Exposing misleading evidence to the federal nuclear inquiry
Big claims and corporate spin about small nuclear reactor costs, Jim Green, 19 September 2019, RenewEconomy https://reneweconomy.com.au/big-claims-and-corporate-spin-about-small-nuclear-reactor-costs-65726/
The ‘inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia’ being run by Federal Parliament’s Environment and Energy Committee has finished receiving submissions and is gradually making them publicly available.
The inquiry is particularly interested in ‘small modular reactors’ (SMRs) and thus one point of interest is how enthusiasts spin the economic debate given that previous history with small reactors has shown them to be expensive; the cost of the handful of SMRs under construction is exorbitant; and both the private sector and governments around the world have been unwilling to invest the billions of dollars required to get high-risk SMR demonstration reactors built.
To provide a reality-check before we get to the corporate spin, a submission to the inquiry by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis notes that SMRs have been as successful as cold fusion – i.e., not at all. The submission states:
“The construction of nuclear power plants globally has proven to be an ongoing financial disaster for private industry and governments alike, with extraordinary cost and construction time blow-outs, while being a massive waste of public monies due to the ongoing reliance on government financial subsidies. … Governments have repeatedly failed to comprehend that nuclear construction timelines and cost estimates put forward by many corporates (with vested interests) have proven disastrously flawed and wrong.”
The Institute is equally scathing about SMRs:
“For all the hype in certain quarters, commercial deployment of small modular reactors (SMRs) have to-date been as successful as hypothesized cold fusion – that is, not at all. Even assuming massive ongoing taxpayer subsidies, SMR proponents do not expect to make a commercial deployment at scale any time soon, if at all, and more likely in a decade from now if historic delays to proposed timetables are acknowledged.”
Thus the Institute adds its voice to the chorus of informed scepticism about SMRs, such as the 2017 Lloyd’s Register survey of 600 industry professionals and experts who predicted that SMRs have a “low likelihood of eventual take-up, and will have a minimal impact when they do arrive“.
Corporate spin #1: Minerals Council of Australia
The Minerals Council of Australia claims in its submission to the federal inquiry that SMRs could generate electricity for as little as $60 per megawatt-hour (MWh). That claim is based on a report by the Economic and Finance Working Group (EFWG) of the Canadian government-industry ‘SMR Roadmap’ initiative.
The Canadian EFWG gives lots of possible SMR costs and the Minerals Council’s use of its lowest figure is nothing if not selective. The figure cited by the Minerals Council assumes near-term deployment from a standing start (with no-one offering to risk billions of dollars to build demonstration reactors), plus extraordinary learning rates in an industry notorious for its negative learning rates.
Dr. Ziggy Switkowski noted in his evidence to the federal inquiry that “nuclear power has got more expensive, rather than less expensive”. Yet the EFWG 
paper takes a made-up, ridiculously-high learning rate and subjects SMR cost estimates to eight ‘cumulative doublings’ based on the learning rate. That’s creative accounting and one can only wonder why the Minerals Council would present it as a credible estimate.
Here are the first-of-a-kind SMR cost estimates from the EFWG paper, all of them far higher than the figure cited by the Minerals Council:
- 300-megawatt (MW) on-grid SMR: C$162.67 (A$179) / MWh
- 125-MW off-grid heavy industry: C$178.01 (A$196) / MWh
- 20-MW off-grid remote mining: C$344.62 (A$380) / MWh
- 3-MW off-grid remote community: C$894.05 (A$986) / MWh
The government and industry members on the Canadian EFWG are in no doubt that SMRs won’t be built without public subsidies:
“The federal and provincial governments should, in partnership with industry, investigate ways to best risk-share through policy mechanisms to reduce the cost of capital. This is especially true for the first units deployed, which would likely have a substantially higher cost of capital than a commercially mature SMR.”
The EFWG paper used a range of estimates from the literature and vendors. It notes problems with its inputs, such as the fact that many of the vendor estimates have not been independently vetted, and “the wide variation in costs provided by expert analysts”. Thus, the EFWG qualifies its findings by noting that “actual costs could be higher or lower depending on a number of eventualities”.
Corporate spin #2: NuScale Power
US company NuScale Power has put in a submission to the federal nuclear inquiry, estimating a first-of-a-kind cost for its SMR design of US$4.35 billion / gigawatt (GW) and an nth-of-a-kind cost of US$3.6 billion / GW.
NuScale doesn’t provide a $/MWh estimate in its submission, but the company has previously said it is targeting a cost of US$65/MWh for its first SMR plant. That is 2.4 lower than the US$155/MWh (A$225/MWh) estimate based on the NuScale design in a report by WSP / Parsons Brinckerhoff prepared for the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission.
NuScale’s cost estimates should be regarded as promotional and will continue to drop – unless and until the company actually builds an SMR. The estimated cost of power from NuScale’s non-existent SMRs fell from US$98-$108/MWh in 2015 to US$65/MWh by mid-2018. The company announced with some fanfare in 2018 that it had worked out how to make its SMRs almost 20% cheaper – by making them almost 20% bigger!
Lazard estimates costs of US$112-189/MWh for electricity from large nuclear plants. NuScale’s claim that its electricity will be 2-3 times cheaper than that from large nuclear plants is implausible. And even if NuScale achieved costs of US$65/MWh, that would still be higher than Lazard’s figures for wind power (US$29-56) and utility-scale solar (US$36-46).
Likewise, NuScale’s construction construction cost estimate of US$4.35 billion / GW is implausible. The latest cost estimate for the two AP1000 reactors under construction in the US state of Georgia (the only reactors under construction in the US) is US$12.3-13.6 billion / GW. NuScale’s target is just one-third of that cost – despite the unavoidable diseconomies of scale and despite the fact that every independent assessment concludes that SMRs will be more expensive to build (per GW) than large reactors.
Further, the modular factory-line production techniques now being championed by NuScale were trialled with the AP1000 reactor project in South Carolina – a project that was abandoned in 2017 after the expenditure of at least US$9 billion.
Corporate spin #3: Australian company SMR Nuclear Technology
In support of its claim that “it is likely that SMRs will be Australia’s lowest-cost generation source”, Australian company SMR Nuclear Technology Pty Ltd cites in its submission to the federal nuclear inquiry a 2017 report by the US Energy Innovation Reform Project (EIRP).
According to SMR Nuclear Technology, the EIRP study “found that the average levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) from advanced reactors was US$60/MWh.”
However the cost figures used in the EIRP report are nothing more than the optimistic estimates of companies hoping to get ‘advanced’ reactor designs off the ground. Therefore the EIRP authors heavily qualified the report’s findings:
“There is inherent and significant uncertainty in projecting NOAK [nth-of-a-kind] costs from a group of companies that have not yet built a single commercial-scale demonstration reactor, let alone a first commercial plant. Without a commercial-scale plant as a reference, it is difficult to reliably estimate the costs of building out the manufacturing capacity needed to achieve the NOAK costs being reported; many questions still remain unanswered – what scale of investments will be needed to launch the supply chain; what type of capacity building will be needed for the supply chain, and so forth.”
SMR Nuclear Technology’s conclusions – that “it is likely that SMRs will be Australia’s lowest-cost generation source” and that low costs are “likely to make them a game-changer in Australia” – have no more credibility than the company estimates used in the EIRP paper.
SMR Nuclear Technology’s submission does not note that the EIRP inputs were merely company estimates and that the EIRP authors heavily qualified the report’s findings.
The US$60/MWh figure cited by SMR Nuclear Technology is far lower than all independent estimates for SMRs:
- The 2015/16 South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission estimated costs of A$180-184/MWh for large light-water reactors, compared to A$225 for an SMR based on the NuScale design (and a slightly lower figure for the ‘mPower’ SMR design that was abandoned in 2017 by Bechtel and Babcock & Wilcox).
- A December 2018 report by CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator found that electricity from SMRs would be more than twice as expensive as that from wind or solar power with storage costs included (two hours of battery storage or six hours of pumped hydro storage).
- A report by the consultancy firm Atkins for the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy found that electricity from the first SMR in the UK would be 30% more expensive than that from large reactors, because of diseconomies of scale and the costs of deploying first-of-a-kind technology. Its optimistic SMR cost estimate is US$107-155 (A$157-226) / MWh.
- A 2015 report by the International Energy Agency and the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency predicted that electricity from SMRs will be 50−100% more expensive than that from large reactors, although it holds out some hope that large-volume factory production could reduce costs.
- An article by four pro-nuclear researchers from Carnegie Mellon University’s Department of Engineering and Public Policy, published in 2018 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, concluded than an SMR industry would only be viable in the US if it received “several hundred billion dollars of direct and indirect subsidies” over the next several decades.
SMR Nuclear Technology’s assertion that “nuclear costs are coming down due to simpler and standardised design; factory-based manufacturing; modularisation; shorter construction time and enhanced financing techniques” is at odds with all available evidence and it is at odds with Dr. Ziggy Switkowski’s observation in a public hearing of the federal inquiry that nuclear “costs per kilowatt hour appear to grow with each new generation of technology”.
SMR Nuclear Technology claims that failing to repeal federal legislative bans against nuclear power would come at “great cost to the economy”. However the introduction of nuclear power to Australia would most likely have resulted in the extraordinary cost overruns and delays that have crippled every reactor construction project in the US and western Europe over the past decade – blowouts amounting to A$10 billion or more per reactor.
Nor would the outcome have been positive if Australia had instead pursued non-existent SMR ‘vaporware‘.
Dr Jim Green is lead author of a Nuclear Monitor report on SMRs and national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia.
Nationals MP lashes renewable energy as ‘hoax’ and ‘fraud’ but says nuclear will help solve energy crisis,
Nationals MP lashes renewable energy as ‘hoax’ and ‘fraud’ but says nuclear will help solve energy crisis, 7 News,Matt Coughlan AAP 18 September 2019 Nationals senator Sam McMahon has lashed renewable energy as a “fraud” and a “hoax” as she made the case for oil, gas and nuclear energy.
She became the second government senator in as many days to use their first speech to parliament to talk up nuclear power after South Australian Liberal Alex Antic did the same on Tuesday.
The NT senator said Australia was looking down the barrel of an energy crisis which “quiet Australians” wanted government to solve.
“Research must continue in the development of renewable technologies, but for commercial use they currently remain immature and in many cases fundamentally flawed,” McMahon told parliament on Wednesday.
“A hoax of immature technology replacing safe, clean, reliable and inexpensive power stations has unfolded. “……..
She also said 30 per cent of the world’s uranium reserves were located in the NT.
“The time is right for us to visit and re-examine options for us to utilise this [nuclear] technology.”…….https://7news.com.au/politics/federal-politics/nationals-mp-lashes-renewable-energy-as-hoax-and-fraud-but-says-nuclear-will-help-solve-energy-crisis-c-460357
The well-named Liberal Senator Antic goes all out for nuclear power and waste importation
New Lib senator joins nuclear power push, Matt Coughlan 7 News, AAP, 17 September 2019
New Liberal senator Alex Antic has joined the push for nuclear power through capitalising on South Australia’s uranium industry.
Senator Antic’s first speech to parliament on Tuesday signalled he would add another nuclear advocate to the Liberal Party’s parliamentary ranks.
“The reckless rush into the unproven, un-costed world of renewable energy represents both the deceased canary down the coalmine, as well as a masterclass of failed policy from a failed former Labor government,” he said.
The Morrison government has announced an inquiry into nuclear power after the issue was raised by a rump of coalition backbenchers.
Senator Antic said “everything old could be new again” in his state, noting its history of uranium mining dating back to the early 1900s…….
The former Adelaide councillor said small modular reactors would increase efficiency and safety, while reducing the cost of nuclear power generation. …..
South Australia has the capacity to develop a safe nuclear waste facility which could bring billions into the state, he said.
Senator Antic also took aim at the “tyranny” of political correctness…….https://7news.com.au/politics/new-lib-senator-joins-nuclear-power-push-c-458275
NuScale’s nuclear reactor design not new, drawn from dangerous old one
Why Does NuScale SMR Look Like a 1964 Drawing of Swiss Lucens Nuclear Reactor (which suffered a major meltdown in 1969)?
https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2015/08/31/why-does-nuscale-smr-look-like-a-1964-drawing-of-swiss-lucens-nuclear-reactor-which-suffered-a-major-meltdown-in-1969/
Whatever NuScale is, or is not, it clearly isn’t “new”. The Bible must have foreseen the nuclear industry when it said that there was no new thing under the sun. While there might be something new about it, certainly its scale is not. And, it seems mostly a remake of old military reactors, perhaps with influence from swimming pool reactors.
The main ancestor seems to be the US Army’s SM-1, made by the American Locomotive Company, making its most distant ancestor the steam locomotive.
Government subsidizes for NuScale are a deadly taxpayer rip rip-off. Even without an accident, nuclear reactors legally leak deadly radionuclides into the environment during the entire nuclear fuel chain, as well as when they are operating. Then, the nuclear waste is also allowed to leak for perpetuity.
The 1964 Lucens Design certainly looks like the one unit NuScale. Did MSLWR, now NuScale, take from Lucens or from an earlier common design ancestor?
NuScale 12 years ago when it was called MASLWR and still an official government project, 2003, INEEL/EXT-04-01626.
This is for single reactors. They want to clump them together.
Is there a common ancestor in either the US nuclear power station in Greenland or Antarctica? Actually, the main “parent” for the underground concept, according to the Swiss documentation, is underground hydroelectric power stations, dating from the 1800s. These caverns have been known to collapse, which, along with the WIPP collapse, points to another risk associated with underground nuclear reactors, besides leakage and corrosion.
being mostly in an underground cavern proved to be a liability rather than an asset for Lucens. The cavern leaked water and contributed to corrosion issues that ultimately led to nuclear meltdown.
Despite its tiny size, tinier than NuScale, it still is classified as a major nuclear accident. Furthermore, the cavern did not keep the nuclear fallout from escaping into the environment. There was 1 Sv (1000 mSv) per hour of
radiation in the cavern. Radiation was measured in the nearby village, and the cavern still leaks radiation. Continue reading
Found – historic film of Aboriginal resistance to uranium mining
Kakadu uranium protest documentary Dirt Cheap unearthed by Northern Territory Library, ABC News By Matt Garrick 18 Sept 19 The rediscovery of an old VHS tape, left forgotten on the shelves of the Northern Territory Library, has unearthed a tense and important piece of Australian history.
Key points:
- The 1980 documentary Dirt Cheap showcased the Mirarr people’s fight against uranium mining
- The Northern Territory Library recently hunted down the only digital copy of the documentary so it could be shown at a film festival
- Filmmaker Ned Lander says the movie created a stir at the time of its release
The rare copy of the nearly 40-year-old documentary Dirt Cheap, which details the early pushback against uranium mining in Kakadu National Park, was practically unwatchable due to its age……..
The film documented the concerns of the Mirarr people during what was a tense period of negotiation in the lead-up to the 1979 Ranger Uranium Mining Agreement.
It also showcased the pressures and broken promises the traditional owners faced. “It was very, very apparent to us that people were not ready to sign the agreement in relation to mining, and this was being done under pressure.
Mirarr resistance inspires protests around nation
Against the push of government and business interests, the Mirarr stood resolute in their bid to protect their land.
“As a child growing up I saw the struggle of my family, including my grandfather — they [had] been struggling,” traditional owner Jimmy Nabanardi-Mudjandi said.
I’m really proud of them, but it’s sad because they’re not here to see what the new future of Jabiru’s gonna be.”
The resistance from the Mirarr had a flow-on effect around the nation.
Banner-waving protesters took to the streets in Melbourne and Sydney in great numbers, scenes which Dirt Cheap captures in vivid detail.
“Mirarr people got major support from around Australia, from around the whole nation,” Mr Nabanardi-Mudjandi said.
Next stage of uranium mining looms
In the decades since the film’s release, uranium has been mined at Kakadu, but the Ranger mine is now expected to wind up in 2021.
Mr Nabanardi-Mudjandi said it was vital the land was protected during its rehabilitation.
“We are watching them, what they’re doing,” he said.
Mr Nabanardi-Mudjandi will be a special guest when Dirt Cheap screens as part of the Darwin International Film Festival at the Northern Territory Library at 5:30pm on Wednesday. Contact Matt Garrick https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-18/northern-territory-film-uranium-protests-unearthed-for-festival/11519914
UN secretary general warns ‘We’re losing the climate race’
‘We’re losing the race’: UN secretary general calls climate change an ’emergency’
António Guterres cites ‘fantastic leadership’ of young activists and is counting on public pressure to compel governments to honor the 2015 Paris Agreement Guardian Mark Hertsgaard, @markhertsgaard 18 Sep 2019 The UN secretary general says that he is counting on public pressure to compel governments to take much stronger action against what he calls the climate change “emergency”.
“Governments always follow public opinion, everywhere in the world, sooner or later,” António Guterres, said on Tuesday in an interview with Covering Climate Now, a global collaboration of more than 250 news outlets, led by Columbia Journalism Review and the Nation, in partnership with the Guardian. Guterres, a former prime minister of Portugal, added: “And so … we need to keep telling the truth to people and be confident that the political system, especially democratic political systems, will in the end deliver.”
Guterres refused to comment on Donald Trump and the Trump administration’s hostility to climate action, but a CBS News poll released on 15 September found that 69% of Americans want the next president to take action, while 53% say such action is needed “right now”. Guterres said that “it would be much better” if the US was “strongly committed to climate action”, just as it would be better if Asian countries [notably, China and Japan] stopped exporting coal plants. Until then, he said, “what I want is to have the whole society putting pressure on governments to understand they need to run faster. Because we are losing the race.”
With five days remaining before the UN climate action summit on 23 September, the secretary general cited the “fantastic leadership” of young activists as a leading example of how civil society can pressure governments to honor the 2015 Paris Agreement to limit temperature rise to “well below” 2C and preferably to 1.5C. Recent election results across Europe – where green parties gained significant public backing – also left Guterres optimistic that at next Monday’s summit the European Union will announce that it promises to be “carbon neutral” by 2050, as the Paris Agreement mandates……… https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/18/un-secretary-general-climate-crisis-trump
Thanks to international co-operation, the ozone layer is headed to complete repair
 The ozone layer is on track to completely repair itself in our lifetime, https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-ozone-layer-is-on-track-to-completely-repair-itself-in-our-lifetime The ozone layer is steadily repairing itself following a drastic global reduction in the use of ozone-depleting substances, the UN’s environmental agency has found.
BY MAANI TRUU, 17 Sept 19, The world’s ozone layer is on track to be completely healed by the 2060s, according to modelling by the UN’s environmental agency (UNEP).
In the past 19-years, parts of the ozone layer have recovered at a rate of one to three per cent every ten years, UNEP has found. If this continues, the Northern Hemisphere’s ozone layer is set to heal completely by the 2030s, the Southern Hemisphere by the 2050s, and the polar regions in the following decade. As we rightly focus our energies on tackling climate change, we must be careful not to neglect the ozone layer and stay alert to the threat posed by the illegal use of ozone-depleting gases,” UN Secretary-General António Guterres said in a statement on Monday. “The recent detection of emissions of one such gas, CFC-11, reminds us that we need continued monitoring and reporting systems, and improved regulations and enforcement.” The ozone layer, made up of three types of oxygen atoms, is located approximately 15 kilometres above the earth and helps to protect the planet from ultraviolet rays that cause skin cancer, crop damage, eye cataracts and other issues. But since the late 1970s, the ozone layer had been consistently thinning due to the overuse of chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons, reaching a crisis point in the 1990s when about 10 per cent of the layer had been eroded. n 1987, UN members signed a treaty – known as the Montreal Protocol – aimed at phasing out ozone-depleting substances and developed replacements. According to the UNEP, the Montreal Protocol has successfully led to the removal of 99 per cent of chlorofluorocarbons, which previously existed in refrigerators, air-conditioners and other consumer products. “The Montreal Protocol is both an inspirational example of how humanity is capable of cooperating to address a global challenge and a key instrument for tackling today’s climate crisis,” Mr Guterres said. “Under this international treaty, nations have worked for 32 years to slash the use of ozone-depleting chemicals, used largely by the cooling industry. As a result, the ozone layer that shields us from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet radiation is healing.” The ozone layer is also instrumental in curbing the effects of climate change, with the barrier stopping approximately 135 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions from entering the atmosphere between 1990 to 2010, UNEP said. Earlier this year, China came under fire for allegedly releasing large quantities of banned chemical Chlorofluorocarbon-11 (CFC-11) into the atmosphere, in violation of the UN treaty. |
|
|
New York City allows students to skip school for climate protest
 More than one million New York students allowed to skip school for climate protest, Public school students in New York are allowed to skip class to join the youth climate strikes.
SBS NEWS, BY ANNE BARNARD 18 Sep 19 When New York City announced that public school students could skip classes without penalties to join the youth climate strikes planned around the world on Friday, you could almost hear a sigh of relief.Before the announcement, the protests, to be held three days ahead of the United Nations Climate Action Summit, had thrown a new complication into the usual back-to-school chaos: With the protests framed as a cry to protect their futures from climate disaster, should students heed the call?
Parents had wondered how to word emails to principals requesting excused absences. Teachers had been wondering how to react. Some students had been vowing to protest no matter what, but others had worried about possible repercussions. Most of all, the decision last week by the nation’s largest school district buoyed national protest organisers, who are hoping that the demonstrations will be the largest on climate in US history, with at least 800 planned across the 50 states. They expressed hope that other districts around the country would follow suit. “Holy smokes, this thing could get HUGE,” Jamie Henn, a founder of the climate action organisation 350.org, said on Twitter after the decision was announced by New York City’s Department of Education……… Demonstrators as young as nine had already turned up to greet the 16-year-old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg when she arrived last month by an emissions-free yacht in New York Harbour. Greta has inspired Friday student protests in at least 100 countries. Larger crowds, mostly of high school students, have demonstrated with her on two recent Fridays at the United Nations……… Some 600 medical professionals across the country have also signed a virtual “doctor’s note” encouraging teachers to excuse students on the grounds that climate change is dangerous to their and others’ health. HTTPS://WWW.SBS.COM.AU/NEWS/MORE-THAN-ONE-MILLION-NEW-YORK-STUDENTS-ALLOWED-TO-SKIP-SCHOOL-FOR-CLIMATE-PROTEST |
|
More faults found in France’s nuclear reactors
10% of French Nuclear Reactors Have Potentially Faulty Parts Installed as Fukushima Fears Persist https://sputniknews.com/europe/201909181076832892-10-of-french-nuclear-reactors-have-potentially-faulty-parts-installed-as-fukushima-fears-persist/
|
by Tim Korso Most European states have taken a course to reduce to zero the use of nuclear plants since the disaster at the Japanese plant Fukushima in 2011 that led to the contamination of nearby land and sea.
Six (around 10% of the total amount) of nuclear reactors in France are using parts that had “manufacturing deviations” Electricite de France (EDF) SA, the country’s biggest power supplier reported. The irregularities were found in 16 steam generators used on nuclear power plants in Blayais, Bugey, Fessenheim, Dampierre-en-Burly, and Paluel. At the same time, EDF stated that the issue is not a pressing one and doesn’t require immediate attention. The report comes in line with an ongoing programme of reactor checks in France following the discovery of carbon-content irregularities in the steel produced by Le Creusot Forge in 2016, which made the metal weaker than usual. The checks led to the temporary suspension of numerous reactors, and a spike in energy prices both in France and in nearby states due to the former’s need to import energy to cover the deficit. Some European states have even announced their intention of completely phasing out the use of nuclear energy, gradually shutting down existing nuclear plants and aborting the construction of newer ones following the 2011 disaster at the Japanese plant Fukushima, which left significant patches of land and sea contaminated. The incident happened after the plant was hit by a powerful tsunami that knocked out its power and left reactors without cooling systems. Three countries, namely Belgium, Switzerland and Germany, are planning to eventually switch to renewable energy sources, while using gas in the transitional period. France, however, despite initially considering such option decided to keep its nuclear industry. Still, Paris opted for a reduction of its portion in the country’s energy generation from over 70% down to 50% by 2035. |
|
Revealed: Josh Frydenberg was behind the strange Environment Department decision to block wind turbines on Lord Howe Island.
 Josh Frydenberg overruled department to block Lord Howe Island wind turbines, FOI documents reveal former environment minister took action despite support from islanders, Guardian, Anne Davies, 18 Sept 19 The former environment minister Josh Frydenberg went against the advice of his departmental experts when he blocked two wind turbines on Lord Howe Island in 2017, consigning the world heritage-listed island to relying on diesel fuel for the bulk of its electricity.A freedom of information request by the Guardian has uncovered that the minister took the unusual action of blocking the project under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, deeming it “unacceptable”…… Projects are rarely ruled “unacceptable” under federal environmental laws but are often approved with modifications or strict conditions. For instance, the Adani coal project’s groundwater plan was approved in 2019 with conditions; the Abbot Point coal terminal was judged not to have unacceptable impacts on the Great Barrier Reef; and the Watermark coal project near Tamworth was waved through in 2015. But two medium-sized wind turbines on Lord Howe Island proved a bridge too far for Frydenberg as environment minister. Now the Guardian can reveal that his decision was taken despite the advice of his own department, strong support from the majority of residents on Lord Howe Island, the governing board of the island, and even another federal government agency – the Australian Renewable Energy Agency – which had offered $4.6m in funding towards the renewable energy project. The department’s natural heritage section 23 November 2016 advice was that “the proposed action is unlikely to significantly impact the Island Group’s world heritage values” and that moving the island away from reliance on weekly deliveries of diesel would help secure its Unesco world heritage status……… The case raises questions about political influence in environmental decision making. “Former environment minister Josh Frydenberg’s rejection of the Lord Howe Island windfarm is inconsistent with many other environmental approvals where there was strong departmental advice about unavoidable risks to internationally protected places and wildlife,” Basha Stasak, the Australian Conservation Foundation’s nature campaign manager, said.
“For example, Frydenberg ignored clear departmental advice urging a rejection of the Toondah Harbour property development because it would destroy part of an internationally protected wetland. “These inconsistencies go to the heart of the environmental law reform Australia needs. We need strong laws and decisions made under them by an independent national Environment Protection Authority,” she said…….. Lord Howe Island resident Craig Thompson – “Sustainable clean energy for a world heritage site like Lord Howe should be mandatory. We should be setting an example to the whole world, not being held back by a minister’s political ideology or personal opinion.” …….. Lord Howe Island is now exploring what can be done with solar and batteries to meet the island’s needs. New South Wales spends $750,000 a year on shipping diesel to the island to provide power for its 350 residents. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/sep/18/josh-frydenberg-overruled-department-to-block-lord-howe-island-wind-turbines |
|
Resources Minister Matthew Canavan blasts ‘hypocritical, self-indulgent activists’ holding back mining sector
Matthew Canavan blasts ‘hypocritical, self-indulgent activists’ holding back mining sector
THE AUSTRALIAN 18 Sept 19, Resources Minister Matthew Canavan has blasted the actions of “hypocritical, self-indulgent activists” holding back the mining sector as he opened Australia’s first coal mine in nearly five years…. (subscribers only)
Zero-carbon Energy for Asia-Pacific project – a bold plan to make Australia a Pacific energy hub
A radical shift towards renewable energy has the potential to reshape the Australian economy and create exports worth hundreds of billions of dollars, according to the head of a major research project to be announced on Thursday.
UN bars coal nations from climate stage. (especially Australia)
THE AUSTRALIAN 18 Sept 19, Australia has been barred from speaking at a UN climate summit in New York next week….. (subscribers only)
Climate change already damaging Australia’s ecosystems
|
Australia’s ecosystems ‘already suffering from climate change’ https://www.sbs.com.au/news/australia-s-ecosystems-already-suffering-from-climate-change 18 Sept 19, Warming temperatures are threatening Australian wildlife with the iconic Kakadu National Park also in danger of rising sea levels, a report has found.Australian wildlife is under threat and forests that don’t normally burn are being devastated by fire, with ecosystems already suffering from climate change, a new report suggests.
The Climate Council report found sensitive vegetation that’s never been subject to fires before is burning, ringtail possums and flying foxes are dying from heatwaves and river catchments are losing mangroves due to underwater heatwaves. “In Queensland we are seeing bushfires burning into rainforests that have basically never had bushfires before,” report author Lesley Hughes told AAP. Professor Hughes warned that climate change is not a future problem but a problem that needs to be addressed now.
“What we are seeing is devastating impacts that have occurred with about one degree of warming,” she said. “It’s not just rising average temperatures, just having one or two really hot days can wipe out a whole species.”
The council found sea levels in northern Australia are rising about twice the global average, which is threatening wetlands in the Northern Territory’s iconic Kakadu National Park. Rising temperatures are also threatening the endangered Carnaby’s black cockatoo, which is found in southwestern Australia, because it is very susceptible to heat stress.
The warming weather also puts at risk green turtles, with the report finding 99 per cent of the animals hatching in the northern Great Barrier Reef are female. “When the temperature is over 29C green turtles will hatch into females … the future impacts on the population are devastating,” Prof Hughes said. The council called on the federal government to take a bolder approach to conservation to ensure Australia’s ecosystems are resilient to the increasing extreme weather experienced across the nation.
“Australia has long been regarded as one of the most vulnerable developed countries to the impacts of climate change,” Prof Hughes said. “The government is frankly not dealing with the situation at all.”
The council criticised Australia’s conservation record, with the nation having one of the highest rates of species extinctions. “Australia is home to more than a million species of plants and animals yet our track record on conservation is woeful; climate change is making it even harder to protect them,” chief councillor Tim Flannery said in a statement.
|
|
Hot, dry summer to increase Vic bushfire risk
Herald Sun, 18 Sep 19 The state’s emergency services are urging Victorians to “be prepared” for an increased risk of bushfires ahead of predicted warm temperatures and lack of rain….. (Subscribers only)
Antinuclear 