Energy Crisis

Geelong Advertiser, Page: 17
Thursday, 13 July 2006

ENERGY is the basis of modem civilisation. We have easier lives than our grandparents did because we use much more energy: electricity, gas and transport fuels. Our energy use is equivalent to 40 human slaves working for us in shifts, doing what slaves used to do: it produces our food, transports us, washes our clothes, entertains us, fans us when we are hot and so on. Energy has also been used to ease other shortages.

Cities without water have processed seawater - using energy. We have increased food supply for our growing population by farming more intensively - using energy. As we exhausted rich metal ores, we moved on to poorer deposits - but that takes more energy. Without usable energy, our society would literally grind to a halt.

We now face two serious problems. We are near the end of the age of cheap petroleum fuels. The second problem is that present use of fossil fuels - coal, oil and gas - is seriously changing the global climate. Both problems are compounded by huge inequalities.

Australians use about half as much energy as US citizens, but about five times as much as Chinese and 50 times as much as people in the poorest parts of the world. We have known about the problems of peak oil and climate change for decades. Science was telling us in 1987 that climate change was a real threat to civilised society, demanding a new approach to energy supply and use. But we still have no overall energy policy to plan the transitions from cheap oil and large-scale coal use.

Petroleum fuels are becoming more expensive as increasing demand faces slowing production. We could be paying $2 by the end of the year and $5 by 2010. That will have a dramatic impact. The response should include both supply options, such as other transport fuels, as well as the demand side of the equation: how can we reduce our need for oil products? Some alternative transport fuels have been known and used for decades: alcohol from sugar cane and synthetic liquid fuel from gas.

There are new forms of transport energy on the horizon; hydrogen produced from water by renewable energy is the most likely to be sustainable. These alternatives will cost much more to move people and goods around. So we need to develop alternatives like better public transport, bikeways and footpaths, but we urgently need urban planning to make services more accessible. We also needto put much less carbon dioxide into the air.

There are two ways to do this. First, we must use cleaner fuels. It is much better to use gas than electricity. We can't afford to keep using old technologies that are changing the global climate - like coal-fired electricity.

Using electricity to heat water or cook, rather than burning gas, puts about four times as much carbon dioxide into the air. Renewable energies, such as solar or wind power, are cleaner still. These natural energy flows arc huge, far greater than human energy needs. As a specific example, the entire worlds energy use for a whole year is only about double the solar energy hitting Australia in one summer day.

We should get much more of our energy from sun, wind and other renewable sources. It will cost a bit more than burning coal but it won't impose the large and growing costs of climate change. The second part of the solution is turning energy more efficiently into the services we want. We don't actually want energy; we want hot showers and cold drinks, the ability to cook our food, wash our clothes and move around.

Most of the technology we use is very wasteful. Several European countries now have a target of cutting energy use to a quarter of the present level by efficiency improvements. Around the world, 1.2 billion people still need clean water, 800 million are hungry and hundreds of millions lack decent shelter.

To meet their basic needs within the limits of global systems, we must use cleaner energy and use it more efficiently. What you and I do every day makes a difference. We are all creating the future. It will only be sustainable if it is equitable, resourced and respects the limits of the Earth.

Professor lan Lowe is emeritus professor of science, technology and society at Griffith University.

Emu Downs energy milestone

Midwest Times, Page: 3
Thursday, 13 July 2006

THE Emu Downs Wind Farm installed its 48th and final turbine last week, marking its entry into the final stages of the $180million project. The 80 Megawatt wind farm is being constructed 30 kilometres east of Cervantes as part of a joint venture between Stanwell Corporation Limited (Stanwell) and Griffin Energy. Griffin Energy Power Generation executive general manager Wayne Trumble said the project had progressed successfully thanks to good weather conditions, thehard work of the project team and local Input and support." Local businesses have been responsible for much of the work carried out onsite and the project has created local opportunities for training, tradespeople, suppliers and other service providers," he said.

The project, which will power more than 50,000 homes each year, will now move into its commissioning phase and project manager Bruce Mitchell said it was on schedule to be completed later this year. Meanwhile, Energy Minister Francis Logan has called for expressions of interest from consumers to be part of a ministerial advisory committee on electricity supply. "We will want committee members to identify issues associated with standards of electricity supply, comment on the effectiveness of consumer protection mechanisms and advise on existing or emerging issueswith electricity supply standards," Mr Logan said.

"It will be invaluable to have the input of the end users who deal with the impact of electricity supply issues on a daily basis." Mr Logan said the committee would include residential electricity users from both metropolitan and regional areas, as well as owners and operators of small, medium and large businesses. The committee will be established and chaired by the Minister. Expressions of interest close on July 28.

For information call 9420 5600 or visit www.energy.wa.gov.au

Shire declares: We're up for job

Yarram Standard News, Page: 11
Wednesday, 12 July 2006

Wellington Shire Council has assured the community that council officers are well equipped to make the right decision on the community's behalf in regards to the Devon North wind farm. Council's development services manager Kirn Phillips said officers have the necessary skills to analyse the complex data submitted as part of the planning permit application for the wind farm."Council officers have all the necessary skills to assess the application against the relevant planning criteria," she said."Officers will consult with other authorities, such as the Environment Protection Authority and the Department of Sustainability and Environment, as required for expert comment or other technical advice on planning issues such as noise impacts.

"This is the first application for a wind farm development, so it is in some ways a first for us, but as with all planning applications, assessment is made of the individual planning merits of the application."

Geothermal energy permits offered

Discovery, Page: 5
Wednesday, 12 July 2006

Victoria's embrace of alternative energy resources has led to a call for applications to explore for deep underground geothermal energy resources which can be utilised for the greenhouse friendly generation of electricity. Geothermal energy utilises the power of hot, dry rocks and water reservoirs from deep beneath the earth's surface to operate electricity generation turbines. A total of 31 blocks across Victoria have been offered to explorers to locate the state's best geothermal resources. The permit areas were unveiled at a recent function led by Victorian Energy Industries and Resources Minister, Theo Theophanous, with more than 70 industry participants attending.

Mr Theophanous said that unlike New Zealand, Australia's geothermal potential was not obvious on the surface, but he said that vast reserves of hot rocks and water potentially existed below ground. "Like wind energy, geothermal energy has minimal impact on the environment. However, it has significant potential to provide us with a clean form of power," he said. "We expect that within six months there will be significant activity. Several companies have already expressed interest in this and have projects ready to go."

One company which has declared its interest in geothermal energy is Petratherm, which is already drilling for hot rocks in South Australia. Petratherm managing director Peter Reid said the Gippsland and Otway basins had the right geological features to host geothermal energy resources and added thai the areas were also well served with existing infrastructure which could aid the development of any resources discovered in the areas. Oil and gas exploration group, Lakes Oil Ltd is also keen to participate in the geothermal energy application process.

Chairman Rob Annells said the company's drilling activities in the Gippsland Basin area and in the Otway Basin west of Melbourne had already provided Lakes with a large amount of knowledge about potential geothermal energy resources in Victoria. "We've got a fair idea of where there are some good areas," Mr Annells said, adding that Lakes has advocated for geothermal energy for a number of years. New legislation to promote large-scale geothermal operations was adopted in Victoria last year to support investment in geothermal energy. The Geothermal Energy Resources Act 2005 (GER Act) puts in place a framework that gives secure title to the resource, provides efficient and effective allocation processes, and establishes transparent, fair and efficient land use, environment planning and land access processes.

The legislation ensures that health, safety and environmental issues are considered as part of geothermal operations. It is designed to apply only to major energy investment projects so it does not require exploration permits or extraction licences where the in situ temperature is less than 70°C or the heat source is less than 1 kilometre below the earth's surface. Small-scale commercial projects such as fish farms or the heating of municipal swimming pools are unlikely to be affectec by the GER Act. DPI's GeoScience Victoria group has produced a free geoscience data DVD for companies considering exploring Victoria for sites of likely geothermal power generation.

Groups interested in applying for one or more geothermal permit areas must submit an exploration work plan for the area of interest which will be assessed against set criteria. Closing date for applications is 11 October 2006 with new permits likely to be granted in late 2006 or early 2007.

For more information visit: www.dpi.vic.gov.au/minpet/geothermal
Contact: Roger Buckley, Manager Business Development Department of Primary Industries Phone: 03 9658 4402
Email: roger.buckley@dpi.vic.gov.au

A blast of vital power

The Weekly Times, Page: 17
Wednesday, 12 July 2006

The Federal Government is ill-informed on the wind energy debate, says Dominique La Fontaine

THE time has come to set the record straight on wind energy, after a great deal of recent debate prompted by illinformed comments. Despite misleading claims to the contrary, the Australian wind energy industry does not exist because of taxpayer subsidies. An individual wind farm project may cost anywhere from $100 million to $400 million and the developer must carry the entire financial liability without government funding. The only guarantee the wind energy sector receives is guaranteed access to a share of half a per cent of the electricity market, through the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target scheme.

MRET was created in part to level the disparity between high carbon dioxide emitting and low carbon dioxide emitting generation systems. The MRET is now full, meaning under the current federal regulations there is no incentive for anyone to invest in renewable energy in Australia. Recent comments by Federal Agriculture Minister Peter McGauran (The Weekly Times, July 5) that the wind energy industry was "exaggerating its energy credentials and using government subsidies to build massive wind farms" are illinformed on several levels. Apart from the technical facts, which I will touch on shortly, it was disappointing to see the Federal Minister reject out of hand a technology that provides regular guaranteed income to hundreds of farmers while also helping to tackle climate change, the greatest medium to long-term threat to their livelihoods.

The wind energy industry does not pretend to be the single answer to our future electricity needs. Instead it aims to be a significant part of the mix of technologies that will supply our power for years to come. The difference between wind and many other emission-free energy sources is that wind is available and working now, both here and overseas, with proven, reliable technology. There are 41 wind farms operating, with a total of 505 turbines.

Another two wind farms, with 98 more turbines, are under construction. On average, Australia has one single wind turbine for every 12,739 square km of land. Australia's present total installed capacity is 738 megawatts. In an average year that creates 2262 gigawatt-hours of electricity-enough to power 314,000 homes, or more than a quarter of Melbourne's domestic consumption.

At the same time, it is preventing the production of almost three million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year, which is the equivalent of taking 680,000 cars off our roads or planting 4.39 million trees. Compared to other energy sources, wind uses a freely available, naturally occurring, unprocessed and inexhaustible fuel source, has zero security risk and produces no emissions. At least 98 per cent of the land used for wind turbines is also available for cropping or grazing, and at the end of its working life (20-25 years) a wind turbine can be easily and safely removed.

Now consider the cost. The best available modelling shows that if electricity from burning fossil fuels included the cost of pollution mitigation, be it geosequestration, so-called "clean" coal, or some other technology, wind power would be easily competitive. As for nuclear power, present cost estimates show it to be at a similar level to wind, but still with no long-term answer or guarantees about radioactive waste disposal. Wind is the fastest growing energy industry in the world.

China, India, the US, Canada and many European nations are leading the way in wind power. Australia is blessed with some of the best and most reliable winds on earth. The Federal Government can ensure it is ready to take advantage of this free natural resource by providing incentives for investment in wind. This would be a concrete step toward truly tackling our greenhouse gas emissions while also providing the power that modern society demands.

Dominique La Fontaine is the chief executive of Auswind, the Australian Wind Energy Association.

Wind power decision

Northern Guardian, Page: 1
Wednesday, 12 July 2006

The dunes at Coral Bay, a kilometre south of the settlement, are the likely site for three 55-metre wind turbines if the Environmental Protection Authority passes the Horizon Power assessment this month.

THE location of three giant wind turbines that will tower over Coral Bay is expected to be decided later this month. The two sites nominated for the 55-metre towers, capable of supplying 40 per cent of the town's electricity, are undergoing final assessment by the Environmental Protection Authority.

Horizon Power corporate affairs manager John Kitis said the preferred site, located a kilometre south of the settlement on top of sand dunes would be 15 per cent more efficient than the second nominated site. The efficiency meant 70,000 additional litres of diesel fuel would be needed to generate the difference each year. Mr Kitis said this would significantly increase the power station's ongoing costs and greenhouse gas emissions. Members of the community concerned about the visual impact of the new station requested the evaluation of the second site 500 metres east of the dune site.

Despite costs of infrastructure being more expensive at the dune site, Mr Kitis said these were outweighed by its improved performance and energy yield. "We investigated a number of sites and that was the best site from a range of criteria," he said. Mr Kitis said the visual impact created by wind turbines was not always negative. "They do become a drawcard for tourists," he said.

"People are intrigued by wind turbines." If the EPA deems the preferred dune site to be inappropriate, the proposal could be resubmitted with the alternative site being put forward for consideration. The proposal will be available for public comment after the assessment's completion.

Nuclear warning a sign of the times?

South Coast Register, Page: 2
Friday, 7 July 2006

DURING a holiday to Scotland in 2004, Nowra resident Ed Jolly and his family came across the disturbing image of a decommissioned nuclear power plant and a nearby beach polluted with radioactive particles. The sight revealed the end result of a nuclear reactor in an area similar to Murrays Beach and two years later an identical situation is threatening the Jervis Bay environment. Intrigued by the view of new wind farms functioning beside a decommissioned nuclear power plant near Thurso in Scotland, Mr Jolly and his family decided to take a closer look. On close observation they realised the huge infrastructure lay obsolete, about two kilometres away from the beach in a beautiful isolated area.

They continued to the beach only to be confronted with a warning sign. "Warning: Radioactive particles are being found on the beaches at Sandside. It is not advisable to take children or animals on to or dig or remove material from the beach or dune." After Murrays Beach at Jervis Bay was mentioned as a possible nuclear power plant site, Mr Jolly could not help but see the similarities between the two areas and does not want to see the same result.

"It was amazing to see the power plant in Scotland as their past and the wind farms as their future," he said. He said we have plenty of wind, sun and waves in Australia; we do not need nuclear power and what we saw in Scotland is the proof.

Port Augusta selected for wind farm project

ABC Online,
July 11, 2006. 9:30am (AEST)

South Australia's green energy targets have been given a boost with a decision to build a wind farm near Port Augusta. The company involved with the Lincoln Gap project, Wind Energy Solutions, says the project will create a up to 60 full-time jobs during construction. Company director Shane Darcy says the company chose South Australia because of the State Government's green energy policies. "We are quite happy to have been involved in windfarming in South Australia, South Australia is a very progressive state, forward looking, much more so than the Federal Government in that they themselves [are] setting targets for renewable energy in the state," he said.

Nearly 60 turbines will be built at the site, south-west of Port Augusta, sometime next year. Mr Darcy says it's not the only project it has planned in the state. "We are looking at several other sites at the moment; it'll just be a case of which one would come first, we have a list of certain criteria that will need to be fulfilled and we need to look at the wind farm for about 12 months before we can make any decision on the viability of the farm," he said. "At the moment, pole position is the Lincoln Gap farm.

Company re-applies for wind farm

ABC Ballarat | Local News | Story
Wednesday, 12 July 2006

Company re-applies for wind farm Pacific Hydro will re-lodge an application for a wind farm at Yaloak, near Ballan, east of Ballarat. The Victorian Government rejected the company's first bid a year ago, because of concerns about a population of wedge-tailed eagles. Pacific Hydro spokesman Andrew Richards says the plans for 70 turbines will be lodged in October or November. He says slight alterations to the position of some turbines, and favourable bird studies, have given the company confidence to re-apply.

In particular, he says they were focussing on the wedge-tailed eagle, which was the key issue at the time. "While we believed that there wasn't a significant impact, we have looked at what the Minister has required us to do - we've relocated a number of turbines away from wedge-tailed eagle high usage zones," Mr Richards said. "And with that re-defined windfarm we are doing additional modelling in relation to the wedge-tailed eagle."

Site work begins for another 53 turbines

The South Eastern Times, Page: 1
Thursday, 6 July 2006

The Woakwine Ranges overlooking Lake Bonney are again alive with the sound of heavy machinery with work having begun on stage two of the Babcock and Brown Lake Bonney Wind Farm. The stage involves the construction of another 53 turbines and the investment of another $400 million by the project proponents. Mt. Gambier Earthmovers have been in the area for the last two weeks constructing roads to the sites on 12 properties along a 10 kilometre corridor to the south of the existing wind mills.

The sites are all in the Wattle Range Council area. Work on the footings for the first towers began late last week, and these will begin arriving in over the coming months from Portland. The nacelles (turbines) and blades will once again come from the Danish company, Vestas Wind Systems, and will begin to arrive in Australia in October. The latest wind mills will be be larger than those of stage one and the nacelles will boast state-of-the art technology.

The blades will be 12 metres longer (45 metres) and the towers 13m. higher, increasing to 80m. Known as the V90 models, each turbine will be capable of producing three megawatts of electricity, compared to the 1.75MW of the present units.

Each will be hooked to the present Babcock and Brown sub-station sited in the middle of the stage one towers. To handle the extra power another transformer will have to be installed on the site. The first stage consisted of 46 wind mills and was opened in September, 2004, while the current project is expected to be completed in March, 2008. However, this will not be the conclusion of B&B's investment in the region as their spokesman, Miles George said his company was still considering a third stage involving five to 10 turbines to the north of the present mind mills.

"This is still a fair way down the track. We'll consider this when the second stage is finished," he said.

Footnote: International Power (Canunda Wind Farm) also has 23 turbines along the Woakwine Range.

Texas Wind Energy

Wind is making electricity, cleaner air, and money in Texas...

There is plenty of wind out there and plenty of energy to be tapped. It's just like an oil field that doesn't run out. Tom Gray, AWEA

Wind is one of our nation’s greatest natural resources. Used by pioneers to pull water from underground aquifers, it was the principal energy source that made settlement of the Great Plains possible. In the 21st Century, wind has been harnessed to create electrical energy, powering an increasingly larger and larger percentage of the power grid.

Wind power is the fastest growing source of electricity generation in the world and continues to grow at record rates, more than quadrupling between 1999 and 2005. Global wind markets grew 47 percent to $11.8 billion in 2005, and are expected to reach $48.5 billion in 2015.

Recent advances in wind technology are helping to drive down the cost of wind to a level where it is cost competitive with more traditional sources of energy at close to five cents per kilowatt-hour. It is estimated that by 2010, new wind-driven power plants will generate energy much more cost-effectively than new coal or gas-fired power plants.

More than half of the United States has measurable wind resources that could support the development of utility-scale wind power plants. And with the developing technologies that have made it possible for turbines to get power from lower wind speeds, land that was previously unsuitable for wind turbines offers a new source of wind energy. Lower requisite wind speeds also allow for turbines to be placed closer to the homes and businesses that need to make use of them.

Read more...

Wind farm energy OK

The Standard (Warrnambool), Page: 3
Monday, 10 July 2006

A STATE Government report has cleared the way for more wind farms to be built in the south-west. The report has found wind farms are successful in preventing greenhouse gas emissions, saving more than 250,000 tonnes of emissions each year, the same amount emitted by 60,000 cars. The report, prepared by McLennan Magasanik Associates for Sustainability Victoria, contradicts wind farm critics such as federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Peter McGauran. While in the south-west recently Mr McGauran said wind farms were a "complete fraud" that generate "next to no" electricity.

But State Environment Minister Theo Theophanous said the report proved wind farms in Victoria had generated enough energy to power 90,000 homes for a year. "This report shows critics of wind energy such as Mr McGauran are illinformed," Mr Theophanous said. The report found wind farms in Victoria produced 104 megawatts of energy a year. Mr Theophanous said this reinforced the Bracks Government's policy to support further wind energy development in Victoria.

This could mean more wind farm projects for the south-west. "This new report shows the greenhouse gas savings we can achieve as our wind energy industry grows in Victoria," Mr Theophanous said. "When our wind energy capacity approaches 1000 megawatts we are going to see some really big greenhouse savings, putting us on the path to avoiding dangerous climate change. "But Hawkesdale Macarthur Landscape Guardians president and neighbour to the proposed Macarthur Wind Farm, Roger Learmonth, was suspicious of the results and said he didn't believe they could have come from inland wind farms.

Wind farms cut emissions

The Canberra Times, Page: 6
Monday, 10 July 2006

Victoria's wind farms are saving more than 250,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions every year, a new report shows. The report, issued yesterday, found wind power was the best technology available to cut greenhouse gas emissions generated by electricity. Victorian Environment Minister John Thwaites said Victorian wind farms generated enough energy to power 90,000 homes for a year. They saved more than 250,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions - the equivalent of taking 60,000 cars off the state's roads.

"The research shows that the production of electricity from wind results in less burning of fossil fuels," Mr Thwaites said. "Each megawatt hour of wind energy generated in Victoria currently avoids producing, on average, one tonne of greenhouse emissions. "A typical 2 megawatt wind turbine in Victoria will reduce greenhouse emissions by about 6000 tonnes per year. "The independent study was carried out by McLennan Magasanik Associates for Sustainability Victoria.

The Victorian Government aims to produce 1000 megawatts of wind power by 2010, boosting the proportion of energy derived from renewable sources by 10 per cent. Energy, Industries and Resources Minister Theo Theophanous said the report supported this target. "This new report shows the huge greenhouse gas savings we can achieve as our wind energy industry grows in Victoria," Mr Theophanous said.

Wind farm study confounds critics, says Vic Govt

abc.net.au
Sunday, 9 July 2006

There are claims today that Victoria's wind farms are saving more than 250,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions each year.

The Victorian Government says an independent study conducted for Sustainability Victoria shows the production of electricity from wind results in less burning of fossil fuels. State Energy Minister Theo Theophanus says the report also shows that critics of wind energy, including the Federal National Party MP Peter McGauran, are ill-informed. "In fact it shows that just one two-megawatt wind turbine can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6,000 tonnes of CO2 per annum. It's a lot of CO2 to avoid going into the atmosphere," he said.

Mr Theophanus says the it is time for critics of wind farms to rethink their stance. He says a lot could be achieved if Victoria could reach its target of 1,000 megawatts of wind energy. "We would reduce greenhouse gases by up to 2.6 million tonnes every year," he said.

"That is a phenomenal figure, and really, Mr McGauran should just go back to school and try and learn a little bit more before he opens his mouth on these issues.".

State backs wind farms for beating gas crisis

The Sunday Age, Page: 3
Sunday, 9 July 2006

WIND farms are set to become more widespread across Victoria after a new report found turbines had a major impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The report is also a likely forerunner to the State Government's expected announcement of a mandatory renewable energy targets (MRET) scheme. "There has been this myth pushed around that wind farms don't displace fossil fuel greenhouse gas emissions," Environment Minister John Thwaites said. He said the report, released today, showed critics of wind energy were "ill-informed".

It found that Victoria's wind farms were saving more than 250,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions a year, the equivalent of taking 60,000 cars off the state's roads, he said. The report, commissioned by the State Government and produced by McLennan Magasanik Associates, found that for every 100 megawatts of wind energy produced, greenhouse gas emissions were reduced by between 240,000 and 290,000 tonnes. Victoria produces 104 megawatts of wind energy a year. Mr Thwaites said the report would push the case for an MRET scheme for Victoria.

Under the scheme, the economic competitiveness of wind power is increased compared with traditional fossil fuel energy sources. There was planning approval for new wind farms that could deliver an extra 511 megawatts of energy a year, the minister said. Building of new farms by industry had been delayed because the Federal Government's MRET scheme had effectively expired, he said. Energy Industries and Resources Minister Theo Theophanous said the market would take more wind-generated electricity if it were available.

Mr Thwaites said he was not concerned about orange-bellied parrots slowing down plans.

Kyoto in crisis

New Scientist, Page: 3
Saturday, 8 July 2006

FOR over a decade, Germany has been the poster-child of environmentalists demanding action to curb global warming. It has closed coal mines, pioneered wind power and dramatically improved energy efficiency. In the process, it has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by more than 17 per cent from 1990 levels, the baseline year for emission targets set by the Kyoto Protocol. So there was horror this week when Angela Merkel's government called a halt to further cuts.

The country's environment ministry announced that it wanted to issue almost as many carbon dioxide emissions permits for industry for the 2008 to 2012 period, the first compliance period of the Kyoto Protocol, as it did for 2005 to 2007. This raises serious questions about whether Germany can meet its Kyoto promise of a 21 per cent cut in all greenhouse gas emissions. Is the Kyoto Protocol falling apart? Was the US right when it predicted that, when push came to shove, Europeans would ditch their green promises in favour of economic pragmatism?In truth, Germany was never that green. It has yet to do anything to curb climate change that is painful.

Its power stations switched from coal to natural gas to save money, not to cut emissions. And the biggest drop in emissions was in eastern Germany, where heavy industry collapsed after reunification. Now Merkel is under pressure from power companies, which refuse to invest in new generation capacity unless they are exempt from tough emissions caps. Meanwhile, the strong green lobby appears able and willing to veto new nuclear power plants.

The government is taking the easy way out. Germany can still meet its Kyoto target. Heavy industry is responsible for only around half of German emissions, and the government promises bigger cuts elsewhere, notably from vehicle emissions. This is optimistic.

A more likely scenario is that it will end up buying so-called "hot air" - spare Kyoto emissions permits from Russia and Ukraine. That would be a cop-out. It would keep the Kyoto show on the road, but it would severely undermine its credibility. It would also reduce the pressure on countries like the US and Australia to join Kyoto, at a time when the political pendulum on the issue appears to be swinging in the US.

The world will one day act with urgency to curb greenhouse gases: the likely violence of the atmosphere's reaction to our emissions makes that inevitable. Climate change awaits its 9/11.In the meantime, this is a critical moment for the Kyoto Protocol, the first serious effort to head off that crisis. Merkel should rethink; the European Commission and European governments should put pressure on her to do so.

Wind farm files to avoid scrutiny

The Australian,
July 08, 2006

RELEASING advice from federal bureaucrats about Environment Minister Ian Campbell's decision to block a multi-million-dollar wind farm is not in the public interest and could "promote ill-informed speculation about government decisions". The Department of Environment and Heritage made the ruling after the Bracks Government applied through Freedom of Information laws for documents relating to the decision to veto the wind farm.

Senator Campbell said the renewable energy proposal at Bald Hills, in the politically sensitive Victorian area of Gippsland, should not go ahead, on the grounds it posed an unacceptable risk to the endangered orange-bellied parrot.

However, The Australian reported that the chances of the rare parrot fatally colliding with wind farm turbines - as feared by Senator Campbell - was once every 1000 years.

When Senator Campbell blocked the $220 million project, in Victoria's southeast, he said it had the potential to kill one orange-bellied parrot a year.

Senator Campbell last night backed the decision of his department to not release key documents on the issue, saying it was being handled in an appropriate "procedural manner". "I've been completely open about the decision-making process for Bald Hills," he said.

His department granted full access to four documents and partial access to a further 30 documents. It denied access to six documents, saying "their disclosure would be contrary to the public interest in pursuing good governance". The documents included briefs, internal departmental supporting advice and correspondence.

Alex Rankin, assistant secretary of the department's environment assessment branch, said the information was necessary for the consideration and administration of decisions under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

He said the information included possible options relating to the "deliberative processes involved in the function of the minister and the department". Release of the documents would harm the ability of officers to freely advise Senator Campbell and "present advice and options on sensitive issues".

He said release of the documents "may promote ill-informed speculation about the Government's decisions in relation to the environmental assessment and approval of proposals referred under the EPBC Act".

Victorian Planning Minister Rob Hulls said Senator Campbell should release the advice he received from his department over whether to approve the Bald Hills wind farm.

Windfarm project 'financially viable'

Albany Extra, Page: 3
Friday, 7 July 2006

The Denmark Community Windfarm group claims it will have a "bankable project," by October, after receiving the results of a draft study into the windfarm's feasibility. DCW chair Craig Chappelle, said that while some details still have to be resolved, the report has confirmed the project is technically possible and financially viable. "The report vindicates three years of hard slog, and demonstrates that renewable-energy generation is achievable at a community scale," Mr Chappelle said. Mr Chappelle said some technical issues still needed to be dealt with but were being worked through with Western Power and Perth based firm GHD Pty Ltd, who are overseeing the project.

South Coast Landscape Guardians chair Peter Mortimer, said he was wary of the DCW's claims that its report had justified its battle for a windfarm. 'They don't seem to have released much, they're keeping the facts very close to their chest. "Surely if they want to be open and accountable they have to be open with their reports," he said. "It's all a bit mysterious," Mr Mortimer said.

Mr Mortimer said DCW had to be more open to gain the community's trust, although Mr Chappelle said there is a growing acceptance in Denmark that wind power is a positive way to combat climate change. Mr Chappelle said the report showed two wind turbines could generate enough electricity for the project to run at a profit, within the limitations of Western Power's existing grid infrastructure.

Babcock & Brown reaps Illinois wind

The Australian Financial Review, Page: 16
Tuesday, 4 July 2006

Babcock & Brown Wind Partners has completed the $US50 million ($67 million) purchase of Crescent Ridge wind farm in Illinois, USA.

Poor score for Australia on climate

The Australian
July 04, 2006

AUSTRALIA is the least prepared of all the world's developed countries to tackle the issue of climate change, a report by a newly-formed environmental foundation says.

The survey by the Climate Institute Australia has identified the top ten world trends in what it says is a shift in the fight against greenhouse warming.

Its Top Ten Tipping Points on Climate Change report, launched in Sydney tonight, concludes that science is the number one trend in the fight against global warming, an issue the institute says Australia had “gone adrift” on. “As the US moves forward on climate, it leaves Australia politically and economically isolated as the least prepared developed country in the world on the issue,” the report says.

The national organisation was established in late 2005 with a $10 million grant from the Poola Charitable Foundation, created by a branch of the Murdoch family. More recently it has attracted the services of former New South Wales Premier Bob Carr, who chairs an advisory council for the group.

The institute, which has set a five-year goal of raising public awareness of climate change, is chaired by prominent academic and researcher Clive Hamilton. The institute's chief executive, Corin Millais, said Australia would be “stranded” as the US joined the rest of the world in taking action.

“The US is moving even though it hasn't signed the (Kyoto) protocol,” Mr Millais said. “And that's probably of most political concern to Australia, because it leaves Australia stranded politically and economically.”

According to the study, climate change is intensifying.

“We've seen a significant amount, almost an avalanche, of data highlighting the impacts happening today and the great urgency of the impacts in the coming decade if no further action is taken,” Mr Millais said

After science, the changing position of the US on greenhouse gases is the second-biggest trend in the shift in the fight against climate change, the report finds.

The role of business comes in at number three, with Mr Millais pointing out there are a number of large global companies finding ways to make money from cutting greenhouse gas pollution.

Rounding out the top five is the role of the media, and energy security and oil prices, according to the report. These are followed by international policy, carbon profits and clean energy.

Popular culture is considered the ninth most significant trend in the shift in the climate change fight. The issue had up until recently been “pretty boring”, Mr Millais admitted, but celebrities such as Orlando Bloom were now the faces of global warming campaigns.

But this isn't a trend that has taken off in Australia, he added.

“It's an irony that the US is ahead with popular culture,” Mr Millais said. “There will be a bitter aftertaste for Australia because the American position has changed, but Australia is still in the olden days...”

Morality comes in at number 10, with Mr Millais pointing out that climate change is “not just a green-left issue anymore”. “This is an end-of-the-world type issue which involves everybody,” he said.

Study shows wind support

The Colac Herald, Page: 9
Friday, 30 June 2006

Developers say more than half the residents living near a proposed Port Campbell wind farm support the project. A survey of 140 people living near the wind farm site at Newfield revealed that 61.5 per cent supported the project, 17 per cent were opposed and 21.5 per cent were unsure.

Acciona Energy managing director Brett Thomas said the wind farm gathered valuable information about the community through a Social Impact Assessment process. "The survey response indicates that the local community is environmentally aware, supportive of renewable energy and the Newfield wind farm," he said. The SIA report also included a community profile and a range of potential impacts and benefits of the wind farm. Researchers interviewed stakeholders from government, environment, community and tourism groups with an interest in the south-west region and wind farms.

Mr Thomas said an information newsletter and consultation program had provided information directly to Newfield, Timboon and Port Campbell residents, and there would be a public open day in the future."As part of the program, a community reference group is being established to provide a regular forum for community input and to facilitate communication." he said.

Cloud still hangs over nuclear industry

The Australian Financial Review, Page: 12
Monday, 3 July 2006

Nuclear power is hot
Sixteen utilities have expressed intentions to build up to 25 new reactors across the United States. Just last month, NRG Energy in Princeton, New Jersey, unveiled plans to invest SUS5.2 billion ($7 billion) in two new reactors at an existing atomic plant near Houston. Is it a nuclear renaissance? Not yet.

While smart money is placing multibillion-dollar bets on ethanol, wind power and solar, it's not throwing cash at nuclear power. Memories of the delays, titanic cost overruns, and bankruptcies that ended America's love affair with nuclear power hi the mid-20th century are the most daunting obstacle the industry faces. And regulators could balk if proposed designs did not meet construction and safety standards. "Investors remain wary of construction risks," said Paul Ho, a director at Credit Suisse First Boston's (CSR) energy group.

That's why, five or so years from now, when the first construction and operating licences are likely to be granted, only the most creditworthy diversified players, such as Duke Energy and Southern Company, would be likely to dip a toe in these waters, explained Denise Furey, senior director of global power with Fitch Ratings. Such companies could finance projects for a decade or so using some combination of debt and equity. But that is a far cry from a new nuclear age. Historically, energy utilities did an "abysmal" job controlling building schedules and costs, said David A. Schlissel, an economist at Synapse Energy Economics in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Between 1975 and 1989, the average period required to complete a plant soared from five years to 12. The bill for a group of 75 first-generation plants totalled $US224.1 billion (in current dollars), 219 per cent more than estimated, according to a 1986 Energy Department study.

In time, many utilities collapsed under debts even as customers' bills soared. Power companies say they can bring costs down, thanks to new, standardised plant designs and a streamlined, one-step licensing process. "People forget that the construction problems happened 30 years ago. There's been great progress since then," said NRG Energy chief David Crane.

The company plans to use reactors from General Electric and Hitachi that have been installed in Japan. This time around, the industry is aiming to build new plants for SUS1500 to $US2000 per kilowatt of capacity, compared with a peak, inflation-adjusted cost of about $US4000 in the 1970s. But the cheapest plants built recently, all outside the US, have cost more than $US2000 per kilowatt. And the advanced designs now on US drawing boards have never been built here.

"A first-of-its-kind facility always costs more," said John Kennedy, a director at Standard & Poor's. "Nukes ought to be part of the [energy] mix," said Southern chief David M. Ratcliffe, but nobody wants to be first to build. "Everyone would actually like to be No. 10," he said. Last year's Energy Act dangled SUS13 billion worth of extra treats before the nuclear industry, according to Public Citizen, a consumer interest group. These are focused on the first six plants and range from some $US2 billion set aside to cover construction overruns due to legal challenges to a production tax credit worth up to $US5.7 billion.

Yet all that still may not be enough. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman offered couched assurances on nukes. "I'm convinced we'll get the first six reactors, with construction starting by 2010," he said. "But we don't need six reactors. We need 16, or 26." Ms Furey said:"Wall Street isvery shortsighted." Or maybe it justcan't forget what it has already seen.

Wind farmers want more than the thin edge of the wedge

News-Mail, Page: 14
Thursday, 22 June 2006

HOBART: Australia stands to lose billions of dollars in wind farm investment if it doesn't give renewable energy a greater share of the national energy market, an industry leader has warned. Mark Kelleher, managing director of renewable energy company Roaring 40s, said companies were being forced to invest offshore as Australia lagged behind international renewable energy targets. renewable energy accounts for about 0.5 per cent of the Australian market, compared with 20 per cent in other countries.

The industry is calling for the Federal Government to revise its Mandated renewable energy Target or implement another measure to ensure future growth. "In the absence of something like that the industry won't be able to proceed," Mr Kelleher said. The MRET was introduced in 2001, requiring energy retailers to purchase an extra two per cent, or 9500 gigawatt hours, of renewable energy per year by 2010. But Mr Kelleher said Australia's economic and energy growth meant the specified 9500 gigawatts was now equal to only 0.5 per cent of the market.

The Government's refusal to lift its renewable energy targets had forced Roaring 40s to stall new projects, including its $230 million Musselroe wind farm in north-east Tasmania. Mr Kelleher warned that unless renewable energy targets were raised, wind farms would lose importance as a source of renewable energy in Australia. "The few farms that are built around Australia now obviously will run their course for the next 15, 20 years or so, but basically rather than it being the beginning of a very important industry, it will be seen as a few wind farms have gone up, and that's as far as it will go," he said. Mr Kelleher said the loss of wind farm companies and associated manufacturing businesses would result in a loss worth "in the billions".

"Firms like ours. will obviously continue to operate the (wind farms) we've got here but the activity will drop back to a care and maintenance role and all. the investment will go overseas," he said. Roaring 40s has already invested in wind farms in New Zealand and China, and is exploring new projects in Korea and India.

Cleantech As An Asset Class? Coming Soon

Ethical Investor, Page: 10
Wednesday, 21 June 2006

An amalgam of industries that have at their core an ability to generate sustainable business outcomes, new environmental technologies or 'cleantech' is an area of increasing interest for ethical and mainstream investors alike. As the Australian cleantech sector continues to emerge it looks set to attract the all important 'big money' from institutional investors just as it is starting to do overseas. Last year's first study entitled The Australian Cleantech Map: 2005 Benchmark Report defined cleantech as 'a theme for investments' across a range of sectors including: alternative and renewable energy, new materials, green buildings, water purification and conservation, recycling and waste management technologies. The study identified 71 companies listed on the Australian Stock Exchange with a business model that is related to cleantech, the majority of which are considered small companies or 'microcaps'.

In total they only accounted for 0.8% of the ASX stockmarket capitalisation. While there are more companies in the private sector, both large and small, and while they are also developing (or proving) an impressive array of new technologies, it is still too early to consider this range of investments as an industry in its own right. How to classify in portfolio investment terms. According to Peter Lunt, Manager of Sustainable Investments with the large superannuation fund VicSuper, the cleantech industry still has to be considered as a segment of private equity.

While specialist fund managers may consider the environmental or sustainable benefits involved with businesses in the sector, this is a rarity, he says. It has, however, progressed beyond the infant or purely venture capital phase in its development. 'You are starting to see secondary and bigger market transactions in the area that are typical of the management by-out, or middle market phase, ' he says. The fundamentals of the sector are encouraging and there is no doubt it will continue to develop.

Lunt says, 'It will provide a lot of growth in private equity over the next few years. 'Mainstream Australian funds manager Portfolio Partners' Manager of Sustainability, Amanda Me Cluskey says that cleantech is certainly gaining the attention of mainstream investors despite its private equity status. Relatively new investment funds that concentrate on cleantechs, such as Babcock and Brown's environmental and specialist wind energy funds and those of Starfish Ventures, are generating broad market interest, she says. But in terms of mainstream large company share investors, a typical cleantech company is just too small to be considered a viable investment at this stage.

Some of the small companies' funds are starting to build positions in cleantech companies particularly in the alternative fuels segment. McClusky says the Portfolio Partners' Long Short Sustainability Trust favourably views Australian Renewable Fuels, Australian Ethanol and CDS Technologies for example. 'We take a positive view on companies operating in the cleantech space because we recognise energy and water issues will be priced into share values in the future," she says. Following an overseas lead, in the United States the star of the cleantech sector is also on the rise.

Neal Dikeman, a partner with US-based investment bank Jane Capital Partners says the market is certainly 'getting there' when it comes to treating cleantech investments as a uniquely identifiable class of investment. Clear evidence of this maturity was the launch earlier this year of two stock market based indices based on cleantech industries: the New Energy Global Innovation Index (NEX) and the Cleantech Index. Each allows investors to monitor how a basket of business in the sector performs. 'This is the next step along the curve in terms of[cleantech] becoming an asset class,' Dikeman said.

The market is also starting to get a better idea of what exactly is included in the cleantech sector. The use of the umbrella term encompassing a range of industries is also probably helping low profile areas gain early recognition and acknowledgement from the mainstream investment community. By being considered part of the cleantech sector they are absorbing some of the credibility of high profile and successful sectors such renewable energy, he says. In the United States and Europe, solar and wind energy companies have experienced strong growth which has allowed venture capitalists to get in, make their money and then on-sell to institutional investors.

Dikeman points out that this positive experience sees venture capitalists look more positively at other businesses in the cleantech sector. But the really big money associated with mainstream institutional investors isn't there just yet, he says. As in Australia, although on a different scale, projects are still too small and can't get to t h e investment threshold that many of the institutions require for them to invest. When cleantechs get to this scale on a regular basis then the investment 'flood gates will open,' he says.

Institutions also look to diversify across a range of investment options particularly in new areas such as cleantech. When the industry is deep enough to be able to offer a range of fund investment options (a development which is currently under way) it will be another sign that it has matured and developed. It will also bring bigger institutional investment flows, says Dikeman. Overseas these processes are helped along by the fact that banks and other industry analysts are providing broader research on the cleantech industry.

As this picks up, so too more investors will be drawn to recognise the industry. The market in the US is also in the slipstream of the investment activity in England and mainland Europe. In particular, Dikeman nominates the Alternative Investment Market (AIM) operating out of London to be one of the first stock markets to truly give cleantech its due. The AIM draws companies operating in the US and Australia to list and raise funds in preference to home markets.

At least 2 Australian cleantech companies: Novera Energy and Ceramic Fuel Cells have taken advantage of this positive environment and completed AIM listings in the last year. 'For new public floats of cleantech companies the AIM has beaten out the NASDAQ. It puts the wind into the sails of the sector across the world,' Dikeman says. Dikeman says the success of AIM and new cleantechs is because it has the all important support of the European institutional investors: 'It makes the world sit up and notice.

' Another factor emphasising this process is the development of the new carbon economy in Europe. 'There are billions of dollars being pumped into the sector and it's all going through European asset managers and exchanges,' he says. 'In Australia and America they're talking but not really putting the money in yet. 'One US-based institutional investor that is getting behind cleantech is well known investment pioneer, Californian-based Calpers (California Public Employees' Retirement System) and CalSTERS (California StateTeachers' Retirement System).

The funds have earmarked US$1.5 billion in their Green Wave initiative to invest in clean technologies with at least US$200m going to venture capital sized firms. Winston Hickox, Portfolio Manager - Environmental Initiatives with Calpers, says, 'We don't see this sector as fleeting or marginal in anyway. Over time our exposure to the sector will just increase.

The investment is derived from a fundamental belief that the global economy will change over time as climate change and the increasing scarcity of fossil fuels make their impact. We need to find alternatives if we are going to continue to grow the economy, not in the next 100 years, not in 10, but now! 'Hickox's vision goes beyond renewable energy, citing water-focused technologies as another exciting area from an investment perspective. Water conservation and treatment techniques as well as new and efficient ways of handling sewerage will increasingly become important, he says, adding that China and other emerging nations will also be regions where these types of technologies can more easily prove themselves from an investment perspective. He also stresses that the various government subsidies and other development programs supporting the cleantech industry around the world must be sustainable in their own right, otherwise they are simply destabilising and counter-productive.

'Whatever governments do to stimulate cleantech industries it must not be taken away for some arbitrary reason, that is the worst thing they could do, ' he says. None of this is to say that the Australian cleantech sector isn't profitable as it is maturing. Long established local venture capital firm CVC, manages the CVC Sustainable Investments Fund, a pooled development fund dedicated to sustainable investments, and Sandy Beard says the business 'has no issues finding investment dollars or getting returns. We pioneered this [sector] 5 years ago [when the fund was launched as the Eco Fund] and there is certainly a growing appetite for it,' he says.

But as a specialist in the area Beard does admit that this prognosis is somewhat biased. 'It is still early days in Australia and pure play direct investments in environmentally friendly companies are not that common. Being a specialist we have greater access to opportunities and see deal flow from established networks,' he says. But it is not just the vitality at the small end of the market that shows that it is coming of age.

When industrial giants like GE start up whole divisions dedicated to cleantech technologies, and they have just generated US$10 billion, then you know it is an 'exceptionally healthy area,' he says.

'Rethink needed' on wind farms

The Examiner, Page: 4
Thursday, 22 June 2006

Australia stands to lose billions of dollars in wind farm investment if it doesn't give renewable energy a greater share of the national energy market, an industry leader has warned. Mark Kelleher, managing director of renewable energy company Roaring 40s, said yesterday that companies were being forced to invest offshore as Australia lagged behind international renewable energy targets. renewable energy accounts for about 0.5 per cent of the Australian market, compared with up to 20 per cent in other countries.

The industry is calling tor the Federal Government to revise its Mandated renewable energy Target or implement another measure to ensure future growth."In the absence of something like that, the industry won't be able to proceed," Mr Kelleher said. The MRET was introduced in 2001, requiring energy retailers to buy an extra 2 per cent or 9500 gigawatt hours of renewable energy a year by 2010.But Mr Kelleher said Australia's economic and energy growth meant the specified 9500 gigawatts was now equal to only 0.5 per cent of themarket.

The Government's refusal to lift its renewable energy targets had forced Roaring 40s to stall new projects including its $230 million Musselroe wind farm in the North-East. Mr Kelleher warned that unless renewable energy targets were raised, wind farms would lose importance as a source of renewable energy in Australia. Mr Kelleher said the Federal Government had indicated it could"rethink" the matter but meetings would be held to further discuss the issue over coming weeks.

Outcry at wind farming attack

The Mercury, Page: 20
Friday, 30 June 2006

A TASMANIAN renewable energy company has accused federal Agriculture Minister Peter McGauran of being ill-informed and out of touch for criticising wind energy as a fraud. Roaring 40s managing director Mark Kelleher said he was disappointed at Mr McGauran's comments, which included statements that wind farms devalued land and were not producing measurable amounts of electricity. "You have to wonder whether the minister got out of the wrong side of the bed... he is ill-informed on the facts, and does not appear to understand this is still a new industry that is growing, particularly overseas," he said. Mr McGauran, who came under attack from several proponents of renewable energy as well as Tasmanian Greens senator Christine Milne, questioned the value of a $140 million wind farm in western Victoria. "Wind farms don't live up to the hype that they're the environmental saviour and a serious alternate energy source," he said.

"The deleterious effect they can have on their neighbours is so serious it means that [wind energy proponents] should not be allowed to get away with the exaggerated claims. "Their claims are fraudulent in regard to the environmental and energy terms. "These wind farms are not producing any electricity of any measurable amount and because they are having such an affect on rural communities they should only be permitted where the community is accepting of them. "Mr Kelleher said wind farms had very strong community and landholder support.

Roaring 40s' Woolnorth wind farm in the North-West was overwhelmingly supported by region. He said there was more than 750 megawatts of wind energy installed in Australia, enough to power 314,000 homes. Mr Kelleher said while "very small, very loud" minority groups had campaigned against some wind farm projects, globally the energy source was growing, increasing at an annual rate of 29 per cent during the past decade and producing 59,100 megawatts. Senator Milne said Mr McGauran was plain wrong about wind farms, and his ignorance had real implications for the Australian primary industry sector which he purported to represent.

Minister's wind farm comments just hot air

The Examiner, Page: 14
Friday, 30 June 2006

Federal Agriculture Minister Peter McGauran's swipe at wind farms should hardly be taken seriously. They should also come as no surprise. In a move that will no doubt anger many in Tasmania, Mr McGauran took a swipe at wind farm technology this week. He said the benefits of wind energy claimed by its proponents were fraudulent.

He also claimed wind farm turbines devalued land without producing measurable amounts of energy. His antipathy to wind farms makes more sense with some background. Tasmanian wind farm development has been torpedoed by the Federal Government, which decided not to extend its Mandatory renewable energy Targets. That decision derailed further Tasmanian wind farm developments planned for Musselroe Bay in the North-East and on the West Coast.

They are now on the backburner, at least for the short-term. The Government's decisionwas also backing for Australia's coal industry, which provides for much of the country's power needs. Unlike wind farms, coal-fired power stations are major greenhouse polluters. Mr McGauran is therefore following a simple formula of deriding the wind farms to support his Government's case.

But his comments also smack of a fair bit of political self-interest. Tasmanians will remember Mr McGauran as a critic of the Basslink project because overhead power lines went through his electorate of Gippsland. He's again looking out for his electorate. Gippsland includes the La Trobe Valley towns of Traralgon, Morwell and Moe: home to some of Victoria's major coal-fired power stations and coal mines.

It's a bit rich for him to speak about wind farms devaluing land when he lives next door to some of Australia's major greenhouse polluters. Mr McGauran's electorate might love him for the support, but his views on wind farms don't count for much.

Energy industry hits back at McGauran 'fraud' claim

The Moyne Gazette, Page: 7
Thursday, 29 June 2006

THE Australian wind energy industry has hit back at claims this week by federal Agriculture Minister Peter McGauran that the industry was "a complete fraud." Auswind president Andrew Richards said many of Mr McGauran's comments regarding wind energy were "quite simply incorrect." Mr McGauran, who said he was speaking as the Member for Gippsland, told dairy farmers at Allansford this week wind farms only existed on taxpayers' subsidies and devalued the value of adjoining properties. Wind farms have provoked controversy in Gippsland and in the Moyne Shire.

Moyne Shire is the site of two large proposed wind farms with one planning to erect nearly 200 wind towers between Macarthur and Hawkesdale and the other nearly 100 at Ryan Corner near Port Fairy and Hawkesdale. Wind farms of smaller scale already exist at Codrington and Yambuk. Mr Richards said wind energy had been embraced in India, China, Europe and the United States because it delivered substantial quantities of clean green energy, stimulated investment and employment and provided valuable income to farmers and local communities. "Many of Minister McGauran's own parliamentary colleagues, including the local member, David Hawker, Environment Minister Senator Ian Campbell and Prime Minister John Howard have stated that alternative forms of energy, including wind, must play a part in Australia's future energy mix.

He said developers did not receive government financial assistance to build wind farms and consumers who bought green energy did so at a small price premium. He also said that rather than destroying land values, wind energy drove regional investment and created substantial financial benefits for regional Australia. He said wind energy could provide significant quantities of clean green energy.

Projects to swell Moyne's coffers

The Moyne Gazette, Page: 4
Thursday, 29 June 2006

MOYNE Shire's spending power would be greatly boosted by the proposed gas-fired power station at Mortlake and a wind farm at Macarthur. Moyne Shire chief executive officer Graham Shiell said the shire's two existing wind farms contributed about $127,000 a year in rates. Mr Shiell said the two proposed projects would have an ''enormous boost to our rate revenue. ''He said the extra revenue could help reduce the council's asset renewal gap.

Mr Shiell said the shire had forecast a rate increase of under six per cent over the next four years. However, the rate of increase may have to be reviewed to decrease the asset renewal gap further. Moyne Shire Mayor Gerald Madden said the council relied heavily on grant funding, which accounted for 38 per cent of its revenue. ''Council makes it a priority to source as much grant funding as possible and our success in this area can be seen when comparing Moyne to shires of approximately the same size, '' Cr Madden said.

''Moyne Shire receives a significant level of support from government thanks to the hard work of its staff, and this means we are able to keep rates as low as we can without compromising the delivery or quality of services. ''.

Editorial

Australasian Science, Page: 1
Wednesday, 28 June 2006

In the political satire Yes Minister, Sir Humphrey Appleby likens an independent inquiry to "a train, and the terms of the inquiry are the tracks. Once the tracks are in place, the train will follow the way they go." The same could be said about the "full-blooded debate" that Prime Minister John Howard wants Australia to have on developing a home-grown nuclear industry (see pp. 30-32).

In recent weeks his government has fast-tracked the debate, having received costings from the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) and appointed a pro-nuclear Taskforce that will produce a draft report by November. The final report is due by the end of the year, leaving little time -or desire -for public consultation. The debate has been driven by a sudden desire by the government to reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. It's a desire that lacks sincerity, the government having opted out of the Kyoto Protocol and abolished several renewable energy research programs.

Global warming is also a disingenuous trigger. While nuclear reactors don't emit greenhouse gases, the energy inputs over the reactor's lifetime -from mining, milling and enriching uranium to building the power station, decommissioning it and reprocessing and storing its waste -can emit more CO2 than an equivalent gas-fired power station (AS, July 2005, pp. 39-40). The best-case scenario is a payback of 7-10 years if limited high-grade ore reserves are used.

But why is the Taskforce only considering nuclear energy as a solution to Australia's impending power shortage? What roles do oil, coal, gas, hydro, wind, solar, tidal, hot rocks and biofuels have in Australia's energy portfolio, and how much will their efficiencies improve in coming decades? Even ANSTO's report limited itself to modern uranium reactors and ignored a new breed of reactors that can use Australia's vast thorium reserves as fuel. These reactors have much better safety and environmental credentials as they can incinerate their own waste and do not produce plutonium that contributes to weapons proliferation. ANSTO's report also found that nuclear energy would require large government subsidies if Australia commissioned a modern reactor. To avoid "flrst-of-a-kind" costs we would have to wait for a later "copy" before the price of nuclear energy would be competitive with coal or gas.

An alternative would be to introduce a carbon tax to drive up the cost of electricity by 50%. However, this could cut demand as consumers adopt more energy-efficient measures, such as better insulation and solar panels that would pay for themselves much more quickly than presently. Under this scenario, the demand for electricity would drop, as would the need for nuclear power.

New website has all the latest on proposed wind farm

The Advocate - Daylesford Hepburn Shire Edition, Page: 4
Wednesday, 28 June 2006

AUSTRALIA'S first community-owned wind farm, the Hepburn Community Wind Park, launched a website last week. The Hepburn Renewable Energy Association developed the website as a means to keep the community up-to-date on the wind park planned for Leonards Hill. President Per Bernard said the association was moving towards 300 members and a website was needed."This is a great way for people to get the latest information onthe wind park.

And there's an on-line application form for people to join up," he said. The association's communications spokeswoman Jane Knight said the website would be a valuable way to interact with the community."The website has a description of the project, newsletters, wind energy articles and research as well as a facility for people to ask their own questions."We plan to respond with answers as soon as possible and then post the most frequently asked questions on the website for everyone to see," she said.

Mr Bernard said the website was well set out and very user friendly."We've had some good feedback from users so far but we're really keen to hear any suggestions," he said. The communityowned wind park will consist of two turbines each of two megawatts capacity and is expected to produce enough energy to power more than 2000 homes. Inquiries: Per Bernard on 5348 1298 or www.hrea.org.au.

Spain says "adios" to nuclear power

Fourth European country to begin phase out
June, 1


Madrid.– The nuclear industry recently launched a multi-million dollar campaign to try and revive the most expensive, dangerous, and polluting way to boil water ever invented.
Spain is having none of it. The nation's president has confirmed that the country's 8 operating plants will be phased out in favour of clean, renewable energy.

Industry lobby groups have been trying to sell 10 new nuclear plants in Spain, and have fought hard for legislation that would allow existing plants to operate past their planned retirement dates. But President José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero has confirmed the government's commitment to the phase-out in his State of the Nation address.

“Zapatero has shown true leadership in preparing the phase out of this dangerous and polluting problem and phasing in safe renewable energy sources,” said Jan Vande Putte of Greenpeace International.

“All across the world the nuclear industry is drowning in debt, controversy and its massive waste issues. It is only kept afloat by the likes of Blair and Bush who are pouring billions of dollars of public money into an industry which reached the end of its life over a decade ago.”

Greenpeace was part of a national coalition of environmental and civic groups which on May 20th unanimously petitioned the government to deliver on election promises of "safer, cleaner, cheaper" energy.

Zapatero agreed not only to the phase-out, but to a widely consultative process to find a solution to what to do with existing radioactive waste. In a bid to resurrect a failing industry, regular claims of a nuclear power revival have been made – the most recent using climate change as an excuse to spend further billions to build more reactors.

But renewable energy is now taking the lead, with a single source such as wind energy adding more than 6,000 megawatts to the European grid every year, the equivalent to two large nuclear reactors. In only a few years, wind power in Spain has grown to 8 percent of the national electricity production.

In 2005 alone, some 1680 megawatts of new wind power were installed, generating four times as much electricity as the Zorita nuclear power plant which Spain closed last month.

Spain joins Sweden, Germany and Belgium as the fourth European country to abandon nuclear power.

Should We Embrace Nuclear Energy?

Australasian Science, Page: 30
Wednesday, 28 June 2006

During his recent tour of North America, Australian Prime Minister John Howard called for a "full-blooded debate" about the place of nuclear power in the nation's energy mix. "I have a very open mind on the development of nuclear energy in my own country," he said. Treasurer Peter Costello said that only economic arguments precluded Australia's move to nuclear energy. "If it becomes commercial, we should have it," he said on 23 May.

But in reality the "debate" had already been adjudicated. Three days later the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) presented Science Minister Julie Bishop with a report that delivered Costello's economic justification for nuclear power. Bishop said the ANSTO report"concluded that the latest types of nuclear power stations would be competitive with newly-built coal-fired power stations in Australia. It also concluded that nuclear power is the safest, most secure way of generating electricity with greater price stability in comparison to gas or coal power generation.

"While Bishop described the report's author, Prof John Gittus, as an "independent consultant", an annex to the report reveals that: "He and Mr Michael Dawsori now run Lloyds of London Insurance Syndicate 1176, the biggest commercial insurer of nuclear power stations and other facilities in the world". On 6 June Howard announced "the establishment of a Prime Ministerial Taskforce to undertake an objective, scientific and comprehensive review into uranium mining, processing and the contribution of nuclear energy in Australia in the longer term". Former nuclear physicist and Telstra CEO Dr Ziggy Switkowski will lead the taskforce, which includes the Head of Nuclear Physics at the Australian National University, Prof George Dracoulis. Switkowski has resigned from the ANSTO Board to avoid allegations of a conflict of interest.

The Taskforce will report by the end of this year. Chief Scientist Dr Jim Peacock will facilitate a peer review of the inquiry's scientific aspects. Peacock has already lobbied the government on the nuclear issue, stating in his Presidential address to the Australian Academy of Science AGM on 4 May that he had approached Howard to discuss "the place of nuclear power in the global effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions." Much of the economic justification for Australia embracing a nuclear future centres on modern reactor technologies that are safer and more efficient.

"Many of the concerns that people have expressed about nuclear energy would be solved by using thorium instead of uranium to generate energy," says Dr Reza Hashemi-Nezhad of the University of Sydney's School of Physics, who is Australia's only expert on accelerator-driven systems (ADS) that use thorium as fuel. "Apart from the fact that Australia has the world's biggest reserves of thorium, the ADS using thorium does not produce plutonium and can incinerate its own nuclear waste as well as plutonium and other very long-lived radioactive waste, such as that produced by the experimental reactor at Lucas Heights. The nuclear waste produced requires only 500 years of storage time as opposed to hundreds of thousands of years for conventional nuclear reactor waste. In these reactors a meltdown like the Chernobyl disaster is virtually impossible.

"However, the government is not considering an ADS reactor. Gittus' calculations were based on Australia waiting for the costs to come down on Westinghouse's AP1000 nuclear power plant, which can produce 1117-1154 MWe of energy." The cost of generating electricity in Australia from the 'nth copy' of a nuclear power station such as the AP1000, including financial provision for managing the spent fuel, radioactive wastes and ultimate decommissioning, is cheaper than generating it from coal or a CCGT [combined cycle gas turbine] station," Gittus concluded.

"The 'nth copy' has settleddown costs, both capital and operating, unlike the first and other early copies which will have 'first-of-a-kind' costs." For instance, Gittus found that an early copy of the AP1000 would need "a government subsidy of 14.31% of the fifth-of-a-kind cost together with a subsidy of 21.41% of the cost of electricity for the first 12 years of operation" to bring the costs into line with the 'nth copy' scenario.

Therefore, Australia's nuclear future will still be some time off without government support. Such support would need to come from the present Coalition government, as Labor leader Kim Beazley has declared that"there will be no nuclear power in Australia under a Beazley government". But while the debate has been engineered by politicians and nuclear industry advocates, little has been heard of the views of scientists about the role of nuclear power in Australia's energy mix. Dr John Price, an engineer at Monash University's Mechanical Department of Engineering, has worked on the design of coal and nuclear power plants and alternative energy.

"Australia must add 9-10 GW of electricity capacity over the next 10 years to keep pace with demand," he says. "Currently there appears to be no option but to use black and brown coal and gas to generate this extra electricity. Thus the debate should be around whether or not we're happy to commit to so much more carbon dioxide production." Prof Aidan Byrne, Head of Physics at the Australian National University, also believes that "nuclear power could well be part of our energy mix in future, along with wind, solar and other renewables."

All sources of energy have their advantages and disadvantages, and each has to be considered on its merits. "Australia's particular circumstances - with an abundance of sunlight, space, coal and nuclear resources - will decide on this mix. Other countries are not so fortunate so the decisions that other countries make to go nuclear may not need to be replicated in Australia." Prof Peter Johnston, Head of Physics at EMIT and a scientific adviser to Maralinga Tjarutja, who are traditional owners of the former nuclear test site at Maralinga, says: "I think we should be interested in nuclear energy options.

We don't necessarily need a nuclear power program right now but we certainly should have the capability to choose this option in future if and when we want to. Our existing fossil fuel sources may last a long time but we might decide that we need to use coal for things such as liquid fuels instead of burning it for base load energy, especially if oil becomes very expensive in future."Unless we have the capacity to use nuclear power then we may be at a disadvantage. Other countries may be in a position to produce energy by nuclear power much more quickly and cheaply than us. We need the skills and expertise in nuclear science to ensure that we can also do it."

Price concurs:"The nuclear power option would be nice to have. The past 50 years of experience has shown that the safety of nuclear energy and its fuel cycle is very attractive, and modern plants will be even better." The current debate has gained momentum due to increasing support for initiatives that reduce Australia'sgreenhouse gas emissions.

According to Prof Hugh Possingham, a mathematical ecologist at the University of Queensland: "This debate is not about renewables versus nuclear, it is about how quickly we can wean ourselves off energy generation that releases greenhouse gases. The increased level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels has already begun to contribute to the loss of biodiversity through its impact on the climate. It has been estimated that we could lose 10-30% of all species around the globe as a result of climate change. This places climate change among the top three threats to biodiversity along with land clearing and invasive species."

According to Gittus:"The five measures that Australia currently plans to mitigate global warming will, taken together, reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by 38 million tonnes per year. An equal reduction would be provided by substituting 4-5 GWe of nuclear generation for present and planned coal-fired power stations. This would comprise, for example, three or perhaps four APlOOOs."However Ian Lowe, Emeritus Professor at Griffith University and President of the Australian Conservation Foundation, says that "nuclear power is certainly not a cost-effective answer to climate change.

Various forms of renewable energy supply are more attractive without having the environmental, social and political disadvantages of nuclear power. Energy efficiency is a more cost-effective way of reducing carbon dioxide emissions than any supply alternative, and should be pursued vigorously."Dr Joel Fleming, an environmental scientist and Managing Director of Climate Friendly Pty Ltd agrees."Whether Australia should go nuclear is the wrong question," he says.

"The question we need to ask is: what is the best strategy to reduce greenhouse emissions by 80% and avoid dangerous climate change?" Renewable and efficiency technologies are available now. With these, there are companies in Australia right now who have reduced their emissions by 60-100%. So why take the safety risk with nuclear when there are clean energy options available? In the long term, with nuclear we would end up using low grade uranium with roughly the same greenhouse emissions as gasfired power stations." Frank Muller, an Adjunct Professor at the University of NSW Institute for Environmental Studies, says Australia's decisions will have implications for our role in the global nuclear industry.

"This is not really about whether Australia should meet its energy needs through nuclear power," he says. "It's a much bigger debate about whether the world should make a major shift to nuclear power and whether Australia should become a big supplier of nuclear fuel cycle services and a nuclear waste dump for other countries." Muller, who previously headed greenhouse policy in the NSW Cabinet Office and spent the 1990s in Washington advising governments and the United Nations on climate change, says: "The reason we are having this debate now is because it meets the political needs of conservative politicians in Washington and Canberra on the defensive over oil prices, climate change and other issues, not because there has been any real commercial progress in overcoming the proliferation, economic and environmental risks of nuclear energy. If we are serious about tackling climate change now there are many other energy options that we should be debating - options that are cheaper, safer and can be deployed much more quickly.

"Nuclear power requires not only big subsidies, but also big government to deal with its risks - and it is a great irony that is should be embraced by conservative politicians."Lowe is also suspicious of the government's agenda."The nuclear power option makes so little sense for Australia that I suspect 'the debate' is really aimed at softening up the electorate to accept increased exports of uranium. It remains true, as the Ranger inquiry found 30 years ago, that exporting uranium adds to the problems of proliferation of fissile material and production of radioactive waste.

There is no convincing technical or political solution to either of those problems, so exporting uranium inevitably makes the world a dirtier and more dangerous place."