Australian news, and some related international items

Australian Law on radioactive waste to be changed in order to prevent any judicial review!

Declaration and Legislation of Selected Site
At the time the Minister announced that the Napandee site had been identified, we were surprised and
confused that this decision was not declared as per the requirements of the Act. It is now clear that the reason
for this is the Ministers decision to amend the Act to specify the selected site. This is extremely concerning to us,
as it is our understanding that the decision to directly legislate the selected site will effectively remove the
opportunity for any judicial review of the site selection, and there appears to be no other justification to do so.
(as reported at the Kimba Consultative Committee meeting 23rd February 2020) is that 2789
submissions were received in total, and that, in total, 94.5 of these opposed the siting of the facility in Kimba.
These appear to have been all but ignored in the Minister, in favour of multiple survey results from the same
focus group living or operating businesses based within the District Council.
The No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA Committee submission to Senate Committee onNational Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 80  
The No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA Committee was established in 2016 to represent
the members of the Kimba, Eyre Peninsula and SA community who are opposed to the siting of the National
Radioactive Waste Management Facility on Farming land in South Australia.
As both a committee and individuals we have been heavily involved in the 5 year process the Federal
Government has undertaken to site the National Radioactive Waste Facility in Kimba and we would like to thank
the Committee for their time and efforts in undertaking this inquiry.
As the Senate Committee would be well aware, the process which led to this point has been long and arduous,
particularly for those who do not support the siting of the facility in the Kimba district. We have had no goal or
prize in sight, only the onerous task of proving our opposition.
The proposal has caused, and continues to cause, significant division within our community, which has been
fuelled by the actions of the Department in their quest to establish support for the facility. There are many
examples of how this is process has been unfair and wrong, and we appreciate the opportunity to put forward
some important facts from our perspective.
The finding by former Minister Matthew Canavan that broad community consent for this facility exists in Kimba,
a basis on which this Bill rests, is tenuous at best. The path that the Federal Government took to making this
finding has been a long road of propaganda, manipulation and promises, and is now completely lacking
justification at its conclusion for the decision made.

Continue reading

May 21, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Small Modular Nuclear Reactors included in Morrison govt’s energy plan?

New nuclear technologies to be examined in planning Australia’s energy mix, The government is looking at incorporating ‘emerging nuclear

Small modular reactors ‘have potential’, investment roadmap discussion paper says, Guardian, Katharine Murphy Political editor @murpharoo, Thu 21 May 2020 

The Morrison government has flagged examining “emerging nuclear technologies” as part of Australia’s energy mix in the future in a new discussion paper kicking off the process of developing its much-vaunted technology investment roadmap.

Facing sustained pressure to adopt a 2050 target of net zero emissions, pressure it is continuing to resist, the government plans instead to develop the roadmap as the cornerstone of the Coalition’s mid-century emissions reduction strategy.

The new framework will identify the government’s investment priorities in emissions-reducing technologies for 2022, 2030 and 2050, although the paper makes clear the government will only countenance “incentivising voluntary emissions reductions on a broad scale” – not schemes that penalise polluters.

The discussion paper to be released on Thursday floats a range of potential technologies for future deployment, including small modular nuclear reactors. It says emerging nuclear technologies “have potential but require R&D and identified deployment pathways”.

While clearly flagging that prospect, the paper also notes that engineering, cost and environmental challenges, “alongside social acceptability of nuclear power in Australia, will be key determinants of any future As well as championing the prospects for hydrogen, the paper also flags the importance of negative emission technologies, including carbon capture and storage, as well as soil carbon and tree planting.

This week the government has signalled its intention to use the existing $2.5bn emissions reduction fund to support CCS projects – a move championed by Australia’s oil and gas industries. The new paper says the geo-sequestration of carbon dioxide “represents a significant opportunity for abatement in export gas” – nominating the Gorgon project as a case in point. Growth in emissions in Australia is largely driven by fugitive emissions from the booming LNG export sector.

The paper does acknowledge that solar and wind – renewable technologies – are now “projected to be cheaper than new thermal generation over all time horizons to 2050”. But it adds a caveat, contending that “the cost of firming is still a major issue, and will require much more work”…….

May 21, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics, technology | Leave a comment

Minerals Council of Australia keen to keep Australia’s environmental law the same, (or make it even worse)

Be worried when fossil fuel lobbyists support current environmental laws  Chris McGrath,Associate Professor in Environmental and Planning Regulation and Policy, The University of Queensland

May 19, 2020  The fossil fuel lobby, led by the Minerals Council of Australia, seem pretty happy with the current system of environment laws. In a submission to a review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act, it “broadly” supports the existing laws and does not want them replaced.True, the group says the laws impose unnecessary burdens on industry that hinder post-pandemic economic recovery. It wants delays and duplication in environmental regulation reduced to provide consistency and certainty.

But for the fossil fuel industry to broadly back the current regime of environmental protection is remarkable. It suggests deep problems with the current laws, which have allowed decision-making driven by politics, rather than independent science.

So let’s look at the resources industry’s stance on environment laws, and what it tells us.

Cut duplication

The Minerals Council’s submission calls for “eliminating or reducing duplication” of federal and state laws.

The fossil fuel lobby has long railed against environmental law – the EPBC Act in particular – disparaging it as “green tape” that it claims slows projects unnecessarily and costs the industry money.

On this, the federal government and the mining industry are singing from the same songbook. Announcing the review of the laws last year, the government flagged changes that it claimed would speed up approvals and reduce costs to industry.

Previous governments have tried to reduce duplication of environmental laws. In 2013 the Abbott government proposed a “one-stop shop” in which it claimed projects would be considered under a single environmental assessment and approval process, rather than scrutinised separately by state and federal authorities.

That proposal hit many political and other hurdles and was never enacted. But it appears to remain on the federal government’s policy agenda.

It’s true the federal EPBC Act often duplicates state approvals for mining and other activities. But it still provides a safety net that in theory allows the federal government to stop damaging projects approved by state governments. 

The Commonwealth rarely uses this power, but has done so in the past. In the most famous example, the Labor party led by Bob Hawke won the federal election in 1983 and stopped the Tasmanian Liberal government led by Robin Gray building a major hydroelectric dam on the Gordon River below its junction with the Franklin River.

The High Court’s decision in that dispute laid the foundation for the EPBC Act, which was enacted in 1999.

In 2009 Peter Garrett, Labor’s then-federal environment minister, refused the Queensland Labor government’s proposed Traveston Crossing Dam on the Mary River under the EPBC Act due to an unacceptable impact on threatened species.

The Conversation put these arguments to the Minerals Council of Australia, and CEO Tania Constable said:

The MCA’s submission states that Australia’s world-leading minerals sector is committed to the protection of our unique environment, including upholding leading practice environmental protection based on sound science and robust risk-based approaches.

Reforms to the operation of the EPBC Act are needed to address unnecessary duplication and complexity, providing greater certainty for businesses and the community while achieving sound environmental outcomes.

But don’t change the current system much

Generally, the Minerals Council and other resources groups aren’t lobbying for the current system to be changed too much.

The groups support the federal environment minister retaining the role of decision maker under the law. This isn’t surprising, given a succession of ministers has, for the past 20 years, given almost unwavering approval to resource projects.

For example, in 2019 the then-minister Melissa Price approved the Adani coal mine’s groundwater management plan, despite major shortcomings and gaps in knowledge and data about its impacts.

Independent scientific advice against the mine over the last ten years was sidelined in the minister’s final decision.

Countless more examples demonstrate how the current system works in the favour of mining interests – even when the industry itself claims otherwise.

The Minerals Council submission refers to an unnamed “Queensland open-cut coal expansion project” to argue against excessive duplication of federal and state processes around water use.

I believe this is a reference to the New Acland Coal Mine Stage 3 expansion project. I have acted since 2016 as a barrister for a local landholder group in litigation against that project.

When approached by The Conversation, the Minerals Council did not confirm it was referring to the New Acland project. Tania Constable said:

The case studies were submitted from a range of companies, and are representative of the regulatory inefficiency and uncertainty which deters investment and increases costs while greatly limiting job opportunities and economic benefits for regional communities from mining.

The New Acland mine expansion is on prime agricultural land on the Darling Downs, Queensland’s southern food bowl. Nearby farmers strongly opposed the project over fears of damage to groundwater, the creation of noise and dust, and climate change impacts.

But the Minerals Council fails to mention that since 2016, the mine has been building a massive new pit covering 150 hectares.

When mining of this pit began, the mine’s expansion was still being assessed under state and federal laws. Half of the pit was subsequently approved under the EPBC Act in 2017.

But the Queensland environment department never stopped the work, despite the Land Court of Queensland in 2018 alerting it to the powers it had to act.

Based on my own research using satellite imagery and comparing the publicly available application documents, mining of West Pit started while Stage 3 of the mine was still being assessed under the EPBC Act. And after approval was given, mining was conducted outside the approved footprint.

Despite these apparent breaches, the federal environment department has taken no enforcement action.

The Conversation contacted New Hope Group, the company that owns New Acland mine, for comment, and they refuted this assertion. Chief Operating Officer Andrew Boyd said:

New Hope Group strongly deny any allegations that New Hope Coal has in any way acted unlawfully.

New Acland Coal had and still has all necessary approvals relating to the development of the pit Dr McGrath refers to. It is also not correct to say that the Land Court alerted the Department of its powers to act with regards to this pit.

The Department is obviously aware of its enforcement powers and was aware of the development of the pit well before 2018. Further, the Land Court in 2018 rejected Dr McGrath’s arguments and accepted New Acland Coal’s position that any issues relating to the lawfulness of the pit were not within the jurisdiction of the Land Court on the rehearing in 2018.

Accordingly, the lawfulness of the pit was irrelevant to the 2018 Land Court hearing.

Dr McGrath also fails to mention that his client had originally accepted in the original Land Court hearing (2015-2017) that the development of the pit was lawful only to completely change its position in the 2018.

State and federal environmental laws work in favour of the fossil fuel industry in other ways. “Regulatory capture” occurs when government regulators essentially stop enforcing the law against industries they are supposed to regulate.

This can occur for many reasons, including agency survival and to avoid confrontation with powerful political groups such as farmers or the mining sector.

In one apparent example of this, the federal environment department decided in 2019 not to recommend two critically endangered Murray-Darling wetlands for protection under the EPBC Act because the minister was unlikely to support the listings following a campaign against them by the National Irrigators Council.

Holes in our green safety net

Recent ecological disasters are proof our laws are failing us catastrophically. And they make the mining industry’s calls to speed-up project approvals particularly audacious.

We need look only to repeated, mass coral bleaching as the Great Barrier Reef collapses in front of us, or a catastrophic summer of bushfires.

Read more: Environment laws have failed to tackle the extinction emergency. Here’s the proof

Both tragedies are driven by climate change, caused by burning fossil fuels. It’s clear Australia should be looking to fix the glaring holes in our green safety net, not widen them.

May 21, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, environment, politics | Leave a comment

National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (BRWMF) under scrutiny – fact checking

Kazzi Jai shared a link. No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia  May 19

Posted yesterday 18/05/2020 at 11.40 on the NRWMF”s FB page.

“Did you know? ANSTO only manages about 45% of the low level radioactive waste in Australia. Australia’s radioactive waste is stored in over 100 locations such as science facilities, hospitals and universities. The NRWMF will enable Australia’s radioactive waste to be consolidated into a single, purpose-built facility.”

No references, no figures – NADA for this assertion!

Sooooooo….who IS being “economical” with the truth …when you have this statement, which was quoted from a hardcopy report by the DIIS published April 2018? ……..“States and territories are responsible for managing a range of radioactive waste holdings, accounting for about one per cent of total radioactive waste holdings in Australia.”??????????????????? (Page 7 in link below)
And there is a nifty little table WHICH SPELLS OUT EXACTLY HOW MUCH LOW AND INTERMEDIATE LEVEL WASTE IS FOUND AROUND AUSTRALIA INCLUDING ANSTO! (Page 4 for those interested in the link below!)

Do not have ANY idea how NRWMF got 45% even from the table given by DIIS in the hardcopy report!

Another case of “1 in 2” ACCORDING TO ANSTO becoming suddenly “2 in 3” ACCORDING TO NRWMF ????


Tim Bickmore I have been trying for years to get DIIS to provide a] locations of the so-called ‘100+ sites’, & b] inventories of those sites. Nada.. The NRWMF 45% is derived by volume (cubic metres) NOT radioactivity; & includes 10,000 barrels held by CSIRO at Woomera.

Two places, Lucas Heights + Woomera, = 90%+ of Commonwealth holdings PLUS Dept of Defence has maybe another 3%… so 3 of the ‘100+ sites’ have 93+% of the proposed volume.

PS the NRWMF has blocked me from posting scientific facts & commentary on their FB page….

Kazzi Jai Take Woomera out of it…and still over 90% by ANSTO!

If you want I can pm you the original details of Fisherman’s Bend AND St Mary’s waste ….and in that document it clearly states that only 200 of the 9726 drums from Fisherman’s Bend were radioactive as deemed by the Road Transport Act. But because of public concern – in Melbourne, Victoria and the wider Australian community – it was ALL classified as Radioactive! THAT is why..surprise, surprise…after the “temporary” two/three year storage promise which became 25 years, it is “suddenly” found that a LOT of the drums are not radioactive! That’s because they never were!! But they do contain asbestos…
The Mt Mary Defense Base is different….but is only 10 cubic metres in volume

Kazzi Jai And blocking you from commenting on the NRWMF page….now there’s a BIG RED FLAG THERE!
So they better not claim that they have been OPEN AND TRANSPARENT in this process….because clearly they haven’t been!

May 21, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Rose Costelloe submission – Kimba traditional Aboriginal area not suitable for nuclear waste dump

due diligence means our government and you as our elected representatives of different communities, including Aboriginal communities, that exist here and which elected you to your positions, need to carefully consider the least possible risk in creating a nuclear waste dump within Australia.

Rose Costelloe National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 78   I am writing to vigorously oppose the creation of a nuclear waste dump at the site you are considering in South Australia.

My first reason for opposing it is that the plan is to situate the dump on land traditionally owned by the
Barngala Aboriginal people who also oppose this plan.

I would say here, if you are serious about creating a nuclear waste dump in our country, you must plan to situate
it in the middle of one of the largest cities in Australia: Melbourne or Sydney. In that way you will ensure that
the utmost safety precautions are implemented at the outset. They will be then be closely monitored and
maintained with all due diligence forever.

It is very clear to me that we are fallible human beings – and I am one of them. We are not very good at caring
for dangerous substances in our midst or at anticipating what lies ahead of what appear to be clever plans made
without consideration of future risks. The demise of the Fukushima nuclear power plant in the face of a tsunami
is the most spectacular of these recent failings. Five Mile Island and Chernobyl are dreadful catastrophes
involving nuclear material from the not too distant past.

I will not dwell here on the life expectancy of nuclear matter including waste. There are more eloquent and
learned submissions covering these hard cold facts Continue reading

May 21, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Coronavirus is a ‘sliding doors’ moment. What we do now could change Earth’s trajectory

Coronavirus is a ‘sliding doors’ moment. What we do now could change Earth’s trajectory  The Conversation, 20 May, 20 
  1. Pep Canadell Chief research scientist, CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere; and Executive Director, Global Carbon Project, CSIRO
  2. Corinne Le Quéré Royal Society Research Professor, University of East Anglia
  3. Felix Creutzig Chair Sustainability Economics of Human Settlements, Mercator Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change
  4. Glen Peters Research Director, Center for International Climate and Environment Research – Oslo
  5. Matthew William Jones Senior Research Associate, University of East Anglia
  6. Pierre Friedlingstein Chair, Mathematical Modelling of Climate, University of Exeter
  7. Rob Jackson Chair, Department of Earth System Science, and Chair of the Global Carbon Project,, Stanford University
  8. Yuli Shan Research Fellow, University of Groningen

“………. Mandatory social distancing under COVID-19 is disrupting the way we live and work, creating new lifestyle patterns. But once the crisis is over, will – and should – the picture return to normal?

That’s one of many key questions emerging as the precise effect of the pandemic on carbon emissions becomes clear.

Our research published today in Nature Climate Change shows how COVID-19 has affected global emissions in six economic sectors. We discovered a significant decline in daily global emissions – most markedly, on April 7.

The analysis is useful as we consider the deep structural change needed to shift the global economy to zero emissions.

Crunching the numbers

At the end of each year we publish the Global Carbon Budget – a report card on global and regional carbon trends. But the unusual circumstances this year prompted us to run a preliminary analysis.

We calculated how the pandemic influenced daily carbon dioxide emissions in 69 countries covering 97% of global emissions and six economic sectors.

It required collecting new, highly detailed data in different ways, and from diverse sources…….

The pandemic’s peak

In early April, the reduction in global activity peaked. On April 7, global emissions were 17% lower than an equivalent day in 2019……..

In Australia, our widespread, high-level confinement triggered an estimated fall in peak daily emissions of 28% – two-thirds larger than the global estimate of 17%…..

The 2020 outlook

We assessed how the pandemic will affect carbon dioxide emissions over the rest of 2020. Obviously, this will depend on how strong the restrictions are in coming months, and how long they last.

If widespread global confinement ends in mid June, we estimate overall carbon emissions in 2020 will fall about 4% compared to 2019. If less severe restrictions remain in place for the rest of the year, the reduction would be about 7%.

If we consider the various pandemic scenarios and uncertainties in the data, the full range of emissions decline is 2% to 13%.

Now for the important context. Under the Paris climate agreement and according to the United Nations Gap report, global emissions must fall by between 3% and 7% each year between now and 2030 to limit climate change well below 2℃ and 1.5℃, respectively.

Under our projected emissions drop, the world could meet this target in 2020 – albeit for the wrong reasons.

Stabilising the global climate system will require extraordinary changes to our energy and economic systems, comparable to the disruption brought by COVID-19.

A fork in the road

So how could we make this byproduct of the crisis – the emissions decline in 2020 – a turning point?

A slow economic recovery might lower emissions for a few years. But if previous global economic crises are any indication, emissions will bounce back from previous lows.

But it need not be this way. The recent forced disruption offers an opportunity to change the structures underpinning our energy and economic systems. This could set us on the path to decarbonising the global economy………

We can rapidly return to the old “normal”, and the emissions pathway will follow suit. But if we choose otherwise, 2020 could be the unsolicited jolt that turns the global emissions trend around.

May 21, 2020 Posted by | General News | Leave a comment

Regina McKenzie comments on Felicity Wright’s submission about the National Radioactive WAste Dump

May 21, 2020 Posted by | aboriginal issues, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, personal stories | Leave a comment

Leaked plan for huge gas subsidies  

Leaked plan for huge gas subsidies    Max Opray  A leaked draft report for the National Covid-19 Coordination Commission details plans for a taxpayer-supported investment into new gas fields and pipelines that would operate for decades.
It recommends helping companies develop the Northern Territory’s Beetaloo Basin and a $6 billion pipeline to connect Western Australian gas markets to the eastern states, according to Guardian Australia. The report was drafted by a manufacturing taskforce headed by the Dow Chemical executive Andrew Liveris, for a federal government-appointed commission dominated by fossil fuel executives.
Other recommendations include that states subsidise gas-fired power plants to support a manufacturing sector that it says could support at least 85,000 direct jobs. The report does not mention climate change or the financial risk of investing in stranded fossil fuel assets. It comes as the Morrison Government unveils its “technology investment roadmap”, with Energy Minister Angus Taylor claiming gas would play an important part in “balancing” renewable energy sources.

May 21, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming, politics | Leave a comment

Over 100 public interest organisations call on Canadian govt to halt decision on nuclear waste disposal

Groups ask Ottawa to press ‘pause’ on nuclear  waste disposal   ‘There’s no rules’ for evaluating an underground storage site, spokesperson says.   By: Gary Rinne  OTTAWA — More than 100 public interest organizations, environmental groups and others are calling on the federal government to suspend all decision-making regarding radioactive nuclear waste disposal.

In a letter to Natural Resources Minister Seamus O’Regan, they describe Canada’s current nuclear waste policy as “deficient,” saying it must be improved in consultation with the public and Indigenous peoples.

Among the signatories are numerous groups in northern Ontario, including Thunder Bay-based Environment North and Keep Nuclear Waste Out of Northwestern Ontario.

The letter follows a February report from the International Atomic Energy Agency which recommended that the government “enhance” its existing radioactive waste management policy.

The IAEA said the policy framework “does not encompass all the needed policy elements nor a detailed strategy” required for long-term nuclear waste management.

The signatories say their request is urgent because the regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, is pressing ahead with licensing decisions on a number of radioactive waste projects.

“Fearing Canada’s deficient radioactive waste framework will imprint itself on decisions affecting the health and safety of future generations and the environment, signees urged Canada to provide leadership, and establish sufficient guidance and federal policy,” they said in a statement Tuesday.

The groups also want Ottawa to establish objectives and principles to underly a nuclear waste policy, and that the government identify “the problems and issues exposed by existing and accumulating radioactive waste.”

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization is currently studying potential future underground nuclear waste storage sites in the Ignace area and South Bruce in southern Ontario.

Brennan Lloyd of North Bay-based Northwatch said NWMO’s search for a future repository is “part and parcel” of concerns about Canada’s overall approach to managing radioactive waste issues.

Nuclear waste disposal isn’t the only pressing matter, Lloyd said, but “we have lots of concerns about the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, their operation…going back to 2002 when the Nuclear Waste Fuels Act allowed the industry to create the NWMO.”

She added that “the lack of a solid set of rules around radioactive waste, we believe, does affect how the NWMO has conducted itself, but even more importantly it may affect the review process if the NWMO ever actually arrives at a site that they can in some way present as having the support of a host community.”

According to Lloyd, there are no rules as to how such a proposal would be evaluated.

She said that in 1996, the federal government presented a Radioactive Waste Policy Framework that’s less than a page long, and it’s problematic that “almost 25 years later, that’s still all we have in the way of real policy, strategy, rules around radioactive waste at the national level.”

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission staff have recently proposed regulatory documents, Lloyd said, “which are really very general descriptions of how they might go about issuing a licence for various activities. And they really lack rigour.”

She said two of the five regulatory documents the CNSC plans to bring forward next month deal directly with nuclear waste burial.

“One is around how you would assess the long-term performance of a deep geological repository, and one is about how you would characterize a site that was being considered. And both of them are just incredibly weak documents,” Lloyd maintained.

“The dividing line is between ‘shall’ and ‘should.’ The CNSC documents are all ‘should’ or ‘may.’ Which means there’s no rules.”

Lloyd and the other signatories to the letter ask Minister O’Regan to instruct the CNSC to stop developing radioactive waste management and nuclear decommissioning documents until new, overarching policies and strategies are in place.

May 21, 2020 Posted by | General News | Leave a comment

Australia’s transcontinental gas pipe dream: It simply doesn’t add up — RenewEconomy


Gas industry people have been saying gas is the transition fuel for at least 30 years. It’s never been true in all that time, and it’s not true now. The post Australia’s transcontinental gas pipe dream: It simply doesn’t add up appeared first on RenewEconomy.

via Australia’s transcontinental gas pipe dream: It simply doesn’t add up — RenewEconomy

May 21, 2020 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

May 20 Energy News — geoharvey


Opinion: ¶ “Ohio’s Governor Listened To The Science On Coronavirus. Why Not Climate Change?” • Ohio’s Republican Governor, Mike DeWine, listened to science on the coronavirus. His response is supported by 84% of his Republican constituents and 90% of Democrats. His performance on the environment and climate change, however, has been less consistent. [Grist] ¶ […]

via May 20 Energy News — geoharvey

May 21, 2020 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Germany leads globally in energy security levels, thanks to renewables – study — RenewEconomy


Germany boasts the highest energy security level in the world, due in large part to the wide spread use of renewable energy sources in the country. The post Germany leads globally in energy security levels, thanks to renewables – study appeared first on RenewEconomy.

via Germany leads globally in energy security levels, thanks to renewables – study — RenewEconomy

May 21, 2020 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Wind and solar hit record grid levels in Europe as pandemic curbs energy demand — RenewEconomy


Significant falls in electricity demand during Covid-19 lockdowns has led to record shares of variable renewable energy – wind and solar – in some European countries. The post Wind and solar hit record grid levels in Europe as pandemic curbs energy demand appeared first on RenewEconomy.

via Wind and solar hit record grid levels in Europe as pandemic curbs energy demand — RenewEconomy

May 21, 2020 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Coalition’s ‘grey’ baseline and credit scheme could pay companies to increase emissions — RenewEconomy


The proposed mechanism could result in the perverse outcome of paying high emitting businesses to invest in projects which increase absolute emissions. The post Coalition’s ‘grey’ baseline and credit scheme could pay companies to increase emissions appeared first on RenewEconomy.

via Coalition’s ‘grey’ baseline and credit scheme could pay companies to increase emissions — RenewEconomy

May 21, 2020 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Michael Moore’s electric vehicle myths only benefit the fossil fuel industry — RenewEconomy

Michael Moore’s ‘Planet of the Humans’ isn’t just wrong. It’s actively denying a range of quality-of-life improvements. The post Michael Moore’s electric vehicle myths only benefit the fossil fuel industry appeared first on RenewEconomy.

via Michael Moore’s electric vehicle myths only benefit the fossil fuel industry — RenewEconomy

May 21, 2020 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment