Greenhouse gas emissions of Australian States; – Queensland’s the worst
Queensland remains Australia’s biggest greenhouse gas emitter, Brisbane Times, Tony Moore, 12 July 17
Queensland is still Australia’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gasses, according to the latest research released by the federal government.
Those emissions come mainly from coal and gas burned for electricity generation, transport and from land clearing, according to the annual National Greenhouse Accounts. The information, released in May, shows Queensland contributes 28.3 per cent of Australia’s national greenhouse emissions.
Queensland’s carbon emissions increased 0.8 per cent between 2014 and 2015 to 152.1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gas emissions.
On Tuesday, the Queensland government announced two plans to reduce carbon emissions by 30 per cent by 2030 and to a “net zero” by 2050 compared with 2005 levels.
Australia’s carbon emitters
- Queensland – 28.3 per cent of the nation’s emissions (up 0.8 per cent).
- New South Wales – 24.8 per cent (down 11.6 per cent).
- Victoria – 22.3 per cent (up 2 two per cent).
- Western Australia – 16.1 per cent (up 30.5 per cent).
- South Australia – 5.6 per cent (down 2 per cent).
- Northern Territory – 2.4 per cent (down 24.7 per cent).
- Australian Capital Territory – 0.3 per cent (up 11.2 per cent).
- Tasmania – 0.2 per cent (down 95.4 per cent).
- External territories – 0.01 per cent (up by 151 per cent). Australia’s external territories include Norfolk Island, Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Heard and McDonald Islands and the Coral Sea Islands…….
The statistics show the biggest contributor to Queensland’s 152 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions in 2015 came from stationary energy sources, including electricity generation and manufacturing. Land use changes came a far third.
Overall in Queensland, the greenhouse gas figures showed 55 million tones of greenhouse gas emissions (26.1 per cent) came from energy industries………..http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/queensland-remains-australias-biggest-greenhouse-gas-emitter-20170711-gx951t.html
Peter Martin on the role of gas in causing Australia’s high electricity prices
It’s not the wind, it’s the gas. Why power prices are going berserk http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/comment/it-not-the-wind-its-the-gas-why-power-prices-are-going-berserk-20170712-gx9lxe.html, Peter Martin, 12 July 17
Prepare for a shock. On July 1 electricity prices jumped 15 to 20 per cent in NSW, 16 to 20 per cent in South Australia, 19 per cent in the Australian Capital Territory and 11 per cent in Western Australia.
All this, three years to the day since the Coalition axed the carbon tax.
Victoria gets six months’ grace, with increases of about the same size due in January.
And those are just the retail prices. Wholesale prices and those charged to businesses that buy directly are up an extraordinary 60 to 70 per cent. It’s renewables that are doing it, along with the closure of Victoria’s giant Hazelwood coal-fired power generator, according to Tony Abbott.
The truth is simpler, and speaks volumes about the appalling way we’ve handled energy planning.
In his latest emissions audit prepared for the Australia Institute, the Australian National University’s Hugh Saddler graphs the South Australian wholesale price since 1999 alongside the share of its electricity output produced by wind. There’s no relationship. As the share of wind has climbed to 45 per cent, the wholesale electricity price has moved both up and down in real terms, and even now is slightly below the peak reached in the days when wind powered just 5 per cent of the state.
His second graph shows an ultra-clear relationship. The electricity price has moved up and down in tandem with the gas price, almost exactly.
“The correlation is striking,” Saddler says. “It confirms that higher wholesale electricity prices, and hence higher retail prices, are almost entirely caused by higher gas prices.”
“A similar, though less stark effect is seen in the other mainland eastern states – this is not a malfunction of the National Electricity Market, but precisely how it was expected to operate.”
Gas is the swing fuel. Although it doesn’t supply a particularly large portion of Australia’s electricity, it usually provides the last bit when nothing else is available, and at those moments it determines the price.
Things were set up that way because back in the 1980s and 1990s electricity suppliers around the world realised they would need to transition to low-emission fuels. They wouldn’t go straight away to zero emissions because that would be expensive and low emissions weren’t yet required by law. Instead they met the future halfway, knowing that if instead of building new coal-fired power stations they built new gas-fired ones, they would be better able to deal with the carbon price or carbon rules when they came.
It helped that gas was ridiculously cheap.
But then at about the same time they moved towards a carbon tax, the Rudd and Gillard governments approved massive gas export terminals in Queensland with the ability to suck up gas from as far afield as Bass Strait and ship it to Japan.
For a while, gas prices actually fell as production ramped up in anticipation of the export deals, but couldn’t leave the country. Then, when the terminals were complete and exports began, prices went berserk. Whereas once it had cost gas-fired power stations very little to come in as the swing supplier, suddenly it cost them and their customers big-time.
And there are few other swing suppliers. Coal-fired plants usually can’t do it. They are either on or off, and they take a long time to turn on. Wind can’t do it. The blades are either turning or they’re not. Same with the sun. Only hydro-electricity is as good as gas at rapidly responding to peaks (better, actually) but when the water that turns the turbines is used up, it can’t turn them again until it rains.
Elon Musk and the South Australian government have begun to find a way out. The 100-megawatt battery farm the Tesla chief has promised South Australia (the biggest in the world) will indeed be tiny compared to South Australia’s needs, as Josh Frydenberg, Barnaby Joyce and all manner of Coalition MPs have been quick to point out. But, as the central role of gas has made clear, you don’t need to produce the bulk of the power in order to determine the price for power. What’s needed is to be able to provide the last bit, very quickly, when all alternatives have been exhausted. Far from creating the problem of high prices, South Australia may be able to help solve it.
And it’ll do something else. Its lights went out on September 28 when its gas and wind generators shut down during a storm. Most of them stayed off even after the storm was over because, just like gas cooktops, they can’t be started without electricity. Musk and South Australia are about to gift us a battery.
Shortcomings of the Finkel Energy Review
Finkel: Let’s not be railroaded into a bad deal on clean energy http://reneweconomy.com.au/finkel-lets-not-be-railroaded-into-a-bad-deal-on-clean-energy-77145/, By John Grimes on 13 July 2017 The last decade of climate wars has ground everyone down. People, understandably, want to see a resolution. They want to see a consensus on climate and energy policy and they have looked to the Finkel Review to provide that consensus.
Some have even gone so far as to say that a bad deal is better than no deal at all.
But a bad deal IS a bad deal and neither industry nor the community should put up with a climate change or energy agreement that locks in poor climate change and energy outcomes.
A false consensus has emerged over the Finkel Review and it is important to point out the significant weaknesses with this approach.
It is particularly important that State and Federal Energy Ministers, meeting tomorrow, do not lock in poor climate change and energy outcomes and continue to push for energy market reform.
The Australian Solar Council and Energy Storage Council, as peak national bodies for the solar and energy storage industries, strongly supported the Finkel Review as an independent exercise and we appreciated and applauded the consultation process undertaken by the Review.
The preliminary Finkel Review report stated “we have a once in a generation opportunity to reform the national electricity market” and we agreed.
We expected a blueprint for energy market reform, but the final Finkel Review report fell well short of that mark.
Instead of a blueprint, the Finkel Review delivered a set of piecemeal recommendations that do not represent a design for a 21st century electricity market or pathways to the necessary transformation of our electricity system.
The Finkel Review has five major shortcomings:
- Ignoring the evidence demonstrating the need for major cuts in greenhouse emissions from the electricity sector to meet current and future international greenhouse gas emission targets;
- Underestimating the transformation that is occurring and accelerating in the electricity sector and downplays the likely uptake of household batteries and smart energy systems and fails to recognise the capacity to integrate these systems by a transition to a distributed energy storage system, as envisaged by the CSIRO-ENA Energy Transformation Roadmap;
- Seeking to impose unfair obligations on new renewable energy generation whilst imposing no obligations on existing coal or gas-fired generators – requiring energy storage to be attached to specific projects rather than taking a network systems approach to energy storage will drive up the cost of new renewable energy projects;
- Recommending a Clean Energy Target and proposing emission levels which would lock in higher emissions, when its own evidence indicates the cheapest and most efficient option for the electricity sector are the ‘lowest’ emissions renewable technologies; and
- Recommending an additional regulatory body and giving existing energy regulators additional responsibilities rather than consolidating the number of regulators and reforming the regulatory environment.
- Greenhouse gas emissions
The Finkel Review has modelled the Federal Government’s emissions reduction target of a 26-28% reduction in Australia’s emissions by 2030, rather than responding to the recognised emissions reductions required to meet Australia’s current international treaty obligations.
Further the Review has recommended that the electricity sector targets should be proportional at 28% – ignoring that worldwide the electricity sector offers a greater opportunity for emissions reduction using existing commercial technologies and systems.
It is widely recognised that electricity generation is one of the easiest and lowest cost means of reducing emissions and that the electricity sector can contribute much more than a simplistic proportional share to achieve emissions reductions.
The Climate Change Authority has suggested the electricity sector could reduce its emissions by 66 per cent by 2030 to meet Australia’s international climate change commitments.
The Finkel Review should have modelled significantly greater reductions in electricity sector emissions and drawn its conclusions and recommendations from that.
Transformation of the electricity sector
The Finkel Review states “battery storage is poised to be the next major consumer-driven deployment of energy technology. Upfront costs for solar photovoltaic systems with storage are currently high, with long payback periods for most consumers.
Bloomberg expects the average payback period for residential consumers to fall below 10 years in the early 2020s, with around 100,000 battery storage systems to support rooftop solar photovoltaic generation predicted to be installed by 2020.”
The Australian Solar Council and Energy Storage Council is currently undertaking a comprehensive analysis of the Australian energy storage market and we estimate 120,000-500,000 battery storage systems are likely to be installed in Australia by 2020.
CSIRO and Energy Networks Australia have forecast there could be almost eight gigawatt hours of storage in Australia by 2020.
It is likely the Finkel Review will significantly underestimate the uptake of battery storage and the capacity to integrate residential and small business energy storage systems into a much larger peoples power plant or virtual power station.
This is not simply a large missed opportunity, it is a failure to plan for the likely reality.
The history of solar technology deployment shows us that cost reductions and uptake have always exceeded forecasts. Bloomberg itself draws attention to the innate and consistent conservatism in its new energy technology forecasts.
Generator Reliability Obligations on new renewable energy plants
The Finkel Review’s recommendation to require all new generators to have energy storage could significantly increase the number of large-scale energy storage projects up to and beyond 2020, although it may also artificially drive up the cost of large-scale renewable energy projects, reducing their viability.
This is a requirement not imposed on current generators of any technology. Coal and other fossil fuel generators, are intermittent generators: they provide firm power only when they are generating– and in Australia that is around 85% of the time. The other 15% is provided by providing additional capacity into the network.
The proposed Generator Reliability Obligation (GRO) will almost certainly be a higher cost approach than a market-based approach to firm capacity in the network.
It is discriminatory ultimately at the customers’ expense and ignores the engineering and network systems-based solutions that are being implemented world-wide to meet the outcomes sought.
The GRO may also ignore the potential for off-river pumped hydro to provide a range of services to the network including firm power to the grid complementary to variable renewable generators.
The Review has proposed a backward-looking engineering solution when it should have simply defined the outcomes desired.
The world is moving to transform grids to intelligent distributed two-way energy flow systems because they offer increased security, reliability and quality of supply at a lower cost than new fossil fuel or nuclear based generation.
There are more effective ways to add storage to the national electricity market through a system-wide approach.
One option would be to encourage the market to develop proposals through reverse auctions, which would determine the price and locations of energy storage systems. Another option would be through a capacity market.
Evidence was given to the Review on the importance of demand response and demand management tools and the critical role of digitisation and software management which it appears has not been understood.
Closure of coal-fired power stations
The Finkel Review has suggested there be a minimum notification period of at least three years for the intention to close coal-fired power stations.
This is an administrative arrangement with no financial or planning signals for closure and is not as efficient as a market mechanism. It provides no mechanism for the orderly closure of coal-fired power stations.
All this proposal does is to provide a small amount of certainty over a three-year period. It provides no means of ensuring continued operation, or operation on demand, and provides no specific incentive for new generation.
It also fails to match closures to emissions reductions. Less polluting power stations could close before more emissions intensive power stations.
We urge COAG Energy Ministers to take a different approach and develop a plan for the orderly closure of coal-fired power stations. We believe the model from the ANU, developed by Professor Frank Jotzo and others, offers a better path using market based mechanisms.
Clean Energy Target
The proposal for a Clean Energy Target appears to be a political solution to a political problem, rather than an attempt to introduce the most effective mechanisms for reducing emissions and encouraging renewable energy generation and energy storage.
The Australian Solar Council and Energy Storage Council support the continuation of current state government reverse auction programs in the absence of a national reverse auction scheme for renewable energy or a national price on carbon.
If the Government proceeds with a less efficient Clean Energy Target, the emissions intensity threshold must be set at a level that helps deliver Australia’s international climate change commitments and must be flexible enough that it can be changed to capture Australia’s future climate change commitments.
Governance
The National Electricity Market is not functioning effectively and the multitude of agencies responsible for the NEM adds to the confusion and inefficiency. Australia is the only country where the two energy market functions sit in separate bodies.
In its 2012 report on network regulation, the Productivity Commission was particularly critical of what it saw as the unusual role of AEMC in setting policy, rather than serving policy makers.
Unfortunately, the Finkel Review increases this complexity by recommending a new body, the Energy Security Board, and giving new responsibilities to existing agencies.
Governance arrangements need to be streamlined, with the Australian Energy Market Operator and the Australian Energy Market Commission merged. The new body should be led by someone who understands the extraordinary transformation that the electricity sector is going through globally and in Australia.
We believe that Energy Ministers need to take responsibility for preparing a national energy plan that takes a broader view of the changes needed for the future and puts implementation in the hands of governments as far as possible. The previous issues caused by outsourcing policy making to the AEMC should be avoided.
Other Matters
The Australian Solar Council and Energy Storage Council calls on all Energy Ministers to endorse the following measures:
- Establish a plan for the orderly closure of coal-fired power stations;
- Make action on climate change a key objective of the National Electricity Market and ensure that all climate change and energy policies are consistent with Australia’s international climate change obligations;
- Commit to at least 50 per cent renewables by 2030;
- Introduce a 5-minute settlement rule;
- Enable markets in peer to peer trading and demand response; and
- Replace the Australian Energy Regulator and Australian Energy Market Commission with a new combined energy market rule maker and regulator.
A bad deal is not better than no deal at all.
A bad deal locks in poor climate change and energy outcomes.
Energy Ministers still have a “once in a generation opportunity to reform the national electricity market” and we urge them to continue that work.
Australia should join UN nuclear weapons ban treaty, when it opens in September
Aust on ‘wrong side’ of nuclear weapon ban http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/aust-on-wrong-side-of-nuclear-weapon-ban/news-story/be98118f29f512aad05aac1134546ad4, Belinda Merhab, Australian Associated Press, July 8, 2017 Australia is accused of being on the wrong side of history after ignoring a United Nations vote to ban nuclear weapons.
No plans for real development of Adani coal mine expansion. Adani family will benefit most, if it happens
Adani’s Carmichael coal mine has slow ‘official start’ planned, leaked document shows, ABC News, by Stephen Long , 9 Jul 17 Flanked by Commonwealth and Queensland politicians, the giant Indian conglomerate Adani last month announced that its board had given final investment approval to its controversial mega-mine in North Queensland, and declared the “official start” of the Carmichael coal mining project.
But what does that mean in practice? For the moment, it seems, not much.
The ABC has obtained the plan of operations for the Carmichael coal mine project submitted to the Queensland Government last month.
It covers just six months and involves next to nothing: just re-establishing signage at the site, recommissioning an existing temporary camp and installing some additional demountable buildings.
“The plan of operations will be amended in due course to include all early works related to commencement of construction activities for the mine and related infrastructure works,” it says.
The lack of a substantive plan for development of the mine “is a huge embarrassment for the Adani cheer squad including the Prime Minister, the Premier of Queensland and [Minister for Resources and Northern Australia] Matt Canavan, who have bent over backwards to get this project over the line,” said Rick Humphries, co-ordinator of the mine rehabilitation campaign for the Lock the Gate Alliance — a group established by farmers to fight “inappropriate” coal and gas mining.
“It only really commits Adani to maintaining the existing temporary camp and looking after the signs and roads,” he said.
“It raises serious doubts about the project’s financial viability……..
Adani’s mine project, if it were to proceed to full scale, would be the largest-ever coal mining development in Australia and the biggest export coal project in the world, involving a series of open cut mines and underground pit with a capacity of 60 million tonnes a year.
Adani would also have to build an additional port at the Abbot Point Coal Terminal — which it owns — to accommodate output from the mine, though there has been speculation that Adani intends to scale down the mining venture to less than half the initial planned capacity.
Despite the question marks about Adani’s ability to finance the venture there are clear incentives for the Adani family to make the project happen.
An “overarching royalty deed” at the project will see $2 from each tonne of coal mined beyond the first 400,000 tonnes each year go a private company ultimately owned by an Adani family entity registered in the Cayman Islands.
This could potentially mean that hundreds of millions, or billions of dollars, from the venture could flow to the Adani family rather than to shareholders of the publicly-listed company that owns the Carmichael mine.
The ABC has also been told that the response of Adani’s billionaire chairman Gautam Adani to years of activism and opposition to the mine in Australia is a determination to see the project realised. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-10/adani-queensland-coal-mine-plan-raises-doubts-on-viability/8691020
Australia can play a role in promoting dialogue, not war, with North Korea
There is no point in Australia waiting to be a pallbearer at the funeral. We need to use what influence we have to shape a better response in Washington and other capitals.
We should also open a line of communication with Pyongyang — to see if there is any dialogue that might help to prevent conflict.
Australia can play a role here. Our embassy in Seoul is accredited to Pyongyang, where there hasn’t been a US embassy for years. We should co-ordinate this with key allies, but Australia should look to open a line of dialogue with the regime.
Australia has performed a similar role in Iran, where the US hasn’t had diplomatic representation since 1979.
Has Australia got the gumption to do this, or will we just wait for the conflict to start and hope others fight the war for us?
Dialogue better than all-out war with unpredictable North Korea http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/dialogue-better-than-allout-war-with-unpredictable-north-korea/news-story/f471a9a09b1dae1fe0d2464f5501d03e?nk=ba26857f63080120cbd5fc74c94d3959-1499480511, PETER JENNINGS,The Australian, July 8, 2017
The members of the G20 are meeting during one of the most serious global situations since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.
Then the Soviet Union was intent on deploying nuclear-armed missiles to an island a few minutes’ flying time from America’s southeast.
The risk was not only what missiles could be launched from Cuba but whether a conflict might spiral out of control and lead to an all-out nuclear war between Washington and Moscow.
Today the situation on the Korean peninsula is just as uncertain. With help from Pakistan and China, North Korea is within a sprint of developing a nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missile, with a widely dispersed arsenal of such weapons able to be launched from silos, mobile vehicles and, in time, from submarines.
The North already has about 20 nuclear devices and although these may not fit on missiles, it is possible they could be detonated inside submarines sent on suicide missions to Seoul or Tokyo.
After an American strike in response, we don’t know how China might react to the destruction of its ally. Once the nuclear threshold is breached we face a global situation as dire as those 13 days in October 1962 when nuclear war seemed likely. Continue reading
If North Korea attacks USA with nuclear warhead, Australia will join US in fight – Deputy PM Barnaby Joyce
Australia will join US in fight against North Korea if war breaks out, Yahoo News, JULY 6, 2017 Australia would join military action against North Korea if the rogue nation fires a nuclear warhead at the United States, acting Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce has confirmed.
As Malcolm Turnbull heads to Germany for talks with other G20 leaders, Mr Joyce is ramping up pressure on China to step in and “stop this madness”.
His call comes after US ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley warned that America would use force “if we must” against North Korea, after Pyongyang tested an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) with the potential to reach Darwin or Alaska.
“No one should ever go too far in testing the resolve of the United States of America,” Mr Joyce told Sky News on Thursday.
“If North Korea was to deliver a warhead into the United States of America then the ANZUS alliance would be called in.”……One of Australian’s most senior military commanders insists the risk of a strike on the country’s north by North Korean remains low.
Chief of Joint Operations Vice Admiral David Johnston says that despite Pyongyang’s aggressive demonstrations, the range and capability of the missile launched this week is still to be determined.
“There is very little risk at the moment to the northern part of our country,” he told reporters in Canberra……Given the low threat to Australia’s mainland, Vice Admiral Johnston says there hasn’t been an immediate focus on amassing a system to defend against missiles.
The focus now was on applying diplomatic pressure on North Korea to stop their nuclear program and the development of missile technology.
“Where there’s emerging issues that require military support, the ADF has the capability to provide the government (with) options and we’re able to do so.” https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/36295225/australia-will-back-us-if-nuclear-war-breaks-out-with-north-korea/#page1
PM Turnbull says THAAD anti- missile system is “not really suitable” for Australia
US anti-missile system THAAD ‘not really suitable’ for Australia http://www.afr.com/news/world/us-antimissile-system-thaad-not-really-suitable-for-australia-20170707-gx781e, 8 Jul 17 Australia is developing defences against missile attack but the US THAAD anti- missile system is “not really suitable” for Australia, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull says.
When asked about a possible Australian missile defence system against such threats as a North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile, Mr Turnbull said the Australian focus was on protecting deployed forces in the field.
Speaking to reporters in Hamburg, where he’s attending the G20 summit, the prime minister said the answer to the Korean threat was the denuclearisation of North Korea.
“We are developing missile defences … but the focus is on protecting our deployed forces in the field.”
Mr Turnbull said that in terms of a missile defence shield for Australia there had been talk of the THAAD system. “That’s not really suitable for our situation but I can assure you we are constantly examining how we can ensure that Australians are safe.”
Former PM Kevin Rudd now suggesting missile defence system for Australia
Australia should consider missile defence to counter North Korea: Kevin Rudd, The Age, Peter Hartcher, James Massola, 8 Jul 17
Australia needs to consider deploying a missile defence system to defend against attack from nuclear-armed North Korea, according to former prime minister Kevin Rudd. Mr Rudd has reversed the position he held in office, saying that North Korea’s newly demonstrated ability to reach northern Australia meant it was time to consider homeland defence.
And top regional security and defence experts have backed that call, arguing Australia and its regional allies must invest heavily in missile defence as the “only alternative”.
A roll out of the US-made Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defence system began in South Korea but was suspended last month, amid objections from China and Russia.
North Korea’s recent provocative launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile potentially brings Darwin and the US states of Alaska and Hawaii in range – though their missile’s accuracy remains in question – and has prompted dire warnings from the United States ahead of the G20 meeting in Hamburg, where it is set to dominate discussions.
The Rudd government’s Defence White Paper of 2009 explicitly opposed missile defence for Australia, as “such a system would be at odds with the maintenance of global nuclear deterrence,” the paper said, though it signalled an annual review.
On Friday, the former prime minister said: “Given North Korean developments, Australia would be well advised to begin analysing ballistic missile defence needs, available technologies and possible deployment feasibility for northern Australia.”
On Friday, the former prime minister said: “Given North Korean developments, Australia would be well advised to begin analysing ballistic missile defence needs, available technologies and possible deployment feasibility for northern Australia.”……. http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australia-should-consider-missile-defence-to-counter-north-korea-kevin-rudd-20170707-gx6t0u.html
Greens Senator Scott Ludlam at nuclear weapons ban treaty talks
Ludlam, not Australia, in New York for nuclear weapons ban treaty talks, Greens Senator Scott Ludlam has slammed Australia for not taking part in talks on a global ban on nuclear weapons. By Andrea Nierhoff, SBS News, 6 July 17, Senator Ludlam is in New York with delegates from 120 countries to discuss a treaty to ban nuclear weapons around the world.
A farmer deplores the planned giveaway of precious water to Adani coal mine project
Adani Carmichael mine: Water is too important for farmers to risk wasting it on a mine, ABC News, 6 Jul 17 By Robert Quirk, I’m no activist. I’m a farmer, and as a farmer I’m against the Adani coal mine for one reason: water.
My sugar cane farm is on the flood plains of northern NSW. Many of my friends and colleagues are in the industry located all over Queensland.
All farmers, no matter what the crop, or livestock, rely on water. Sugar cane requires about 1300 millimetres of well-spread rain to grow a crop. You might manage, with good irrigation, on 600-700mm. Too much in the form of a flood and you might end up with a damaged crop.
In a good year, everything you need falls from the sky, at the right time, in the right amount. Of course, not every year is a good year. In fact, good years are rare and that’s why farmers manage risk with irrigation. You store the water for use later with dams and the like, you try to use it efficiently and sometimes you need to extract it from underground, or truck it in.
It’s all pretty basic stuff, so it’s truly bowled me over to learn the detail of the Adani mine in relation to water.
Two sets of rules
Many farmers in Queensland have licences to draw their water from the Great Artesian Basin. The same basin that the Carmichael mine, once in operation, also plans to draw massive amounts of water from.
How much you ask? Good question. As much as the owners please, because the Queensland Government has granted this company unlimited access to extract groundwater…….
Those in favour of the mine are right about one thing — it is a really good deal. It’s just not a good deal for the Australian people……http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-07/adani-mine-water-is-too-important-to-farmers/8686890
World’s first solar-powered train – for Byron Bay
Byron Bay to get world’s first solar-powered train, courtesy of a coal baron http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/byron-bay-to-get-worlds-first-solarpowered-train-courtesy-of-a-coal-baron-20170702-gx31yo.html Marcus Strom, A coal baron is delivering the world’s first solar train to Australia.
And while bringing solar to Byron Bay might be a bit like taking coals to Newcastle, that’s just what the Byron Bay Railroad Company is doing. “I think this is a world first,” said John Grimes, chief executive of the Australian Solar Council, which is not connected to the project.
“There is a train in India that has solar panels to power lights and fans, but not a whole train.” The Byron Bay Railroad Company, operated by mining executive Brian Flannery, expects to have its two-carriage heritage train running before Christmas, said Jeremy Holmes, a spokesman for the company.
It will operate on part of the disused Casino-to-Murwillumbah line, which closed in 2004.
Dan Cass, a renewable energy specialist at the Australia Institute, said: “This is the first we have heard of a train this size that is literally solar powered, with PV modules on the roof.”
Federal govt shamed into revealing Australia’s pollution data
Greenhouse gas pollution up, data released after FOI struggle reveal, SMH, Lucy Cormack, 8 Jul 17, The federal government has answered calls to release greenhouse gas pollution data it had been sitting on since last year.
Energy and Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg released the quarterly updates on Friday, less than 24 hours after a Fairfax Media exclusive revealed documents confirming the department had failed to release data for the two quarters leading up to the end of 2016.
The federal government has answered calls to release greenhouse gas pollution data it had been sitting on since last year.
Energy and Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg released the quarterly updates on Friday, less than 24 hours after a Fairfax Media exclusive revealed documents confirming the department had failed to release data for the two quarters leading up to the end of 2016……The whereabouts of last year’s pollution data was confirmed by documents obtained under freedom of information laws by the Australian Conservation Foundation, extracts of which were published by Fairfax Media on Thursday. http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/greenhouse-gas-pollution-up-data-released-after-foi-struggle-reveal-20170707-gx6qy8.html
Federal govt keeping Australia’s pollution data secret
Independent estimates suggest Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions have risen sharply since the government last released its quarterly data in December – a trend that would make the nation’s commitment to cutting emissions more disruptive and expensive.
Quarterly updates by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory, described as “up-to-date information on emissions trends for business, policymakers and the public”, have been released 28 times since 2009, but not since last year.
Documents obtained under FOI by the Australian Conservation Foundation reveal that while the government possesses data on greenhouse pollution for the two quarters leading up to the end of last year, it has failed to release them……..http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/foi-documents-confirm-government-holding-almost-one-years-worth-of-pollution-data-20170706-gx5um3.html
South Australia’s big energy storage battery
Tesla to supply world’s biggest battery for SA, but what is it and how will it work? ABC By political reporter Nick Harmsen and Alle McMahon, 7 July 17 The “world’s biggest” lithium ion battery is to be built in South Australia by Tesla and French company Neoen.
It is to be close to the French renewable energy company’s wind farm near Jamestown and ready by the start of summer.
What is it?
An array of lithium ion batteries will be connected to the Hornsdale wind farm, which is currently under construction in SA. It will look like a field of boxes, each housing Tesla commercial-scale Powerpack batteries.
The array will be capable of an output of 100 megawatts (MW) of power at a time and the huge battery will be able to store 129 megawatt hours (MWh) of energy so, if used at full capacity, it would be able to provide its maximum output for more than an hour.
It will be a modular network, with each Powerpack about the size of a large fridge at 2.1 metres tall, 1.3m long and 0.8m wide. They weigh in at 1,200 kilograms each.
How will it stack up against the next biggest?
It will have just slightly more storage than the next biggest lithium battery, built by AES this year in southern California. But Tesla’s 100 MW output would be more than three times larger than the AES battery and five times larger than anything Tesla has built previously.
The largest lithium ion battery storage system that Tesla has built to date sits on a 0.6-hectare site at Mira Loma in southern California.
American electricity company Southern California Edison was also involved. It has a storage capacity of 20 MW, or 80 MWh, and is said to be capable of powering 15,000 homes.
The California array took three months to build. Tesla says the lithium ion batteries in the Jamestown array will have a life of about 15 years, depending on their usage and how aggressively they are recharged.
The company says the battery components are replaceable and the circuitry should last 20 to 30 years……..
How will it be used?
Neoen said the battery would primarily provide stability for the power grid, something traditionally the domain of coal, gas and hydro, rather than wind or solar………http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-07/what-is-tesla-big-sa-battery-and-how-will-it-work/8688992
1 This month.
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/235274195556
19 May – Webinar- Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-05-19 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-05-19 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
20 May – Webinar – The dangerous world of AUKUS, US, military occupation and suppression of dissent
National Webinar, 20th May, 2026, 6.30pm AEST. Confronting laws restricting/suppressing protest speech and action
Speakers: Former Sen. Rex Patrick, Lawyer Nick Hanna ,Arthur Rorris ,Jorgen Doyle, Sen David Shoebbridge,
Facilitator Kelley Tranter.
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 