No wonder the media is moving  hastily away from its first response – which was to blame Aboriginals for their (legitimate and peaceful) protest.  After all, we all saw the TV footage – the only violence came , unprovoked, from the police.  And then we get sanctimonious pronouncements from Warren Mundine and Tom Gooda –  honorary whites if ever there were!

The real issue is the continued dispossession of Aboriginal land, in the interests of mining corporations, and especially the nuclear industry.  The Northern Territory Intervention might indeed have done some good things.  But forcing people off their homelands is a bad thing.   The new draft Constitution has some good changes, respectful to Aboriginals, but also contains a cunningly worded permission for the land dispossession to continue.  

Now very poor whiteys will be penalised, in the new Northern Territory Intervention too –  that makes it look as if it’s not discriminating against Aboriginals.

Now why was the media so friendly to that “people’s protest” in Western Australia – some months back? Remember, when Gina Rinehart, (Australia’s richest woman) all in her pearls, came out in the streets along with wealthy socialites, to protest against the mining tax?  Why was that protest not met with tough police, and media denunciation?  - Christina Macpherson

There was a bit of banging on the glass walls. The chants started as “Shame, shame!” and “Racists, racists” and then became a steady “Always was, always will be, Aboriginal land.” This is a truth the one per cent and their paid mouthpieces, Gillard and Abbott, cannot acknowledge, let alone address.

The cops reacted as they always do when confronted by angry Aboriginal people. The riot squad and the Prime Minister’s protection unit brutalised the crowd to clear a path for Gillard and Abbott, ….

Then the cops tried to wreak their vengeance on the crowd – an Aboriginal crowd and their supporters – for having dared to protest against these two representatives of the mining companies that are stealing Aboriginal land. Together in a line, they walked slowly towards the protestors chanting ‘Move, move, move’ and in one case, shoved a pepper spray bottle into a demonstrators’ face….. The demonstration was a reminder that polite conversation isn’t going to shift entrenched capitalist interests and their representatives in the Parliament. It might give you fake constitutional changes but not land rights, not sovereignty, not a treaty…. http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/politics/gillard-and-abbott-were-never-really-threatened-by-aboriginal-protestors/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=IA+Newsletter

Tent Embassy spokesman Pal Coe made a point largely lost in the media coverage today, which is that Warren Mundine and Mick Gooda don’t speak for those involved, much less for Aboriginal Australia as a whole

The Mob Violence That Wasn’t New Matilda.com, By Ben Eltham , 28 Jan, 12, The media has framed it as violent but the tent embassy protest was basically peaceful. It’s this gross distortion – and the heavy-handed response of the AFP – that warrant criticism, writes Ben Eltham

Somehow, with the strange alchemy that the media seems to summon, the dominant angle of reporting about yesterday’s Australia Day kerfuffle involving the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition has been to condemn it as a violent protest.

“Indigenous leaders condemn ‘disgraceful’ protesters” is how the ABC has beendescribing it and much of the Fairfax press has carried similar stories. The television networks have, of course, reveled in the dramatic footage. Channel 9’s news report from last night, which carried the inside-the-restaurant footage of the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader conferring on whether to evacuate, repeatedly framed the protest in emotive terms like “violent”, “raging”, “angry mob”, under siege” and so on.

Few media outlets seem to have asked whether there was in fact any violence from protesters. The available video and eyewitness evidence suggests that the violence came mainly from police and security staff. Yes, there was chanting, Yes, there was banging on the windows of local restaurant The Lobby.

But were the protesters really “violent”? 

What exactly would this “violence” have consisted of?

Police have laid no charges. No-one appears to have been hurt through the actions of protesters. The available footage, particularly from Channel 9, which can be seen here on the 3AW site, shows no violence from protesters. What it shows is confusion and panic from police and security, protestors milling about shouting, and rough handling of protesters by police.

In response to a question about yesterday’s violence from a journalist at today’s tent embassy press conference, a spokeswoman for the embassy, Selina Davey-Newry, said:

“There was no violence, we had the AFP and riot squad pushing at us in a line, and invited the politicians to come out and speak. The AFP came out against us with force, and we did not retaliatie with force, we did not instigate any wrong-doing or any violence”.

3AW’s Michael Pachi’s account of the affair, broadcast yesterday, appears to confirm this. “In terms of violence, if you call it violence … it was basically the protesters banging on the Commonwealth car once they were escorted from the car … but from the most part it was really just loud chanting,” he said.

This report by Wil Wallace is the best available eyewitness account of the protest. Wallace spoke to Sam Castro, who was at the tent embassy. Wallace writes that “a contingent of about 100 protesters made their way up the road to The Lobby and surrounded it. Though they were loud and noisy they were non-violent.”….

The Canberra Times’ Jack Waterford argues that the security forces panicked and over-reacted, and the politicians were never in danger. “At no stage did it appear that Gillard made contact with any protester, or that any lunged towards her. The stumble was a function of the extrication, not crowd pressure.”…

Tent Embassy spokesman Pal Coe made a point largely lost in the media coverage today, which is that Warren Mundine and Mick Gooda don’t speak for those involved, much less for Aboriginal Australia as a whole. “You cannot work a peaceful way when governments rely upon certain Aboriginal people to justify a position, a political position, a policy position that they take and they conveniently choose to ignore the rest of Aboriginal people because they have one or two convenient spokespeople,” he told theABC’s George Roberts….

questions must be asked about why Gillard and Abbott both refused to interrupt their Australia Day ceremony to walk outside the restaurant and speak to the protestors.

Finally, and, most seriously, significant questions must be raised about the Australian Federal Police and their cack-handed overreaction to this non-riot. http://newmatilda.com/2012/01/27/mob-violence-wasnt

Has Labor’s shift on uranium mining started a race? ABC News, Rebecca Boteler, 28 Jan 12 The new Labor leader Mark McGowan has changed his party’s stance on uranium mining in Western Australia. But what does it mean for those companies in the race to mine uranium?

Mr McGowan announced the party’s backflip on uranium mining on his first day in the job. The new policy means any mines already operational by the time the Labor party next comes into power will not be shut down and any companies that already have approval can continue development.

However, Labor will not allow any new mines to be given the green light.

The change in policy has been greeted with both condemnation and cautious optimism.

Most agree Mr McGowan is trying to have his yellow cake and eat it too, by softening the party’s stance while not actually throwing his support behind a uranium industry…..

Senator for WA Scott Ludlam says one of his main concerns is that mining companies will feel under pressure to race through their applications before the Labor party next comes to power.

“A real concern and a real danger is that companies will try and short circuit what is already a very weak environmental impact assessment process, just to get something into the bank so that they’re through before a potential change of government,” he said.

“I don’t think that’s what anybody in the Labor party is intending, but you could see very much that that could be the consequence, that we’ll get some kind of land rush, people will try to get approvals through, corners will be cut and it’s something of a worse case scenario.”

While Labor is currently well behind in the polls, a lot could change by the time the election rolls around next March, meaning uranium explorers could have a limited time to get their projects approved……

While there are no operational mines in WA yet, there are about 190 companies with interests in mining uranium in the state, with Toro Energy leading the charge.

Toro is in a unique position – it has one project almost at the end of the approvals track and another which is yet to set foot on the path.

The company expects the federal and state governments to make a final decision on its Wiluna mine by the middle of this year…..

Mr Hall says if the Wiluna project does get final approval, Labor’s policy shift will be just one factor which will determine whether the company ultimately goes ahead with the mine.

“There’s many things that can impact that decision to be made and one of them could be political risk, so we would evaluate that at the time,” he said…..

Mr Hall says if a Labor government was to come into power, the company would seriously consider whether to bother spending millions of dollars on a project, which under the party’s current policy, wouldn’t be allowed to go ahead.

…..http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-27/labor27s-change-on-uranium-policy-could-lead-to-a-race/3797386?

The Commission has entirely ignored the immense evidence that DOE’s plans for disposal of several types of defense waste pose much greater threats to water resources, most especially at Hanford

 “I am dismayed that the Commission saw fit to recommend that the Department of Energy (DOE) have a large upfront role in both the next steps for repository program, …  DOE was in large part responsible for the mess the program is in now,

Radioactive Wastes From Nuclear Bomb Program Given Short Shrift In Blue Ribbon Commission Report EnEws Park Forest, TAKOMA PARK, MD–(ENEWSPF)–January 27, 2012. Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D., President of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, today commented on some of the recommendations of the final report of the Presidential Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) on America’s Nuclear Future.

The commission was created to address U.S. nuclear waste issues after the Obama administration cancelled the
Yucca Mountain program….

….On wastes from the nuclear bomb program:
Makhijani: “It is tragic that the Commission did not substantively address the most pressing radioactive waste contamination threats to precious water resources – for instance hundreds of times the drinking water limit at Hanford, Washington on the banks of the Columbia River.
The Commission had a charter to conduct a ‘comprehensive’ review of the nuclear waste problem, including defense wastes from the nuclear bomb program. Yet, it simply said it did not have the resources to deal with all the problems and punted the nuclear weapons waste issue to Congress while focusing on commercial spent fuel at nuclear reactor sites.”

“I am even more dismayed that the Commission suggested that Congress
consider the possibility of leaving the defense waste disposal in the
purview of the Department of Energy (DOE). The Commission has entirely
ignored the immense evidence that DOE’s plans for disposal of several
types of defense waste pose much greater threats to water resources,
most especially at Hanford, than from even Yucca Mountain, a poor
repository site.”
On reprocessing and breeder reactors:

The commission acknowledges in its report that:

“…no currently available or reasonably foreseeable reactor and fuel
cycle technology developments—including advances in reprocess and
recycle technologies—have the potential to fundamentally alter the
waste management challenge this nation confronts over at least the
next several decades, if not longer.” (p. 100)

Makhijani: “The Commission did reject some reprocessing advocates’
claims by recognizing that it will not eliminate the need for a
repository and that no form of reprocessing is economical today. But
it left the door open for reprocessing existing spent fuel at some
future date. Reprocessing spent fuel from existing reactors will
multiply risks and costs. There is simply no economic or technical
case for that, and the Commission was provided with ample evidence to
that effect. Even if the chosen path is breeder reactors, it would be
technically better and economically far superior to use the half
million tons of depleted uranium that already exist, enough to fuel a
U.S. reactor fleet at the present size for 5,000 years. The Commission
unfortunately chose to ignore these facts.”

“To its credit the Commission did recognize that reprocessing is not
an answer to the waste management problem (as indicated by quote
above) and that use of plutonium fuel creates an ‘increased
proliferation risk’ (p. 105) both as currently practiced  in France
and as it might in the future be practiced with breeder reactors.”

“Despite having been presented with ample evidence of the failure of
the sodium-cooled fast neutron reactor program – $100 billion has been
spent worldwide on the technology and yet it is nowhere near
commercial – the BRC is suggesting more of the same.  This is
unwarranted when there are so many renewable energy options that are
far closer to reality and far safer.”
On spent fuel storage:

Makhijani: “The Commission used the Fukushima tragedy to punt on the
question of hardened dry rather than wet storage of spent fuel at
reactor sites. The National Academies had already concluded well
before Fukushima that dry storage was safer; Fukushima has only made
the risks of wet storage clearer. Nothing we learn from it will
indicate that wet storage is safer than dry storage.  Yet, the
Commission, citing lessons yet to be learned from Fukushima called for
yet another study instead of hardened on-site dry storage that has
been urged by dozens or organizations.”

“IEER calls on the Administration and Congress to mandate that all
spent fuel aged more than five years be moved to hardened dry storage
on site, and the remaining spent fuel kept in low-density storage in
reactor pools. Nuclear Waste Fund monies should be used for on-site
hardened dry storage.”….
Makhijani: “I am dismayed that the Commission saw fit to recommend
that DOE have a large upfront role in both the next steps for
repository program, “including R&D on geological media” (p. 118) and
for the Interim Storage site before a new organization is put in place
to take over the responsibility. DOE was in large part responsible for
the mess the program is in now, which began well before Congress cut
off the process in 1987, pointing to Yucca Mountain alone. On the one
hand the Commission has cautioned against haste; on the other hand, it
has encouraged haste in a really ill-advised way by recommending a
continuing DOE role in critical activities better left to an
independent agency.”…
The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research provides
policy-makers, journalists, and the public with understandable and
accurate scientific and technical information on energy and
environmental issues. IEER’s aim is to bring scientific excellence to
public policy issues in order to promote the democratization of
science and a safer, healthier environment.

http://www.enewspf.com/latest-news/science-a-environmental/30464-radioactive-wastes-from-nuclear-bomb-program-given-short-shrift-in-blue-ribbon-commission-report.html

“The public should know who is funding climate denial so they can properly judge the information put out by organisations like the Global Warming Policy Foundation,” 

“In Australia, the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) is a leading source of climate disinformation, yet it retreats into secrecy whenever it is asked about the source of its funding. Environment groups are upfront about their funding, yet denialists claim privacy.”

The first available set of public accounts shows the foundation, which has declared Australia as one of its areas of operation to UK authorities, received £494,625 in donations in its first year.

Bid to out the money behind the voice against climate change, SMH Graham Readfearn January 27, 2012 - A British journalist’s court bid to unmask the financial backers of a group of climate change sceptics is being used to raise questions about how think-tanks are funded in Australia and whether they deserve tax exemptions.

Nuclear Power is Clean — as Long as you Ignore ‘Safety’!, Ace Hoffman Salem-News.com, 27 Jan 12

Did the NRC change their minds and delay their decision? NO! Did they want to find out if what went wrong in Japan was applicable to Vermont? NO! The NRC does not lack in hubris, or in skill in manipulating the media to its advantage. Every accident — even Fukushima — is an “opportunity to learn,” and so in their macabre way of thinking, every accident, no matter how severe, can be considered a GOOD thing!

Five politically-appointed commissioners make all the “big” decisions at the NRC, and so just three commissioners constitute a majority. There are about 320 million citizens in America, so in a sense, these three people — who are not elected — control the fate of more than one hundred million Americans each. That’s what we call “democracy”?

And it gets worse: They have very finely-crafted laws to protect their power, such that over the past half century, thousands of local, state, and federal judges, as well as commissioners and other officials at all levels, have all deferred to the NRC, and thus, to these three individuals, whose identities change over time, but whose basic philosophy — “keep the nuclear industry running, ignore the dangers” — remains the same.

In addition to being lobbied constantly, politicians (who pick the commissioners) are given huge campaign contributions by the nuclear industry — hundreds of millions of dollars every decade. Often, campaign contributions are given to BOTH candidates in a close election, so regardless of who wins, the winner is beholden to the nuclear industry.

In Vermont recently, a Federal judge threw out the state’s attempt to get Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant shut down permanently after 40 years of constant leaks, piling waste, and random outages, because the judge was convinced the “real” reason Vermonters want the plant shut down is safety concerns — regardless of the OTHER legal rationalities brought forth by the state’s attorneys, such as: A prior agreement by the utility to shut the plant down if requested by the state; Lies
told repeatedly by the utility to the state’s citizens, and: Overpriced electricity the utility was offering the state.

But sooner or later, it always comes down to “safety”. And as long as the NRC says the plants are safe, everyone else says they’re safe too. http://www.salem-news.com/articles/january262012/nuclear-power-ah.php

Japanese town’s dependence on nuclear plant hushes criticism, By Yoko Kubota, OHI, Japan  Jan 26, 2012  (Reuters) - Japan’s nuclear disaster has eroded trust in utilities and shown residents of the rural, mountainous region of Fukui the risk of radiation, but a dependence on atomic plants for jobs and funds means speaking out against them is taboo.

Solar guru receives Australia Day honour , 26 January 2012, Anna Salleh ABC Science,   http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/01/26/3415244.htm

“Germany has been the only country that’s had a sensible long-term program in place to promote the use of renewables,” says Green.

Some argue solar cells are not a competitive option for reducing carbon emissions, and are limited by the fact that they don’t generate energy unless the Sun is shining.

But according to Green, the “stars are aligning for conventional roof mounted solar” and it is ripe for a new kick start from governments. 

Cheaper technology

Green says the cost of solar cells has come down rapidly in recent years largely due to the expanding manufacturing industry in China.

“They’re now a third to a quarter of the costs of only a couple of years ago,” he says.

“It’s expected that this [decline in price] will continue over the next decade. The projections are that about 60 per cent further will be taken off the costs over that period.”

The German experience

Green says the advantage of solar cells is they produce most of their energy in the day when energy use is at its highest.

While clouds can cut back solar energy production, this can be compensated for by energy from other areas that are sunny – as long as the grid covers a large enough geographic area, he says.

Green points to data from Germany where nearly one million (mainly rooftop) solar panels supply the equivalent of a dozen nuclear power plants, or about 40 per cent of the maximum demand in Australia.

“When you average across the whole country you get a very predictable daily output,” he says.

Balancing generation and use

Green says matching the generation of energy with its use is an old issue that the grid has found ways of accommodating.

“You just slightly change perspective when you are generating most of your power during the day time [as you would with a system involving photovoltaics],” he says.

Green says current day coal and nuclear power stations push out energy all night, when it’s not particularly needed. As a result there is a need to store excess energy produced at night or for incentives to encourage energy use during this time.

“We give away electricity to aluminium smelters at night just to provide a load for the power plants at night,” says Green.

He says in countries like Japan, Germany and the US, excess energy from conventional power plants is currently used to pump water uphill at night for hydroelectricity.

Generation of excess energy from photovoltaic cells during the day could be dealt with in a similar way, says Green.

Local storage of energy from photovoltaics in batteries is also starting to occur, he says.

Feed-in tariffs

Green says Australian state-based schemes to promote rooftop solar have been undermined by fixed feed-in tariffs.

Instead, a sliding tariff scale of the kind used in Germany, which progressively reduces subsidies to solar energy and drives down the cost of solar panels, is more sustainable.

“The German scheme has been undoubtedly successful,” says Green.

“It has single-handedly driven the world market for both wind and solar products and changed the industry from non-viable to the state it is now where it has the chance of being self-sustaining.”

He says a carbon tax in Australia will only encourage lowest-cost present day low-emission alternatives.

The tax should be complemented by German-style schemes to boost photovoltaics, which are presently at a low stage of development but have the potential to lower costs in the future

Efficiency and sustainability

Green’s research team currently holds the record for highly efficient solar cell technology, which has been commercialised through CSG Solar Pty Ltd, of which he is research director.

Green says current silicon cells show 25 per cent efficiency in the lab, although commercially available panels operate at just 14 to 15 per cent. His team is working with several companies to improve this efficiency.

He says the thermodynamic limit of converting sunlight into electricity is 74 per cent, and at this point, the best lab device reaches 36 per cent using cells made from exotic materials.

Green says the energy being used to make solar cells is also reducing.

“Everything that is being done to reduce the cost of the cells also reduces the energy content,” he says.

And he says the industry is moving away from the use of toxic chemicals that require expensive disposal, with pollution from solar cell production becoming the exception.

“Of the hundreds of manufacturers in China there have been two of them in the last five years that have been found to be not disposing of the wastes of the processing of the silicon for the cells in an acceptable way.”  http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/01/26/3415244.htm

How EVs could save the grid – and lower energy bills , Reneweconomy By Giles Parkinson   27 January 2012

It may be, however, that the introduction of the electric vehicle in great quantities could be a saviour to much of the established infrastructure, protecting assets that could otherwise be stranded and leading to an overall reduction in electricity costs.

The Australian Energy Markets Commission, which is responsible for setting the electricity market rules, released an issues paper this month to help prepare for the sort of changes that might need to be implemented if the uptake of EVs takes off.

It came to two initial conclusions: Badly managed, the rollout of EVs could have a severe impact on electricity costs if battery charging times were not controlled and this resulted in large addition to peak demand.

However, if managed properly, the rollout of EVS could lead to a noticeable reduction in energy costs because it would increase load factors at night time and spread the fixed cost of the network over a larger consumer base. And its storage capacity has the potential to put energy back into the grid at times of peak demand and help reduce wild fluctuations in pricing.

The paper includes work done by the consultancy group AECOM, which finds that the difference in costs to the grid between controlled and uncontrolled charging could be as much as $12 billion if the take up of EVs is high, described as 47 per cent of new vehicles sales by 2020 and 54 per cent by 2030…..

The AECOM is broadly consistent with other studies on the rollout of EVs, including those by AGL Energy, and the Australian Energy Market Operator, although these analyses do inevitably differ on predicting the extent of the uptake of the EV – and in the case of AEMO, the impact on peak demand. The study by AGL, which has a commitment to provide renewable energy to support the rollout of the Better Place network due to begin in Canberra this year, also found that a broad uptake of EVs would have a relatively minimal impact on the nation’s electricity market.

It did conclude, however, that “the correct mix of pricing, policy and regulatory settings should ensure a smooth transition to the decarbonisation of the transport fleet.” And key amongst this is the issue of time of use pricing, among others, which the utility says is essential if the country is to take advantage of smart meters, EVs and distributed generation.

AGL agreed with AECOM in concluding that there should be more than sufficient existing generation, transmission and distribution network capacity to manage the demands of the EV, “provided that the combination of smart meters and critical peak pricing form part of the energy market policy fabric for EV owners.”

It also says that the combination of EVs and time of use pricing could maximize the use of network and generation infrastructure, and this in turn could lower unit costs for all consumers. http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/how-evs-could-save-the-grid-and-lower-energy-bills