating agency for global-warming research, conceded last month that it had found "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system".
That falls rather short of British Prime Minister Tony Blair's recent description of climate change as "a challenge so far-reaching in its impact and irreversible in its destructive power that it alters radically human existence". Our own prime minister, John Howard, has eschewed the apocalyptic approach. With his trademark pragmatism and political guile, he has declared that it's time Australia had a full scale national debate on nuclear power.
The knee-jerk reaction of the Canberra commentariat has been to define the Howard initiative as an exercise in wedge politics aimed at exploiting Labor Party differences over this policy space. There might be more than a grain of truth in this. But the global-warming issue has reached a point where it can no longer be ignored. Of course, some people have been saying that for years.
But in the democracies of the developed world, such warnings have had little currency among elected officials. The long-term nature of the threat meant that consideration, let alone actual action, could be postponed because its solution involved unpopular measures. This complacency has now been displaced by an emerging sense of urgency. A major contributing factor to this mood shift has been the fast-gathering economic implications of China's rapid industrialisation.
It's not just that Howard has suddenly focused on our absence of a nuclear policy in an Australia that has significant uranium reserves. We will have to deal with China, a country that proposes to build 30 nuclear reactors during the next two decades to supplement its present nine reactors. That's part of it. Doubtless Washington would be much more comfortable with such a trading prospect if uranium was enriched in Australia, not China but that could require considerable marketing on the domestic political front.
However, China's voracious appetite for energy represents a larger, more vexed and pressing issue than potential Australian uranium sales. Its industrialisation drive has been a major global disinflationary force in recent years. As Morgan Stanley's Andy Xie points out, manufacturing production has relocated to China on a massive scale in the past five years, due to the country's cheap labour and lax enforcement of environmental standards. Xie believes that the lack of enforcement of environmental rules may have been more important than labour costs in attracting production relocation.
Whether that's been the case or not, the reality has been that the world has dumped a large quantum of its industrial pollution in China in the past five years. According to China's Environmental Protection Agency, pollution is 12 times the world average per unit of GDP. The emission of sulphur dioxide is 22.5 million tonnes compared with a maximum carrying capacity of 12 million tonnes for the country.
The World Health Organisation estimates that (500 million people are exposed to SO2 levels above their emission standards. When mixed with nitrogen oxides and chemically transformed, SO2 causes acid rain -which devastates crops and forests. WHO estimates that 30% of China is seriously affected by acid rain. Two-fifths of the country's major river bases are polluted.
Ninety per cent of the rivers running through cities are severely polluted. Some 300 million rural residents have no access to purified water. Two-thirds of the population suffers from poor air quality. China is estimated to emit 13% of global carbon emission from fossil fuels -second only to the US, This share is projected to rise to 18% by 2025. The health costs, mostly paid in terms of life quality and age expectancy, implicit in these environmental statistics are huge and growing.
Not surprisingly, there are disturbing implications in terms of social and political stability, especially from peasants dispossessed of land to make way for factories. The Beijing government is conscious of this and has moved pollution control up its political agenda. But just as China's large and growing contribution to greenhouse warming is a global, not simply a Chinese problem, so too are the economic consequences. China's policy of export-led growth through rapid industrialisation on the back of low-cost labour and minimal pollution costs has been a major factor in delivering low inflation to developed economies, especially the US.
China now acknowledges the need to normalise pollution costs. As Xie puts it: "Part of the unsustainable disinflation from 2002 through 2005 has to be regurgitated." That could be very difficult for a US economy that is struggling with high oil costs and a heavily indebted household sector to handle. Recent volatility in financial markets partly reflects concerns about how the Federal Reserve will react should inflation pick up.
With the strong correlation we see across global financial markets, any shock on Wall Street will cascade through the global system. Under such circumstances, especially given the unknown dimensions of the global market in leveraged derivatives, we could see the financial market tail wagging the non-financial economy dog. The uneasy relationship between global warming and global financial-economic health is not going to be a phase. The linkage will be ongoing.
The imminent dilemma involves China and the US, but the populous developing economies of India, Brazil and Russia are also engaged in industrial catch-up. That has obvious implications in terms of energy production and greenhouse emissions. The China situation further underlines the flawed nature of the Kyoto treaty. Kyoto's failure is usually ascribed to the refusal of the US and Australia to ratify the agreement.
Even had they done so, Kyoto would not have solved the pollution problem driven by the breakneck industrialisation of China. Importantly, Kyoto has not been a waste of time. It has launched a carbon-trading market that, despite early teething problems, holds out the real prospect of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the developed countries where it is operating. Kyoto also demonstrated the practical futility of imposing a top-down command model on environmental policy.
There is no way the US Senate will ever accept a UN direction on domestic economic policy. Even Australia, with no history of intransigence, would not go along with Kyoto. The major flaw in the Kyoto approach, however, is that it had no answer to the developing economies' demands that they had a moral right to catch up with the developed world. One way to address this issue is to point to China's experience in discounting the social and political costs of pollution.
Warwick McKibbin from the Australian National University believes that individual countries could address their economic aspirations with locally based carbon-trading markets. It's a model he has been developing and refining for nearly a decade. The concept has been successfully pioneered in the US where acid-rain pollution has been dramatically reduced. While there is no costless way to stop and then reduce global warming, the impact of a long-term, gradual approach is far from draconian.
But the delays involved in conceding that global warming was actually a problem have increased the costs. The devil has not been so much in the detail as in the politics. And, to be honest, that's still the case.
Wednesday, 7 June 2006
Consider all energy options
Hervey Bay Observer, Page: 18
Wednesday, 7 June 2006
World Environment Day is a reminder of the need for Australia to consider all its energy options, the Australian Business Council for Sustainable Energy (BCSE) said yesterday. The Australian Government's own figures show that even accounting for all existing measures to curb climate change, Australia's greenhouse emissions from stationary energy will be 63% higher than 2000 levels by 2025. Clearly something more than 'business as usual needs' to be done, and the clean energy industry welcomes the Prime Minister's debate on future energy generation. But the debate must consider all the options that can reduce emissions immediately - including gas, renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Describing the need to act now as an imperative, the Executive Director of the BCSE, Mr Ric Brazzale, said it would be many years before the outcomes of the debate on energy made an impact. "Should nuclear power prove viable in Australia it would take at least 15 years before it made even the slightest impact on our emissions," said Mr Brazzale. "Likewise with cleaner fossil fuels and geosequestration. These technologies are far from proven and have a long way to go before they could be considered economic."
Yet Australia cannot wait - while it will take 10, 15 or 20 years for 'new beaut' technologies to come on stream, our emissions will continue to grow and the task of adjusting to a global carbon-constrained economy becomes more costly. "If we are to avoid future shocks to our prosperity and economic growth it is essential we continue to deploy known, existing cleaner energy generation. This includes gas, geothermal, wind, solar, bioenergy, and hydro - while maximizing opportunities for the easiest, cheapest greenhouse reduction of all: energy efficiency," Mr Brazzale said.
Wednesday, 7 June 2006
World Environment Day is a reminder of the need for Australia to consider all its energy options, the Australian Business Council for Sustainable Energy (BCSE) said yesterday. The Australian Government's own figures show that even accounting for all existing measures to curb climate change, Australia's greenhouse emissions from stationary energy will be 63% higher than 2000 levels by 2025. Clearly something more than 'business as usual needs' to be done, and the clean energy industry welcomes the Prime Minister's debate on future energy generation. But the debate must consider all the options that can reduce emissions immediately - including gas, renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Describing the need to act now as an imperative, the Executive Director of the BCSE, Mr Ric Brazzale, said it would be many years before the outcomes of the debate on energy made an impact. "Should nuclear power prove viable in Australia it would take at least 15 years before it made even the slightest impact on our emissions," said Mr Brazzale. "Likewise with cleaner fossil fuels and geosequestration. These technologies are far from proven and have a long way to go before they could be considered economic."
Yet Australia cannot wait - while it will take 10, 15 or 20 years for 'new beaut' technologies to come on stream, our emissions will continue to grow and the task of adjusting to a global carbon-constrained economy becomes more costly. "If we are to avoid future shocks to our prosperity and economic growth it is essential we continue to deploy known, existing cleaner energy generation. This includes gas, geothermal, wind, solar, bioenergy, and hydro - while maximizing opportunities for the easiest, cheapest greenhouse reduction of all: energy efficiency," Mr Brazzale said.
Powerful solution
The Australian, Page: 24
Monday, 5 June 2006
MORE than 90 per cent of Australia's electricity comes from fossil fuel fired power stations. This energy use accounts for about 68 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions, making it by far the largest contributor. More than a quarter of a million households and businesses are choosing to purchase some or all of their electricity from government accredited Green Power sources. Green Power is renewable energy produced from clean renewable sources such as solar, wind, water and biomass.
The National Green Power Accreditation Program sets stringent environmental and reporting standards for renewable energy products offered by electricity suppliers to households and businesses. When customers choose a Green Power accredited product, energy suppliers agree to buy a requested amount of electricity from approved new renewable energy sources. Green Power electricity provider sales and purchases are then independently audited on an annual basis. The Green Power tick is the guarantee that contributions are helping bring about the installation of new sustainable energy projects.
Since its inception in 1997, sales of green Power through the National Green Power Accreditation Program have reduced greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation by about 2.75 million tonnes a year. This is reckoned to be the equivalent of taking more than 600,000 cars off the road for a year.
Monday, 5 June 2006
MORE than 90 per cent of Australia's electricity comes from fossil fuel fired power stations. This energy use accounts for about 68 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions, making it by far the largest contributor. More than a quarter of a million households and businesses are choosing to purchase some or all of their electricity from government accredited Green Power sources. Green Power is renewable energy produced from clean renewable sources such as solar, wind, water and biomass.The National Green Power Accreditation Program sets stringent environmental and reporting standards for renewable energy products offered by electricity suppliers to households and businesses. When customers choose a Green Power accredited product, energy suppliers agree to buy a requested amount of electricity from approved new renewable energy sources. Green Power electricity provider sales and purchases are then independently audited on an annual basis. The Green Power tick is the guarantee that contributions are helping bring about the installation of new sustainable energy projects.
Since its inception in 1997, sales of green Power through the National Green Power Accreditation Program have reduced greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation by about 2.75 million tonnes a year. This is reckoned to be the equivalent of taking more than 600,000 cars off the road for a year.
Local plan to cut greenhouse gases
Mordialloc Chelsea Leader, page: 8
monday, 5 june 2006
Kingston Council will invest $250,000 in the next five years to cut greenhouse gases and save water. the council has adopted a greenhouse action plan to reduce its own greenhouse emissions by 20 per cent by 2010 from 2000 levels. street lighting accounts for about half of emissions and council community buildings contribute 42 per cent of CO2 emissions. the plan was discussed when kingston held its first climatechange forum on april 5, attended by more than 50 residents who were encouraged to do their bit.
mayor topsy petchey said protecting the environment was the responsibility of all levels of government and the community. "global warming is expected to threaten our water supplies, the weather, crop production and health in the lifetimes of our children, " cr petchey said. the council will: fit key council buildings with energy-efficient lighting; upgrade airconditioning; progressively buy 15 per cent of its electricity from wind farms or hydroelectricity schemes; continue to buy energy-efficient office equipment; enforce the state government's five-star energy rating for new houses; encourage car-pooling among its staff; buy smaller, more fuel-efficient fleet vehicles; and, upgrade toilets to dual-flush at northcliffe lodge in edithvale, install water tanks at waves leisure centre and install waterless urinals at kingston arts centre.
monday, 5 june 2006
Kingston Council will invest $250,000 in the next five years to cut greenhouse gases and save water. the council has adopted a greenhouse action plan to reduce its own greenhouse emissions by 20 per cent by 2010 from 2000 levels. street lighting accounts for about half of emissions and council community buildings contribute 42 per cent of CO2 emissions. the plan was discussed when kingston held its first climatechange forum on april 5, attended by more than 50 residents who were encouraged to do their bit.
mayor topsy petchey said protecting the environment was the responsibility of all levels of government and the community. "global warming is expected to threaten our water supplies, the weather, crop production and health in the lifetimes of our children, " cr petchey said. the council will: fit key council buildings with energy-efficient lighting; upgrade airconditioning; progressively buy 15 per cent of its electricity from wind farms or hydroelectricity schemes; continue to buy energy-efficient office equipment; enforce the state government's five-star energy rating for new houses; encourage car-pooling among its staff; buy smaller, more fuel-efficient fleet vehicles; and, upgrade toilets to dual-flush at northcliffe lodge in edithvale, install water tanks at waves leisure centre and install waterless urinals at kingston arts centre.
Monday, 5 June 2006
Wind part of solution to Australia's energy needs
The Ballarat Courier, Page: 21
Friday, 2 June 2006
THE energy debate in Australia will continue to take centre stage as Australia's energy requirements skyrocket at a level higher, per capita, than any other developed nation. Pacific Hydro, one of Australia's leading renewable energy developers, says the debate should not be centring on which source of energy we should be switching to but what combination of energy we will need to provide our energy needs into the future. It believes Australia is in a unique position to take advantage of its incredible wind resources and wind energy has the ability to provide up to 20 per cent of Australia's energy resources. Currently, wind energy provides about 1 per cent of our energy needs.
While there is no suggestion that wind energy should be our only source of energy, it can certainly form part of the solution to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support the country's growing energy needs. Love it or hate it, wind energy does not produce greenhouse gases and can help us to protect our environment. The myths about noise and impact on birdlife continue to be disproved - you have only to visit a wind farm to see for yourself. Pacific Hydro is one of Australia's leading renewable energy developers.
Not only working across western Victoria, Pacific Hydro has operations in the Philippines, Chile, Fiji and North America as well as other parts of Australia. While the company's origins are in run-of-river hydro, in recent years it has expanded into wind resources as well. As drought becomes a fact of life for many rural communities, wind farms have the added benefit of assisting to drought-proof properties. Challicum Hills wind farm near Ararat has been operating for about three years and enjoys overwhelming support from the local community.
The company's values are represented in its operations, which aim to have a minimal impact on the environment and it has also demonstrated its commitment to the communities in which it works, through a newly established community grants scheme known as the Sustainable Communities Fund. Recently the company provided over $40,000 in grants to community groups in and around Ararat in the first round of payments. Pacific Hydro executive manager corporate affairs and marketing, Andrew Richards said: "Our wind farms already provide significant environmental benefits via the production of clean energy so our aim for the Sustainable Communities Fund is to promote positive, longterm social and community-based outcomes."
Friday, 2 June 2006
THE energy debate in Australia will continue to take centre stage as Australia's energy requirements skyrocket at a level higher, per capita, than any other developed nation. Pacific Hydro, one of Australia's leading renewable energy developers, says the debate should not be centring on which source of energy we should be switching to but what combination of energy we will need to provide our energy needs into the future. It believes Australia is in a unique position to take advantage of its incredible wind resources and wind energy has the ability to provide up to 20 per cent of Australia's energy resources. Currently, wind energy provides about 1 per cent of our energy needs.
While there is no suggestion that wind energy should be our only source of energy, it can certainly form part of the solution to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support the country's growing energy needs. Love it or hate it, wind energy does not produce greenhouse gases and can help us to protect our environment. The myths about noise and impact on birdlife continue to be disproved - you have only to visit a wind farm to see for yourself. Pacific Hydro is one of Australia's leading renewable energy developers.
Not only working across western Victoria, Pacific Hydro has operations in the Philippines, Chile, Fiji and North America as well as other parts of Australia. While the company's origins are in run-of-river hydro, in recent years it has expanded into wind resources as well. As drought becomes a fact of life for many rural communities, wind farms have the added benefit of assisting to drought-proof properties. Challicum Hills wind farm near Ararat has been operating for about three years and enjoys overwhelming support from the local community.
The company's values are represented in its operations, which aim to have a minimal impact on the environment and it has also demonstrated its commitment to the communities in which it works, through a newly established community grants scheme known as the Sustainable Communities Fund. Recently the company provided over $40,000 in grants to community groups in and around Ararat in the first round of payments. Pacific Hydro executive manager corporate affairs and marketing, Andrew Richards said: "Our wind farms already provide significant environmental benefits via the production of clean energy so our aim for the Sustainable Communities Fund is to promote positive, longterm social and community-based outcomes."
July start for wind farm
The Mid North Broadcaster, Page: 1
Thursday, 1 June 2006
Preliminary site investigation works at AGL's much-anticipated wind farm near Hallett will begin by the end of July, according to Suzlon Energy Australia which has the contract to design and build the wind farm. AGL's project manager Steven Oswald said the Brown Hill wind farm, with 45 turbines with a capacity of around 2.1MW each, would be capable of generating enough energy for the annual requirements of approximately 54,000 homes. "It's estimated that around 330 GWh of electricity will be generated each year," he said.
Mr Oswald said the wind farm will be positioned so that any potential impacts to the local community are minimised. Suzlon Energy Australia project manager Peter Reed said the preliminary site investigations will probably last around six weeks. "After that we will be putting in four test anchors and commencing work on access roads. By the end of July mobilisation of the civil crew will be complete with construction of the wind farm to start in earnest at the beginning of September.
Up to 30 people will be employed in civil works onsite until around June 2007, and another 10 will be employed for electrical wprk commencing in August this year. A further 25 people will be employed for haulage, crane work and erection of the towers which will also run until June 2007. Mr Reed said while full construction should be complete by the beginning of 2008, Suzlon Energy will continue to employ eight full-time maintenance and service workers at the wind farm. Accommodation operators Maureen and Barry Wright said they anticipate a boost to occupancy in Burra Heritage Cottages Tiver's Row, judging by past influx.
During the 18 month period of the Hallett Power Station construction in 2001/02, Mrs Wright said they had an approximate increase of 20%. She said it was good to hear construction of the wind farm was not far off. "It's very good news. We hope it will boost our summer occupancy," she said.
Thursday, 1 June 2006
Preliminary site investigation works at AGL's much-anticipated wind farm near Hallett will begin by the end of July, according to Suzlon Energy Australia which has the contract to design and build the wind farm. AGL's project manager Steven Oswald said the Brown Hill wind farm, with 45 turbines with a capacity of around 2.1MW each, would be capable of generating enough energy for the annual requirements of approximately 54,000 homes. "It's estimated that around 330 GWh of electricity will be generated each year," he said.
Mr Oswald said the wind farm will be positioned so that any potential impacts to the local community are minimised. Suzlon Energy Australia project manager Peter Reed said the preliminary site investigations will probably last around six weeks. "After that we will be putting in four test anchors and commencing work on access roads. By the end of July mobilisation of the civil crew will be complete with construction of the wind farm to start in earnest at the beginning of September.
Up to 30 people will be employed in civil works onsite until around June 2007, and another 10 will be employed for electrical wprk commencing in August this year. A further 25 people will be employed for haulage, crane work and erection of the towers which will also run until June 2007. Mr Reed said while full construction should be complete by the beginning of 2008, Suzlon Energy will continue to employ eight full-time maintenance and service workers at the wind farm. Accommodation operators Maureen and Barry Wright said they anticipate a boost to occupancy in Burra Heritage Cottages Tiver's Row, judging by past influx.
During the 18 month period of the Hallett Power Station construction in 2001/02, Mrs Wright said they had an approximate increase of 20%. She said it was good to hear construction of the wind farm was not far off. "It's very good news. We hope it will boost our summer occupancy," she said.
$400m Giant Wind Farm
The Adelaide Advertiser, Page: 1
Friday, 2 June 2006
SOUTH Australia will be home to the nation's largest wind farm after last night's announcement of a $400 million expansion of the Lake Bonney wind farm in the South-East. Babcock and Brown Wind Partners said it would spend another $400 million installing 53 more wind turbines, which will generate 159 megawatts of power. This will add to the 46 towers now at the site, near Millicent. In total, the completed wind farm will provide enough energy to power more than 130, 000 homes.
The new turbines, on 80m high towers - just 7m shorter than the Hyatt Regency Hotel building in Adelaide - are expected to be finished by mid-2008. The current 67m high towers caused problems for firefighters in January, when a fire sparked by an electrical fault proved hard to put out because the tops of the towers were out of reach. The fire also triggered an automatic shutdown of the facility during a heatwave, contributing to blackouts which left 63,000 homes without energy. South Australia leads the nation in wind power, with sites also at Starfish Hill, Canunda, Wattle Point and Cathedral Rocks, with another planned for Hallett in the Mid North.
Continued Page 4From Page 1 A spokesman for Infrastructure Minister Pat Conlon said it was another example of South Australia leading the way in wind farm development. "While other states have problems getting wind farms off the ground, this is another example of SA leading the way, " he said. "This state already has 51 per cent of the nation's wind energy and this will further add to our capacity. "Wind Partners chief executive Peter O'Connell said the Lake Bonney wind farm was something to be proud of. "The Lake Bonney wind farms are located on a world class wind site and are being built on a world class scale, " he said. "Australia can be proud of this very significant contribution to the world's renewable energy generating capacity. "
Company chairman Peter Hofbauer said: "The construction of the second stage of the Lake Bonney asset, which enjoys strong community support, will create the largest wind farm in Australia and one of the largest wind farms in the world. "(This development) highlights the huge potential for investment in wind energy in Australia in a global market that is forecast to attract over $173 billion of investment in the five years to 2010. " Construction of the new turbines will start immediately and take about 18 months.
The Lake Bonney development trumps AGL's $263 million, 45 turbine Hallett wind farm, which is expected to be finished by December 2007.
Friday, 2 June 2006
SOUTH Australia will be home to the nation's largest wind farm after last night's announcement of a $400 million expansion of the Lake Bonney wind farm in the South-East. Babcock and Brown Wind Partners said it would spend another $400 million installing 53 more wind turbines, which will generate 159 megawatts of power. This will add to the 46 towers now at the site, near Millicent. In total, the completed wind farm will provide enough energy to power more than 130, 000 homes.
The new turbines, on 80m high towers - just 7m shorter than the Hyatt Regency Hotel building in Adelaide - are expected to be finished by mid-2008. The current 67m high towers caused problems for firefighters in January, when a fire sparked by an electrical fault proved hard to put out because the tops of the towers were out of reach. The fire also triggered an automatic shutdown of the facility during a heatwave, contributing to blackouts which left 63,000 homes without energy. South Australia leads the nation in wind power, with sites also at Starfish Hill, Canunda, Wattle Point and Cathedral Rocks, with another planned for Hallett in the Mid North.
Continued Page 4From Page 1 A spokesman for Infrastructure Minister Pat Conlon said it was another example of South Australia leading the way in wind farm development. "While other states have problems getting wind farms off the ground, this is another example of SA leading the way, " he said. "This state already has 51 per cent of the nation's wind energy and this will further add to our capacity. "Wind Partners chief executive Peter O'Connell said the Lake Bonney wind farm was something to be proud of. "The Lake Bonney wind farms are located on a world class wind site and are being built on a world class scale, " he said. "Australia can be proud of this very significant contribution to the world's renewable energy generating capacity. "
Company chairman Peter Hofbauer said: "The construction of the second stage of the Lake Bonney asset, which enjoys strong community support, will create the largest wind farm in Australia and one of the largest wind farms in the world. "(This development) highlights the huge potential for investment in wind energy in Australia in a global market that is forecast to attract over $173 billion of investment in the five years to 2010. " Construction of the new turbines will start immediately and take about 18 months.
The Lake Bonney development trumps AGL's $263 million, 45 turbine Hallett wind farm, which is expected to be finished by December 2007.
Roaring 40s seals big deal
The Mercury, Page: 13
Friday, 2 June 2006
CALLS for a major lift in Australia's renewable energy target were renewed yesterday, as a Tasmanian company signed a major wind-farm deal in China. Yesterday, Roaring 40s sealed a $300 million deal with major Chinese energy company Guohua Energy. And the Australian Greens backed the call by Roaring 40s for the Federal Government to lift its renewable energy target to prevent more investment being driven offshore. The Greens will challenge the Australian Government to match China's renewable energy target by proposing amendments to the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill, which will be debated in Parliament later this month.
Greens energy spokesperson Christine Milne said it was alarming that China was benefiting from the jobs and investment that could be rolling out in Australian communities. ''The leadership being shown by China in setting a 15 per cent target for renewable energy is not only great for the global environment but it will boost the Chinese economy by creating competitive advantage in renewable energy technology, '' Senator Milne said. Earlier last month, Roaring 40s axed plans for its multimillion dollar Heemskirk wind farm on Tasmania's West Coast, blaming Canberra's abandonment of the Mandatory Renewable Energy Targets. The loss of the project cast a doubt over Roaring 40s' other big Tasmanian project at Musselroe Bay in the North-East.
''This refusal to support the industry, and environment minister Ian Campbell's recent interventions on questionable grounds to prevent wind projects, means Australia is failing to capitalise on the investment required to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and avert the worst consequences of climate change, '' Senator Milne said. Roaring 40s' Chinese project will begin construction later this year and provide 48.75MW of power. The first-stage $80 million project is being built near Rongcheng city, in Shandong Province on China's east coast.
Friday, 2 June 2006
CALLS for a major lift in Australia's renewable energy target were renewed yesterday, as a Tasmanian company signed a major wind-farm deal in China. Yesterday, Roaring 40s sealed a $300 million deal with major Chinese energy company Guohua Energy. And the Australian Greens backed the call by Roaring 40s for the Federal Government to lift its renewable energy target to prevent more investment being driven offshore. The Greens will challenge the Australian Government to match China's renewable energy target by proposing amendments to the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill, which will be debated in Parliament later this month.
Greens energy spokesperson Christine Milne said it was alarming that China was benefiting from the jobs and investment that could be rolling out in Australian communities. ''The leadership being shown by China in setting a 15 per cent target for renewable energy is not only great for the global environment but it will boost the Chinese economy by creating competitive advantage in renewable energy technology, '' Senator Milne said. Earlier last month, Roaring 40s axed plans for its multimillion dollar Heemskirk wind farm on Tasmania's West Coast, blaming Canberra's abandonment of the Mandatory Renewable Energy Targets. The loss of the project cast a doubt over Roaring 40s' other big Tasmanian project at Musselroe Bay in the North-East.
''This refusal to support the industry, and environment minister Ian Campbell's recent interventions on questionable grounds to prevent wind projects, means Australia is failing to capitalise on the investment required to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and avert the worst consequences of climate change, '' Senator Milne said. Roaring 40s' Chinese project will begin construction later this year and provide 48.75MW of power. The first-stage $80 million project is being built near Rongcheng city, in Shandong Province on China's east coast.
Tasmanians will build wind farms in China
The Examiner, Page: 5
Friday, 2 June 2006
Renewable Energy company Roaring 40s has secured contracts to build up to three new wind farms on the east coast of China. The first 49MW wind farm will be a $80 million project near Rongcheng City in Shandong Province on China's East Coast. Roaring 40s managing director Mark Kelleher said the Chinese wind farm marked a breakthrough into East China and the first of what he hoped would be a fruitful relationship with a major Chinese energy company."China is embracing renewable energy as a means of meeting increasing energy demand and improving the environment," he said.
Mr Kelleher said this was the company's second major client in China and was thanks, in part, to the tariff arrangement the Chinese Government had in place for renewable energy. Roaring 40s recently put all wind development in Australia on hold because of the Federal Government's reluctance to increase the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target. This has included the $300 million wind farm project Heemskirk that was earmarked for the West Coast. But in a positive sign for the company, Mr Kelleher said recent talks with the Federal Government revealed that it may be prepared to look at renewable incentives.
Mr Kelleher said construction would start on the wind farm later this year and full commissioning of the project would be by mid-2007. Roaring 40s is a joint venture between a Hong Kong-based power company CLP Group and Hydro Tasmania.
Friday, 2 June 2006
Renewable Energy company Roaring 40s has secured contracts to build up to three new wind farms on the east coast of China. The first 49MW wind farm will be a $80 million project near Rongcheng City in Shandong Province on China's East Coast. Roaring 40s managing director Mark Kelleher said the Chinese wind farm marked a breakthrough into East China and the first of what he hoped would be a fruitful relationship with a major Chinese energy company."China is embracing renewable energy as a means of meeting increasing energy demand and improving the environment," he said.
Mr Kelleher said this was the company's second major client in China and was thanks, in part, to the tariff arrangement the Chinese Government had in place for renewable energy. Roaring 40s recently put all wind development in Australia on hold because of the Federal Government's reluctance to increase the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target. This has included the $300 million wind farm project Heemskirk that was earmarked for the West Coast. But in a positive sign for the company, Mr Kelleher said recent talks with the Federal Government revealed that it may be prepared to look at renewable incentives.
Mr Kelleher said construction would start on the wind farm later this year and full commissioning of the project would be by mid-2007. Roaring 40s is a joint venture between a Hong Kong-based power company CLP Group and Hydro Tasmania.
Pacific Hydro hands out $40,000
The Moyne Gazette, Page: 17
Thursday, 1 June 2006
EIGHT district community groups and projects will share in $40,000 made available by Pacific Hydro. The Yambuk Tennis Club, Port Fairy Surf Lifesaving Club, Port Fairy Folk Festival, Framlingham Aboriginal Trust, Port Fairy Cycling Club, Moyne Shire Council, the Port Fairy heated swimming pool project and Brophy Family and Youth Services recieved allocations at a reception at the Victoria Hotel yesterday. Part of its Sustainable Communities Fund, the funding is part of a long-term commitment to support projects in areas where the company is operating. Pacific Hydro chief executive officer Rob Grant promised the good news would continue.
''This will be the first of many annual payments Pacific Hydro will make over the operational life of our Codrington and Yambuk wind farms and we look forward to being a constructive member of the local community for many years to come, '' Mr Grant said. ''We are delighted to make money available to local organisations that are pursuing very worthwhile projects in their community. '' More than 50 organisations in the Port Fairy region applied for first-round funding, the requests totalling more than $600,000. Mr Grant said the company was overwhelmed by the response to the fund.
''All the applications put forward were worthy of funding and choosing these initial recipients was a difficult task. In this regard, we would like to thank Moyne Shire Council and members from the local community for their guidance, advice and support in allocating funding, '' he said. The Sustainable Communities Fund will open for second-round applications in the coming months.
Thursday, 1 June 2006
EIGHT district community groups and projects will share in $40,000 made available by Pacific Hydro. The Yambuk Tennis Club, Port Fairy Surf Lifesaving Club, Port Fairy Folk Festival, Framlingham Aboriginal Trust, Port Fairy Cycling Club, Moyne Shire Council, the Port Fairy heated swimming pool project and Brophy Family and Youth Services recieved allocations at a reception at the Victoria Hotel yesterday. Part of its Sustainable Communities Fund, the funding is part of a long-term commitment to support projects in areas where the company is operating. Pacific Hydro chief executive officer Rob Grant promised the good news would continue.
''This will be the first of many annual payments Pacific Hydro will make over the operational life of our Codrington and Yambuk wind farms and we look forward to being a constructive member of the local community for many years to come, '' Mr Grant said. ''We are delighted to make money available to local organisations that are pursuing very worthwhile projects in their community. '' More than 50 organisations in the Port Fairy region applied for first-round funding, the requests totalling more than $600,000. Mr Grant said the company was overwhelmed by the response to the fund.
''All the applications put forward were worthy of funding and choosing these initial recipients was a difficult task. In this regard, we would like to thank Moyne Shire Council and members from the local community for their guidance, advice and support in allocating funding, '' he said. The Sustainable Communities Fund will open for second-round applications in the coming months.
Wednesday, 31 May 2006
Renewable energy for Kalbarri
The Geraldton Guardian, Page: 3
Wednesday, 31 May 2006
HALF of Kalbarri's energy requirements will be supplied through the construction of a $3.8m two-turbine wind farm this year. The project was announced by Energy Minister Francis Logan on Monday as part of an $18m expansion of the Renewable Remote Power Generation Program (RRPGP), which will see rebates offered to small and medium sized renewable energy systems in rural areas on the fringe of the main electricity grid. Mr Logan said having the turbines would provide a more reliable power source for Kalbarri, which was known tor Us questionable supply.
"They are two Enercon wind turbines. 800 kilowatts each; webelieve they will certainly go a long way to providing stability for power supply in Kalbarri. " he said. "There is no guarantee the wind will blow all the time and they will get consistent power, but nevertheless it will certainly add to the reliability.
"They are going to be located, webelieve, south of Kalbairi, the actual site of location is still under negation with the shire there. "Mr Logan said when the power generaied by the new turbines was not being absorbed by Kalbarri, it would be fed back into the main grid so communities on the line to Kalbarri would also benefit from a more stable electricity supply. "I'd imagine construction will start before the end of the year, in terms of when the power will be connected. " he added.
Mr Logan saidhedidnot expect opposition from Kalbarrire sidents to the project. "The Walkaway wind site has been very successful and the embracing of renewable energy by the Mid West is fantastic. " he said. "Even if there is some concern about the location, and we haven't had feedback that there is, I think people in town will always come down to having consistent and reliable energy."
The RRPGP is a joint State and Federal Government initiative funded through the diesel fuel excise scheme. Kalbarri is the first major project under an expansion and extension program.
Wednesday, 31 May 2006
HALF of Kalbarri's energy requirements will be supplied through the construction of a $3.8m two-turbine wind farm this year. The project was announced by Energy Minister Francis Logan on Monday as part of an $18m expansion of the Renewable Remote Power Generation Program (RRPGP), which will see rebates offered to small and medium sized renewable energy systems in rural areas on the fringe of the main electricity grid. Mr Logan said having the turbines would provide a more reliable power source for Kalbarri, which was known tor Us questionable supply.
"They are two Enercon wind turbines. 800 kilowatts each; webelieve they will certainly go a long way to providing stability for power supply in Kalbarri. " he said. "There is no guarantee the wind will blow all the time and they will get consistent power, but nevertheless it will certainly add to the reliability.
"They are going to be located, webelieve, south of Kalbairi, the actual site of location is still under negation with the shire there. "Mr Logan said when the power generaied by the new turbines was not being absorbed by Kalbarri, it would be fed back into the main grid so communities on the line to Kalbarri would also benefit from a more stable electricity supply. "I'd imagine construction will start before the end of the year, in terms of when the power will be connected. " he added.
Mr Logan saidhedidnot expect opposition from Kalbarrire sidents to the project. "The Walkaway wind site has been very successful and the embracing of renewable energy by the Mid West is fantastic. " he said. "Even if there is some concern about the location, and we haven't had feedback that there is, I think people in town will always come down to having consistent and reliable energy."
The RRPGP is a joint State and Federal Government initiative funded through the diesel fuel excise scheme. Kalbarri is the first major project under an expansion and extension program.
Investors turn green with energy
The Australian Financial Review, Page: 27
Wednesday, 31 May 2006
Melting ice caps, the rising incidence of natural disasters and soaring oil prices are pointing some savvy investors in the direction of green energy. Uranium stocks have been among the biggest beneficiaries of the drive to find alternative sources of energy, buoyed by Prime Minister John Howard signing a deal to sell the mineral to China, and a potential agreement with India. But not everyone is buying in to that story. Some fund managers won't touch the industry with a barge pole on the grounds that it is highly speculative.
Luckily, uranium is not the only alternative to coal, gas and oil. Governments around the world are promoting renewable energy from sources such as wind and water as a means of reducing greenhouse emissions. Furthermore, they are setting targets for renewable energy. China has set a 15 per cent target for renewable energy by 2020. In Australia, Victoria is expected to pass laws setting a 10 per cent target for renewable energy.
South Australia has a 15 per cent target, while nearly half the US states, including California, have imposed mandatory targets. All of a sudden, water, wind arid sun are looking like attractive investments. In Victoria the government's plans have encouraged energy companies such as Lakes Oil to tender for 31 exploration permits to find Victoria's geothermal hot spots. According to the Total Environment Centre, 12 per cent of Australia's electricity comes from renewable sources such as wind, solar, biomass, wave and tidal power.
Australian Wind Energy Association (Auswind) president Andrew Richards, thinks wind power is leading the way. "Most low-emission solutions being contemplated require technological breakthroughs and are still many years away from commercial deployment," he says. "In contrast, wind energy does not need to be invented, nor is there any need to wait for a magical technological breakthrough. It is already being deployed on a global scale.
"There is certainly room for growth in the sector. According to Auswind, total installed wind energy capacity in Australia was 572 megawatts at the end of last year, compared with 6750MW in the US, 3000MW in India, 991MW in Japan, 769MW in China and 71MW in South Korea. Australia's biggest fund manager, Colonial First State, has invested in the $850 million Babcock & Brown Wind Partners Group, which has stakes in 16 wind farms in North America, Europe and Australia. The listed group's market value increased $180 million between October and December, prompting a hefty $33 million payment in performance fees to its parent company, Babcock & Brown.
Trading at 38 times forecast earnings for 2007, BBWG's share price closed at $1.585 on Monday. Investment banks JP Morgan and UBS have both set a target price of $1.90.Their recommendations are "overweight" and "neutral" respectively.
CFS's head of Australian equities, Simon Shields, says, "We're not Ethical Investors. We look for businesses that are sustainable and on these merits we invest." Despite the potential for green energy, not all companies in the sector are having a good time. Tasmanian company Roaring 40s recently halted development of its $180 million Waterloo Wind Farm, 30 kilometres south-east of Clare.
The company, a joint venture between Asian power developer CLP Group and government business enterprise Hydro Tasmania, blamed the federal government's mandatory renewable energy target scheme. The scheme offers financial incentives for establishing clean and green energy but the targets - which require suppliers to source 2 per cent of their power from renewable sources - have almost been met. The executive director of the Australian Business Council for Continued Sustainable Energy, Ric Brazzale, last week called on the government to reset the targets." The missing link in getting private sector investment into developing and deploying clean energy technologies has been an incentive for companies to do so.
Clearly, something more than 'business as usual' needs to be done if Australia is to play its part in tackling climate change," he said. Until the sector gets more subsidies, investors should take Shields's advice and pick a potentially sustainable business. For investors who prefer wind power, two listed companies to note are Jackgreen and Viridis Clean Energy Group. Sydney-based Jackgreen sells electricity in NSW, Victoria and South Australia entirely sourced from wind farms and hydro generators.
Despite a slow start after a backdoor listing in December 2004, it finally received its financial services licence in March last year. While it has had to draw on the support of its institutional investor, Babcock & Brown, and raise a further S2.09 million, Jackgreen has a unique selling point: its renewable energy costs the consumer no more than its coal-based cousins. Since March last year, Jackgreen has signed up 10,000 households for three years and hopes to provide electricity for 100,000 homes by June next year.
The shares, which listed at 20c before falling to 7c last year, closed on Monday at 40c. A fund manager who did not wish to be named says: "Jackgreen's equal [pricing] strategy has been expensive but it gives people what they want." In 2004, Jackgreen surveyed 3000 households and more than 90 per cent said they would sign up to green energy if it cost them no more than other energy. The analyst says: "The issue is that Origin and others have to generate green energy anyway to meet the government's 2 per cent target and they then charge the customer more for it.
"Jackgreen forecasts a net profit after tax in the vicinity of $5 million for 2006-07. One analyst says it's difficult to project the company's price-earnings ratio. The wind is blowing in the right direction for Viridis, which floated in September at $1 per share after raising $126 million. The group, which is 8 percent owned by Investors Mutual, has a strong following because of the high yields it generates from its wind farms, landfill gas and other renewable energy projects in the US and Europe.
Undeterred by its $ 1.2 million first half net loss, Viridis plans to accumulate $100 million in clean energy investments over the next 12 months. Its shareholders are also buoyed by the company's maiden distribution of 2.5$ a share on March 31 and promises of a 7.1$ dividend in 2005-06 and 9.5$ in 2006-07. Trading on a high forecast multiple of 78 times, Viridis closed at 90c on Monday.
ABN Amro analyst Nicholas Burgess recommends buying the shares at $1.17. There are also opportunities elsewhere. The official sales process for the $2.5 billion float of Snowy Hydro is under way.
The company, which recently appointed Sydney Futures Exchange chair Rick Holliday-Smithas its chairman, hopes to raise more than $2.5 billion. The Snowy Mountains hydroelectric scheme generates clean and renewable energy through 31 hydro and six gas-fired units and has a licence to store and divert water from the Snowy River catchmentuntil 2079. One analyst says: "We expect there will be strong demand for the shares."
NSW Finance Minister John Delia Bosca has said the float has been timed to coincide with Snowy Hydro's plans for capital expansion into the national electricity market. The NSW government, which owns 58 per cent of Snowy Hydro, stands to pocket at least $1.5 billion from the sale. The Victorian government owns a 29 per cent stake and the federal government 13 per cent.
Meanwhile, New Zealand electricity generator and retailer Trust-Power has enjoyed a 34 per cent increase in its share price over the last year. It recently posted fullyear net profits of SNZ81.4 million ($68.2 million) to end-March against SNZ73.2 million a year ago.
TrustPower has 18 hydro schemes and two wind farms located on the North and South islands. Total annual output is about 2000 gigawatt-hours, compared to a retail load of 4700 GWh. About 55 per cent of this load is fixed-tariff customers, with the rest on variable rates, where TrustPower manages the load for mainly industrial customers. UBS analyst Wade Gardiner says the "strong fourth quarter was due to high wholesale price exposure".
Gardiner says in a research note: "In our view, the company's key risk is fluctuations in wholesale electricity prices at times when it is inadequately hedged." TrustPower, which is trading at 22 times forecast earnings, closed at SNZ6.90 on Monday. Infratil and Alliant have effective control, with a combined share of 59 per cent.
Gardiner recommends investors "reduce" their shareholdings and his target price is SNZ6.50. Other listed renewable energy companies that have been on the radar of investors include Geodynamics, which develops renewable geothermal energy from hot dry rocks, and Environmental Solutions International, which treats water and waste water. Biodiesel fuel companies Australian Biodiesel Group, Australian Renewable Fuels and Mission Biofuels have also caught the attention of investors.
Mission Biofuels listed in May and has a 100,000 tonne per annum biodiesel refinery in Kuantan Port, Malaysia. It recently received permission to establish a 200,000 tonne per annum facility adjacent to its present site. "We expect there will be strong demand for the Snowy Hydro shares."
Wednesday, 31 May 2006
Melting ice caps, the rising incidence of natural disasters and soaring oil prices are pointing some savvy investors in the direction of green energy. Uranium stocks have been among the biggest beneficiaries of the drive to find alternative sources of energy, buoyed by Prime Minister John Howard signing a deal to sell the mineral to China, and a potential agreement with India. But not everyone is buying in to that story. Some fund managers won't touch the industry with a barge pole on the grounds that it is highly speculative.
Luckily, uranium is not the only alternative to coal, gas and oil. Governments around the world are promoting renewable energy from sources such as wind and water as a means of reducing greenhouse emissions. Furthermore, they are setting targets for renewable energy. China has set a 15 per cent target for renewable energy by 2020. In Australia, Victoria is expected to pass laws setting a 10 per cent target for renewable energy.
South Australia has a 15 per cent target, while nearly half the US states, including California, have imposed mandatory targets. All of a sudden, water, wind arid sun are looking like attractive investments. In Victoria the government's plans have encouraged energy companies such as Lakes Oil to tender for 31 exploration permits to find Victoria's geothermal hot spots. According to the Total Environment Centre, 12 per cent of Australia's electricity comes from renewable sources such as wind, solar, biomass, wave and tidal power.
Australian Wind Energy Association (Auswind) president Andrew Richards, thinks wind power is leading the way. "Most low-emission solutions being contemplated require technological breakthroughs and are still many years away from commercial deployment," he says. "In contrast, wind energy does not need to be invented, nor is there any need to wait for a magical technological breakthrough. It is already being deployed on a global scale.
"There is certainly room for growth in the sector. According to Auswind, total installed wind energy capacity in Australia was 572 megawatts at the end of last year, compared with 6750MW in the US, 3000MW in India, 991MW in Japan, 769MW in China and 71MW in South Korea. Australia's biggest fund manager, Colonial First State, has invested in the $850 million Babcock & Brown Wind Partners Group, which has stakes in 16 wind farms in North America, Europe and Australia. The listed group's market value increased $180 million between October and December, prompting a hefty $33 million payment in performance fees to its parent company, Babcock & Brown.
Trading at 38 times forecast earnings for 2007, BBWG's share price closed at $1.585 on Monday. Investment banks JP Morgan and UBS have both set a target price of $1.90.Their recommendations are "overweight" and "neutral" respectively.
CFS's head of Australian equities, Simon Shields, says, "We're not Ethical Investors. We look for businesses that are sustainable and on these merits we invest." Despite the potential for green energy, not all companies in the sector are having a good time. Tasmanian company Roaring 40s recently halted development of its $180 million Waterloo Wind Farm, 30 kilometres south-east of Clare.
The company, a joint venture between Asian power developer CLP Group and government business enterprise Hydro Tasmania, blamed the federal government's mandatory renewable energy target scheme. The scheme offers financial incentives for establishing clean and green energy but the targets - which require suppliers to source 2 per cent of their power from renewable sources - have almost been met. The executive director of the Australian Business Council for Continued Sustainable Energy, Ric Brazzale, last week called on the government to reset the targets." The missing link in getting private sector investment into developing and deploying clean energy technologies has been an incentive for companies to do so.
Clearly, something more than 'business as usual' needs to be done if Australia is to play its part in tackling climate change," he said. Until the sector gets more subsidies, investors should take Shields's advice and pick a potentially sustainable business. For investors who prefer wind power, two listed companies to note are Jackgreen and Viridis Clean Energy Group. Sydney-based Jackgreen sells electricity in NSW, Victoria and South Australia entirely sourced from wind farms and hydro generators.
Despite a slow start after a backdoor listing in December 2004, it finally received its financial services licence in March last year. While it has had to draw on the support of its institutional investor, Babcock & Brown, and raise a further S2.09 million, Jackgreen has a unique selling point: its renewable energy costs the consumer no more than its coal-based cousins. Since March last year, Jackgreen has signed up 10,000 households for three years and hopes to provide electricity for 100,000 homes by June next year.
The shares, which listed at 20c before falling to 7c last year, closed on Monday at 40c. A fund manager who did not wish to be named says: "Jackgreen's equal [pricing] strategy has been expensive but it gives people what they want." In 2004, Jackgreen surveyed 3000 households and more than 90 per cent said they would sign up to green energy if it cost them no more than other energy. The analyst says: "The issue is that Origin and others have to generate green energy anyway to meet the government's 2 per cent target and they then charge the customer more for it.
"Jackgreen forecasts a net profit after tax in the vicinity of $5 million for 2006-07. One analyst says it's difficult to project the company's price-earnings ratio. The wind is blowing in the right direction for Viridis, which floated in September at $1 per share after raising $126 million. The group, which is 8 percent owned by Investors Mutual, has a strong following because of the high yields it generates from its wind farms, landfill gas and other renewable energy projects in the US and Europe.
Undeterred by its $ 1.2 million first half net loss, Viridis plans to accumulate $100 million in clean energy investments over the next 12 months. Its shareholders are also buoyed by the company's maiden distribution of 2.5$ a share on March 31 and promises of a 7.1$ dividend in 2005-06 and 9.5$ in 2006-07. Trading on a high forecast multiple of 78 times, Viridis closed at 90c on Monday.
ABN Amro analyst Nicholas Burgess recommends buying the shares at $1.17. There are also opportunities elsewhere. The official sales process for the $2.5 billion float of Snowy Hydro is under way.
The company, which recently appointed Sydney Futures Exchange chair Rick Holliday-Smithas its chairman, hopes to raise more than $2.5 billion. The Snowy Mountains hydroelectric scheme generates clean and renewable energy through 31 hydro and six gas-fired units and has a licence to store and divert water from the Snowy River catchmentuntil 2079. One analyst says: "We expect there will be strong demand for the shares."
NSW Finance Minister John Delia Bosca has said the float has been timed to coincide with Snowy Hydro's plans for capital expansion into the national electricity market. The NSW government, which owns 58 per cent of Snowy Hydro, stands to pocket at least $1.5 billion from the sale. The Victorian government owns a 29 per cent stake and the federal government 13 per cent.
Meanwhile, New Zealand electricity generator and retailer Trust-Power has enjoyed a 34 per cent increase in its share price over the last year. It recently posted fullyear net profits of SNZ81.4 million ($68.2 million) to end-March against SNZ73.2 million a year ago.
TrustPower has 18 hydro schemes and two wind farms located on the North and South islands. Total annual output is about 2000 gigawatt-hours, compared to a retail load of 4700 GWh. About 55 per cent of this load is fixed-tariff customers, with the rest on variable rates, where TrustPower manages the load for mainly industrial customers. UBS analyst Wade Gardiner says the "strong fourth quarter was due to high wholesale price exposure".
Gardiner says in a research note: "In our view, the company's key risk is fluctuations in wholesale electricity prices at times when it is inadequately hedged." TrustPower, which is trading at 22 times forecast earnings, closed at SNZ6.90 on Monday. Infratil and Alliant have effective control, with a combined share of 59 per cent.
Gardiner recommends investors "reduce" their shareholdings and his target price is SNZ6.50. Other listed renewable energy companies that have been on the radar of investors include Geodynamics, which develops renewable geothermal energy from hot dry rocks, and Environmental Solutions International, which treats water and waste water. Biodiesel fuel companies Australian Biodiesel Group, Australian Renewable Fuels and Mission Biofuels have also caught the attention of investors.
Mission Biofuels listed in May and has a 100,000 tonne per annum biodiesel refinery in Kuantan Port, Malaysia. It recently received permission to establish a 200,000 tonne per annum facility adjacent to its present site. "We expect there will be strong demand for the Snowy Hydro shares."
Don’t be complacent warns Hatton
South Coast Register, Page: 2
Monday, 29 May 2006
By JUNE WEBSTER
IT WAS deja vu for former State Member for South Coast John Hatton when he heard of the latest push for a nuclear power plant in Jervis Bay "People should not be complacent about this issue," Mr Hatton said. "The last time we dealt with the Atomic Energy Commission they lied and prevaricated that was my experience. "I'm surprised that the Government is expecting people to trust them on this issue."
"The last time a nuclear power plant was proposed in 1970 and I was shire president at the time the only way council found out about it was through leaked information," he said. "This current situation is almost a replay of 1970." Back then we had a Prime Minister who was determined that it was going to happen and there was no debate," he said. "This time however the Prime Minister has control of the Senate whereas in 1970 he didn't," "I don't care what Jo Gash says, if the Feds want to put the nuclear power plant in Jervis Bay then they will put it there," Mr Hatton said.
Mr Hatton said it takes 10 years to build a nuclear plant so it's not a short-term option "It is more expensive than solar or wind power or coal-fired power stations," he said. "Australia has the leading technology in the world on solar power so a mix between solar and wind power and use of crop residues would all be far more economical than atomic power."
Mr Hatton said he was genuinely puzzled why the Federal Government with its huge surplus did not put more money into developing alternative power sources. "One thing people forget about is that when nuclear plants reach their use-by date no one knows what to do with them," he said. "If you include the cost of clean-up at the end of the life of a power station it's way over the top." he said.
Monday, 29 May 2006
By JUNE WEBSTER
IT WAS deja vu for former State Member for South Coast John Hatton when he heard of the latest push for a nuclear power plant in Jervis Bay "People should not be complacent about this issue," Mr Hatton said. "The last time we dealt with the Atomic Energy Commission they lied and prevaricated that was my experience. "I'm surprised that the Government is expecting people to trust them on this issue."
"The last time a nuclear power plant was proposed in 1970 and I was shire president at the time the only way council found out about it was through leaked information," he said. "This current situation is almost a replay of 1970." Back then we had a Prime Minister who was determined that it was going to happen and there was no debate," he said. "This time however the Prime Minister has control of the Senate whereas in 1970 he didn't," "I don't care what Jo Gash says, if the Feds want to put the nuclear power plant in Jervis Bay then they will put it there," Mr Hatton said.
Mr Hatton said it takes 10 years to build a nuclear plant so it's not a short-term option "It is more expensive than solar or wind power or coal-fired power stations," he said. "Australia has the leading technology in the world on solar power so a mix between solar and wind power and use of crop residues would all be far more economical than atomic power."
Mr Hatton said he was genuinely puzzled why the Federal Government with its huge surplus did not put more money into developing alternative power sources. "One thing people forget about is that when nuclear plants reach their use-by date no one knows what to do with them," he said. "If you include the cost of clean-up at the end of the life of a power station it's way over the top." he said.
Tuesday, 30 May 2006
'Climate of fear' in solar research
The Canberra Times, Page: 3
Tuesday, 30 May 2006
Australia's renewable energy researchers are operating in a "climate of fear", causing loss of expertise and tipping a former worldleading industry into decline, a leading scientist says. Murdoch University Professor of Energy Studies Dr Phillip Jennings said scientists were fearful of losing research grants if they were perceived as criticising Federal Government policies on renewable energy or climate change "They're afraid of being victimised because they have seen it happen to colleagues who have spoken up about government funding cuts to renewables research, " he said. Former federal energy policy adviser and whistleblower Guy Pearce has also called for "independent and credible economic research" to inform the Government's policy on energy options and climate change. "It's important to understand that some of the same interests who have persuaded our government to avoid emission cuts domestically also have an interest in domestic nuclear power.
Our two biggest uranium producers are also in the coal and aluminium business, " Professor Pearce told a coastal environment forum in Queensland last week. Professor Jennings said Australia had been a pioneer and world leader in solar technology since the 1940s, but was rapidly losing its leadership status as research programs were closed and scientists moved overseas to take up lucrative research opportunities in Europe, China and Japan. "Australia has already lost solar thermal technology to China because there were no funds for its commercialisation. It would have created an industry worth at least $1 billion, but that's gone now.
"Because of the work that was being done at CSIRO, we led the world in solar water heater technology. Their design was the base for subsequent heaters, but because of the Government's short-sighted views on renewable energy, we've lost that lead now to Israel and Greece. "Professor Jennings said the Federal Government had progressively stripped solar energy of research funding, closing the Energy Research and Development Corporation and the Cooperative Research Centre for Renewable Energy. There were now only two solar energy research centres - at the Australian National University and the University of New South Wales - despite Australia's strong international track record of innovative solar technology.
Federal Environment Minister Senator Ian Campbell was travelling in Western Australia yesterday and unavailable for comment. Science Minister Julie Bishop was also unavailable. Greens energy spokeswoman Senator Christine Milne said solar energy researchers had been progressively shut out of national debate on climate change by the Government because "there are thought to be not enough dollars for the big end of town in solar energy". She said Australia was already losing ground to China, which had set a 15 per cent target for achieving uptake of renewable energy.
China's first billionaire, Dr Zhengrong Shi, a graduate of the University of NSW's renewable energy centre, had recently donated funds to help support renewable energy research at the university "because he felt it was not getting an appropriate level of government support", Senator Milne said. The Chinese billionaire and founder of Suntech Power returned to China in 2001 to set up a company to make photovoltaic cells for use in solar panels. In 2005, he listed his $296 million company on the New York stock exchange, and its market cap has since soared to $7.2 billion.
A recent report to the World Bank by six leading scientists has recommended active and continued support for solar thermal technology claiming it could play "a more significant role" than wind farms in achieving deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions. The World Bank report supports claims made in a confidential report by the Cooperative Research Centre for Coal in Sustainable Development that solar thermal technology is capable of producing Australia's entire electricity demand.
Tuesday, 30 May 2006
Australia's renewable energy researchers are operating in a "climate of fear", causing loss of expertise and tipping a former worldleading industry into decline, a leading scientist says. Murdoch University Professor of Energy Studies Dr Phillip Jennings said scientists were fearful of losing research grants if they were perceived as criticising Federal Government policies on renewable energy or climate change "They're afraid of being victimised because they have seen it happen to colleagues who have spoken up about government funding cuts to renewables research, " he said. Former federal energy policy adviser and whistleblower Guy Pearce has also called for "independent and credible economic research" to inform the Government's policy on energy options and climate change. "It's important to understand that some of the same interests who have persuaded our government to avoid emission cuts domestically also have an interest in domestic nuclear power.
Our two biggest uranium producers are also in the coal and aluminium business, " Professor Pearce told a coastal environment forum in Queensland last week. Professor Jennings said Australia had been a pioneer and world leader in solar technology since the 1940s, but was rapidly losing its leadership status as research programs were closed and scientists moved overseas to take up lucrative research opportunities in Europe, China and Japan. "Australia has already lost solar thermal technology to China because there were no funds for its commercialisation. It would have created an industry worth at least $1 billion, but that's gone now.
"Because of the work that was being done at CSIRO, we led the world in solar water heater technology. Their design was the base for subsequent heaters, but because of the Government's short-sighted views on renewable energy, we've lost that lead now to Israel and Greece. "Professor Jennings said the Federal Government had progressively stripped solar energy of research funding, closing the Energy Research and Development Corporation and the Cooperative Research Centre for Renewable Energy. There were now only two solar energy research centres - at the Australian National University and the University of New South Wales - despite Australia's strong international track record of innovative solar technology.
Federal Environment Minister Senator Ian Campbell was travelling in Western Australia yesterday and unavailable for comment. Science Minister Julie Bishop was also unavailable. Greens energy spokeswoman Senator Christine Milne said solar energy researchers had been progressively shut out of national debate on climate change by the Government because "there are thought to be not enough dollars for the big end of town in solar energy". She said Australia was already losing ground to China, which had set a 15 per cent target for achieving uptake of renewable energy.
China's first billionaire, Dr Zhengrong Shi, a graduate of the University of NSW's renewable energy centre, had recently donated funds to help support renewable energy research at the university "because he felt it was not getting an appropriate level of government support", Senator Milne said. The Chinese billionaire and founder of Suntech Power returned to China in 2001 to set up a company to make photovoltaic cells for use in solar panels. In 2005, he listed his $296 million company on the New York stock exchange, and its market cap has since soared to $7.2 billion.
A recent report to the World Bank by six leading scientists has recommended active and continued support for solar thermal technology claiming it could play "a more significant role" than wind farms in achieving deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions. The World Bank report supports claims made in a confidential report by the Cooperative Research Centre for Coal in Sustainable Development that solar thermal technology is capable of producing Australia's entire electricity demand.
Editorial - Australasian Science
Australasian Science, Page: 1
Saturday, 27 May 2006
Over the past decade Australia has enjoyed an unprecedented economic boom. Government coffers are awash with revenue, leading Treasurer Peter Costello to announce $37 billion in income tax cuts last month. Even with this year's largesse, a significant surplus has been forecast for the coming financial year. Past surplus forecasts have proved to be conservative, leading analysts to predict that the government's swelling kitty will be used in next year's Budget to bribe the electorate in the lead-up to the 2007 federal election.
While last month's Budget included $590 million in new funding for medical research over 4 years - a winner with the public - other areas of science were not invited to the party (see p. 13). While medical research makes voters feel good about the taxes they pay, such research needs to be underpinned by basic research in the enabling sciences. However, these have been left to wither.
Australia's expenditure on R&D as a percentage of GDP has been stagnant over the decade-long term of the Howard government, and has slipped to 16th in the OECD as other nations set ambitious targets. When the government's Backing Australia's Ability 2 program expires in 2011, countries like Canada will be spending twice as much as Australia according to this measure. If Australia can't invest for the future during these times of sustained prosperity, how will it do so when there is a downturn in the economy? Last month's Budget lacked the vision required to set Australia up for the decades ahead. The present commodities boom may have paid for today's tax cuts, but where will the revenue streams come from when the bust comes? Where is the vision to foster the industries of the future? A case in point is the government's trenchant support for the coal industry.
While research into "clean coal" technologies has received massive support, the lights have been turned out on several renewable energy research programs. For example, renewable energy company Roaring 40s last month halted work on wind energy projects worth $550 million because the government's 2% Mandatory Renewable Energy Target has not been increased. The target has almost been reached, and an increase is necessary to drive the young industry further. Roaring 40s recently announced a $300 million wind farm deal with China, which has a renewable energy target of 15%.
The company says the wind power industry will collapse without an extension of the MRET scheme.
Saturday, 27 May 2006
Over the past decade Australia has enjoyed an unprecedented economic boom. Government coffers are awash with revenue, leading Treasurer Peter Costello to announce $37 billion in income tax cuts last month. Even with this year's largesse, a significant surplus has been forecast for the coming financial year. Past surplus forecasts have proved to be conservative, leading analysts to predict that the government's swelling kitty will be used in next year's Budget to bribe the electorate in the lead-up to the 2007 federal election.
While last month's Budget included $590 million in new funding for medical research over 4 years - a winner with the public - other areas of science were not invited to the party (see p. 13). While medical research makes voters feel good about the taxes they pay, such research needs to be underpinned by basic research in the enabling sciences. However, these have been left to wither.
Australia's expenditure on R&D as a percentage of GDP has been stagnant over the decade-long term of the Howard government, and has slipped to 16th in the OECD as other nations set ambitious targets. When the government's Backing Australia's Ability 2 program expires in 2011, countries like Canada will be spending twice as much as Australia according to this measure. If Australia can't invest for the future during these times of sustained prosperity, how will it do so when there is a downturn in the economy? Last month's Budget lacked the vision required to set Australia up for the decades ahead. The present commodities boom may have paid for today's tax cuts, but where will the revenue streams come from when the bust comes? Where is the vision to foster the industries of the future? A case in point is the government's trenchant support for the coal industry.
While research into "clean coal" technologies has received massive support, the lights have been turned out on several renewable energy research programs. For example, renewable energy company Roaring 40s last month halted work on wind energy projects worth $550 million because the government's 2% Mandatory Renewable Energy Target has not been increased. The target has almost been reached, and an increase is necessary to drive the young industry further. Roaring 40s recently announced a $300 million wind farm deal with China, which has a renewable energy target of 15%.
The company says the wind power industry will collapse without an extension of the MRET scheme.
Aussie companies get wind of perfect energy solution
The Canberra Times, Page: 24
Friday, 26 May 2006
IN the past 200 years, the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) has dramatically increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. There is now strong scientific evidence that this increase in greenhouse gas levels is causing an acceleration of the greenhouse effect, causing irreversible climate change. Scientists predict that the average global temperature will increase by up to two degrees celsius by 2030, and by as much as six degrees by 2070. Given that a rise of less than half of one degree produces dramatic ecosystem changes, the potential impacts of global warming could be devastating.
Extreme weather fluctuations such as droughts, storms, floods, heat waves and hail are already more frequent and more severe. There is a pressing need for Australia to pursue less harmful ways of producing the energy we need. Several renewable energy companies are now choosing to generate electricity from non-polluting wind and water. These are business decisions, guided by economic, social and environmental considerations that have delivered sustained profit growth, the avoidance of greenhouse gas emissions, as well as significant benefits to local communities.
Wind energy consumes nothing and produces no pollution. It does not cause irreversible and unknown damage to the climate or to the environment. Likewise, it is immune from long term price volatility and will never be a terrorist target. The USA, Canada, India, China and many European nations are leading the way in wind power, with the US planning to install 3,000MW of new wind generation this year alone - that's more than four times the total capacity of all Australian wind farms.
Wind energy has zero fuel price risk, zero fuel costs and extremely low running costs. Its fuel is free and endless. As electricity prices rise, wind energy is an obvious choice for the economic security of Australia's energy supply. The cost of wind energy for the consumer is currently up to twice the cost of fossil fuel generated electricity, but with economies of scale and fossil fuel costs rising, wind energy will be cost-competitive within 10-15 years.
If the cost of environmental and health pollution caused by greenhouse gas emissions were factored in, wind energy would be cost-competitive with fossil-fuels today. So how does a windmill make electricity? Wind generator blades rotate due to a pressure differential caused by air moving over the surface of the blade. The blades cause a rotor to turn, which drives an electrical generator; just as steam drives a generator in a coal-fired or nuclear power station. The turbines used in Australian wind farms are 'smart machines' which require minimal maintenance.
Interestingly, most of Australia's wind farms are subject to hot northerly winds on summer days when the power system faces the biggest demand, largely due to the use of large numbers of air conditioners. On those days, wind farms contribute energy when it is needed the most. Opponents of windfarms say that the generators pose a threat to native birdlife, however, studies from Canada, Denmark and the US show that the total impact on wildlife from wind farms is negligible compared to the impact from road traffic. Wind energy's supporters also point to the thousands of species that will face extinction due to climate change in coming years if pollution-free energy systems are not adopted.
Australian wind farms are required to undertake detailed flora and fauna studies during their planning process to ensure minimal environmental impact during planning, construction and operation. The Australian Wind Energy Association, Auswind, has internationally-recognised Best Practice guidelines which its members follow in all stages of wind farm development. Wind farming is also popular with farmers, because well over 90% of their land can continue to be used for growing crops or grazing livestock. Wind energy is one of the most responsible energy sources, and Australia is well placed to take advantage of this finite resource.
It will not be the answer to all our future energy needs, but the Australian Greenhouse Office has found that the national electricity market can comfortably support 8, 000 MW of wind power, which is more than 10 times our current level. And all this without producing any pollution. It is no doubt time for Australians to realise that wind energy is more than a load of hot air. Our future depends on it.
Friday, 26 May 2006
IN the past 200 years, the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) has dramatically increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. There is now strong scientific evidence that this increase in greenhouse gas levels is causing an acceleration of the greenhouse effect, causing irreversible climate change. Scientists predict that the average global temperature will increase by up to two degrees celsius by 2030, and by as much as six degrees by 2070. Given that a rise of less than half of one degree produces dramatic ecosystem changes, the potential impacts of global warming could be devastating.
Extreme weather fluctuations such as droughts, storms, floods, heat waves and hail are already more frequent and more severe. There is a pressing need for Australia to pursue less harmful ways of producing the energy we need. Several renewable energy companies are now choosing to generate electricity from non-polluting wind and water. These are business decisions, guided by economic, social and environmental considerations that have delivered sustained profit growth, the avoidance of greenhouse gas emissions, as well as significant benefits to local communities.
Wind energy consumes nothing and produces no pollution. It does not cause irreversible and unknown damage to the climate or to the environment. Likewise, it is immune from long term price volatility and will never be a terrorist target. The USA, Canada, India, China and many European nations are leading the way in wind power, with the US planning to install 3,000MW of new wind generation this year alone - that's more than four times the total capacity of all Australian wind farms.
Wind energy has zero fuel price risk, zero fuel costs and extremely low running costs. Its fuel is free and endless. As electricity prices rise, wind energy is an obvious choice for the economic security of Australia's energy supply. The cost of wind energy for the consumer is currently up to twice the cost of fossil fuel generated electricity, but with economies of scale and fossil fuel costs rising, wind energy will be cost-competitive within 10-15 years.
If the cost of environmental and health pollution caused by greenhouse gas emissions were factored in, wind energy would be cost-competitive with fossil-fuels today. So how does a windmill make electricity? Wind generator blades rotate due to a pressure differential caused by air moving over the surface of the blade. The blades cause a rotor to turn, which drives an electrical generator; just as steam drives a generator in a coal-fired or nuclear power station. The turbines used in Australian wind farms are 'smart machines' which require minimal maintenance.
Interestingly, most of Australia's wind farms are subject to hot northerly winds on summer days when the power system faces the biggest demand, largely due to the use of large numbers of air conditioners. On those days, wind farms contribute energy when it is needed the most. Opponents of windfarms say that the generators pose a threat to native birdlife, however, studies from Canada, Denmark and the US show that the total impact on wildlife from wind farms is negligible compared to the impact from road traffic. Wind energy's supporters also point to the thousands of species that will face extinction due to climate change in coming years if pollution-free energy systems are not adopted.
Australian wind farms are required to undertake detailed flora and fauna studies during their planning process to ensure minimal environmental impact during planning, construction and operation. The Australian Wind Energy Association, Auswind, has internationally-recognised Best Practice guidelines which its members follow in all stages of wind farm development. Wind farming is also popular with farmers, because well over 90% of their land can continue to be used for growing crops or grazing livestock. Wind energy is one of the most responsible energy sources, and Australia is well placed to take advantage of this finite resource.
It will not be the answer to all our future energy needs, but the Australian Greenhouse Office has found that the national electricity market can comfortably support 8, 000 MW of wind power, which is more than 10 times our current level. And all this without producing any pollution. It is no doubt time for Australians to realise that wind energy is more than a load of hot air. Our future depends on it.
Thursday, 25 May 2006
Venture Capital Wakes Up To Envirobusiness
Ethical Investor, Page: 17
Wednesday, 24 May 2006
Cleantech is the new buzzword flying around the venture capital world and is broadly defined as manufacturing processes or product technologies that reduce pollution or waste, energy use, or materialuse in comparison to the technologies that they replace. Examples include such innovative and expanding technologies as solar photovoltaics, wind power, hybrid electric vehicles, fuel cells, biobased materials and advance water filtration. Increasingly, financial investors are taking more of an interest in the emerging ideas and efficiencies of cleantech. No longer is it just a matter of complying with the latest regulation - businesses are now seeing the financial benefits of such investments, which is clearly reflected in the growth of clean energy markets.
There has, without doubt, been an elevation in the importance and urgency of clean technology, making it one of the fastest growing sectors in the world. US research has identified 4 key cleantech growth areas. Biofuels (global manufacturing and wholesale pricing of ethanol and biodiesel) will grow from US$15. 7 billion in 2005 to US$52. 5 billion by 2015. ASX listed companies leading the way include Australian Ethanol (ASX: AAE), Australian Renewable Fuels (ASX: ARW) and Australian Biodiesel Group (ASX: ABJ).
Wind power (new installation capital costs) will expand from US$11. 8 billion in 2005 to US$48. 5 billion in 2015, including Babcock & Brown Wind Partners (ASX:BBW) which has successfully grown from a single asset private investment vehicle to a listed fund with a portfolio of wind energy assets diversified across Europe, North America and Australia. Solar photovoltaics (including modules, system components and installation) will grow from a US$11. 2 billion industry in 2005 to US$51. 1 billion by 2015. Australian company Solar Heat and Power Pty Ltd builds the world's lowest cost large scale solar concentrators.
The fuel cell and distributed hydrogen market will growfrom US$1. 2 billion last year to US$15. 1 billion by 2015. Ceramic Fuels Cells Ltd (ASX:CFU), for example, has a unique fuel cell design based on work done within the CSIRO, from which the Company spun off in 1992 with the support of many contributing partners before listing on the Australian Stock Exchange in 2004. In that time, they have improved the design, systems and product configuration of their solid oxide fuel cells, whilst winning an international reputation in their field.
It is estimated that these 4 clean-energy technologies will grow fourfold within the next decade. We have seen increased interest by major corporations in adopting cleantech to drive productivity and reduce waste and the emergence of experienced management teams, who introduce innovative business techniques, assist in building investor confidence in the emerging cleantech sector. Global resource constraints and increased concern for climate change have played a major role in positioning clean technologies for sustained growth. The energy demands of the 2 new economic powerhouses, China and India, are stretching existing power sources to their limits.
Water shortages are prompting investment in water treatment and recycling technologies. The soaring prices of oil and gas have led to producers and users searching for new technologies. The advancement of new technologies has helped drive down wind energy production costs by 80% over the last 20 years and solar power has dropped to one-tenth the cost it was during the 1970s, while new technologies and innovations are proliferating. At the same time new, credible scientific evidence of climate change and its impacts has greatly increased community, government and corporate pressure to reduce co2 emissions.
Venture Capital (VC) and private equity activity in cleantech, the form of both dedicated cleantech funds and mainstream venture capital firms, has been a key contributor to this growth. US VC investing in clean energy has increased over 80% as a portion of total VC investment over the past 5 years to over US$900m in 2005. The Australian VC and private equity industry is showing signs of following suit. In Australia there are 2 dedicated cleantech venture capital funds, of which CVC Sustainable Investments Limited is open to retail investors.
To complete the story, other Australian mainstream venture capital firms are now allocating dedicated resources to the cleantech sector.
Wednesday, 24 May 2006
Cleantech is the new buzzword flying around the venture capital world and is broadly defined as manufacturing processes or product technologies that reduce pollution or waste, energy use, or materialuse in comparison to the technologies that they replace. Examples include such innovative and expanding technologies as solar photovoltaics, wind power, hybrid electric vehicles, fuel cells, biobased materials and advance water filtration. Increasingly, financial investors are taking more of an interest in the emerging ideas and efficiencies of cleantech. No longer is it just a matter of complying with the latest regulation - businesses are now seeing the financial benefits of such investments, which is clearly reflected in the growth of clean energy markets.
There has, without doubt, been an elevation in the importance and urgency of clean technology, making it one of the fastest growing sectors in the world. US research has identified 4 key cleantech growth areas. Biofuels (global manufacturing and wholesale pricing of ethanol and biodiesel) will grow from US$15. 7 billion in 2005 to US$52. 5 billion by 2015. ASX listed companies leading the way include Australian Ethanol (ASX: AAE), Australian Renewable Fuels (ASX: ARW) and Australian Biodiesel Group (ASX: ABJ).
Wind power (new installation capital costs) will expand from US$11. 8 billion in 2005 to US$48. 5 billion in 2015, including Babcock & Brown Wind Partners (ASX:BBW) which has successfully grown from a single asset private investment vehicle to a listed fund with a portfolio of wind energy assets diversified across Europe, North America and Australia. Solar photovoltaics (including modules, system components and installation) will grow from a US$11. 2 billion industry in 2005 to US$51. 1 billion by 2015. Australian company Solar Heat and Power Pty Ltd builds the world's lowest cost large scale solar concentrators.
The fuel cell and distributed hydrogen market will growfrom US$1. 2 billion last year to US$15. 1 billion by 2015. Ceramic Fuels Cells Ltd (ASX:CFU), for example, has a unique fuel cell design based on work done within the CSIRO, from which the Company spun off in 1992 with the support of many contributing partners before listing on the Australian Stock Exchange in 2004. In that time, they have improved the design, systems and product configuration of their solid oxide fuel cells, whilst winning an international reputation in their field.
It is estimated that these 4 clean-energy technologies will grow fourfold within the next decade. We have seen increased interest by major corporations in adopting cleantech to drive productivity and reduce waste and the emergence of experienced management teams, who introduce innovative business techniques, assist in building investor confidence in the emerging cleantech sector. Global resource constraints and increased concern for climate change have played a major role in positioning clean technologies for sustained growth. The energy demands of the 2 new economic powerhouses, China and India, are stretching existing power sources to their limits.
Water shortages are prompting investment in water treatment and recycling technologies. The soaring prices of oil and gas have led to producers and users searching for new technologies. The advancement of new technologies has helped drive down wind energy production costs by 80% over the last 20 years and solar power has dropped to one-tenth the cost it was during the 1970s, while new technologies and innovations are proliferating. At the same time new, credible scientific evidence of climate change and its impacts has greatly increased community, government and corporate pressure to reduce co2 emissions.
Venture Capital (VC) and private equity activity in cleantech, the form of both dedicated cleantech funds and mainstream venture capital firms, has been a key contributor to this growth. US VC investing in clean energy has increased over 80% as a portion of total VC investment over the past 5 years to over US$900m in 2005. The Australian VC and private equity industry is showing signs of following suit. In Australia there are 2 dedicated cleantech venture capital funds, of which CVC Sustainable Investments Limited is open to retail investors.
To complete the story, other Australian mainstream venture capital firms are now allocating dedicated resources to the cleantech sector.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)