Today, I am taking the unusual step of publishing an entire submission. That’s because it is so good. The nuclear lobby pulled a swifty on Australians, by having government and media very quietly do what is sure to be a “rubber stamp” job on Australia joining up to the Framework Agreement for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems.
They allowed a very short time for submissions to the Parliamentary Inquiry. The nuke lobby must have been in the know, as they put in 11, whereas there were only 3, (one mine) critical of the plan.
Fortunately the critical ones contain compelling information. So, here, in full, is the:
Submission from Friends of the Earth Australia and the Australian Conservation Foundation .
Contacts:
• Jim Green (Friends of the Earth, Australia) jim.green@foe.org.au, 0417 318 368
• Dave Sweeney (Australian Conservation Foundation) dave.sweeney@acf.org.au, 0408 317 812
Contents
1. Introduction and Response to National Interest Analysis
2. Generation IV Reactor Concepts ‒ Introduction
3. Decades Away
4. Purported Benefits
5. French Government’s IRSN Report
6. US Government Accountability Office Report
7. The Slow Death of Fast Reactors
8. Integral Fast Reactors
9. Thorium 10. Small Modular Reactors 11. Fusion Scientist Debunks Fusion
- INTRODUCTION AND RESPONSE TO NATIONAL INTEREST ANALYSIS Friends of the Earth Australia and the Australian Conservation Foundation welcome the opportunity to make a submission to this inquiry and would welcome the opportunity to appear before a hearing of the Committee.
The Committee will likely receive submissions promoting the construction of Generation IV reactors in Australia and it is therefore worth noting comments by the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission in its May 2016 Final Report: “[A]dvanced fast reactors and other innovative reactor designs are unlikely to be feasible or viable in the foreseeable future. The development of such a first-of-a-kind project in South Australia would have high commercial and technical risk. Although prototype and demonstration reactors are operating, there is no licensed, commercially proven design. Development to that point would require substantial capital investment. Moreover, electricity generated from such reactors has not been demonstrated to be cost competitive with current light water reactor designs.”1
Here we provide brief responses to a number of comments in the National Interest Analysis (NIA).2
The NIA asserts that participation in the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) will further Australia’s non-proliferation and nuclear safety objectives. No evidence is supplied to justify the tenuous assertion. There is much else that Australia could do ‒ but is not doing ‒ that would demonstrably further non-proliferation objectives, e.g. a ban on reprocessing Australian Obligated Nuclear Materials (AONM); a reversal of the decision to permit uranium sales to countries that have not signed or ratified the NPT; or refusing uranium sales to countries that refuse to sign or ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. There is much else that Australia could do ‒ but is not doing ‒ that would demonstrably further safety objectives, e.g. revisiting the decision to sell uranium to Ukraine in light of the ongoing conflict in that country, refusing to supply uranium to nuclear weapon states that are not fulfilling their NPT obligations, insisting that uranium customer countries establish a strong, independent regulatory regime (as opposed to the inadequate regulation in a number of customer countries, e.g. China, India, Russia, Ukraine and others).
Nuclear non-proliferation would also be far better realised by active Australian engagement in the current UN process around the development of a nuclear weapons ban treaty. Instead Australia has spurned this pivotally important initiative and is refusing to participate. If Australia is serious about its international standing, our representatives would be at the table in New York.
The NIA states that ongoing participation in GIF will help Australia maintain its permanent position on the IAEA’s 35-member Board of Governors. ANSTO routinely makes such arguments ‒ in support of the construction of the OPAL reactor, in support of the development of nuclear power in Australia, and now in support of Australian participation in GIF. Australia has held a permanent position on the IAEA’s Board of Governors for decades and there is no reason to believe that participation or non-participation in GIF will change that situation.
The NIA asserts that accession to the Agreement and participation in GIF will have important economic benefits. No evidence is supplied to justify that tenuous assertion. There are no demonstrated economic benefits from participation in GIF ‒ however there are clear costs.
The NIA states that the “costs of participation in the System Arrangements will be borne by ANSTO from existing funds.” ANSTO should be required to provide a detailed account of past expenditure relating to this Agreement and anticipated future expenditure.
The NIA states that ongoing participation in GIF “will improve the Australian Government’s awareness and understanding of nuclear energy developments throughout the region and around the world, and contribute to the ability of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) to continue to provide timely and comprehensive advice on nuclear issues.” Those arguments are tenuous, especially given that little about GIF is secret.
The NIA states that “Generation IV designs will use fuel more efficiently, reduce waste production, be economically competitive, and meet stringent standards of safety and proliferation resistance.” Those false claims are rebuked in later sections of this submission.
The NIA states that the success of Australia’s bid for membership of GIF was based in part on ANSTO’s “world-class capabilities and expertise” in the “development of nuclear safety cases.” ANSTO should be asked to justify that assertion. ANSTO could also be asked whether, based on its “world-class” expertise in nuclear safety, whether it considers it is appropriate for Australia to sell uranium to countries with demonstrably inadequate nuclear regulatory regimes, e.g. China, India, Russia, Ukraine and others.
The NIA asserts that “a significant expansion in nuclear power production is underway or under consideration by a number of countries, including several in the Asia Pacific region.” In fact:
- Globally, nuclear power has been stagnant for the past 20 years.
- For the foreseeable future, there is zero likelihood of a “significant” nuclear expansion of nuclear power and there will be an overall decline unless growth in China matches the decline elsewhere. Declines can be predicted with great confidence in North America, across all EU countries combined, in Japan, and in numerous other countries and regions ‒ and a very large majority of the world’s countries (about five out of six) are nuclear-free and plan to stay that way.
- No country in the Asia Pacific or South East Asia is seriously planning to introduce nuclear power. The only country that was seriously planning to introduce nuclear power in the region ‒ Vietnam ‒ abandoned those plans last year.
The NIA states that Australia’s participation in GIF falls within the existing functions of ANSTO under Section 5 of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Act 1987. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties should assess whether Australia’s participation in GIF is consistent with legislation banning nuclear power in Australia (the EPBC and ARPANS Acts). 2.
2. GENERATION IV REACTOR CONCEPTS ‒ INTRODUCTION Continue reading →
May 13, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics, reference, spinbuster, technology |
Leave a comment
With a nuclear waste dump in South Australia that accepts international shipments, the full range of the “nuclear industry” in the state would be complete, truly making it the “Defense State” that has become the state motto.[9]
SOUTH AUSTRALIA’S NUCLEAR MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX: THE GLOBAL CONTEXT, Spirit of Eureka ,Talk by David Palmer at “SA The Nuclear State” forum 03 May 2017 “……..If citizens – the people – whether they are in the Fukushima region of Japan or in Adelaide, South Australia – have a right to speak out on the dangers of the nuclear industry, then who are the elites promoting the nuclear industry? If we look at prominent figures in government the institutional linkages become all too clear. Consider the example of Kevin Scarce, Governor of South Australia until 2014, a Rear Admiral retired from the Royal Australian Navy, current Chancellor of the University of Adelaide, and Deputy Chairman of Seeley International, the largest air conditioning company in Australia that is known for energy-efficiency. Scarce led the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission and was the primary author of the report that recommended the South Australian government accept a nuclear waste dump. All the links are there in Scarce’s connections and positions: military, university, corporate, and government.
Furthermore, the Royal Commission did not focus solely on a nuclear waste dump. It considered possible expansion of nuclear industries in the state that encompassed mining, enrichment, and power generation. The Royal Commission report states that “The activity under consideration is the further processing of minerals, and the processing and manufacturing of materials containing radioactive and nuclear substances (but not for, or from, military uses) including conversion, enrichment, fabrication or reprocessing in South Australia.”[3]
But during the time this Royal Commission report was being prepared and finally delivered, Adelaide became the focal point for naval shipbuilding contracts, particularly submarines. Both Labor and Liberal politicians sought to outdo each other in pushing for submarines to be built in Adelaide. They will be diesel powered, but the majority of submarines internationally use nuclear power propulsion. Potential overseas contractors also use designs geared for nuclear power. There are those in Australian naval circles who would like to see these Australian subs with nuclear, not diesel, power. And where will these submarines be used, and with what international interests? We know the answer to that question, as recent events in the Western Pacific have confirmed. The USS Carl Vinson, the nuclear powered air craft carrier, was on exercises in the Indian Ocean in early April with Australia’s HMAS Ballarat, when it was ordered to the Korean peninsula this month in response to the North Korean threat to explode a nuclear bomb.[4] This latest development is just one example of the escalating naval tensions on our side of the Pacific. Crises like this will potentially increase pressure for Australia to build submarines – and possibly other naval vessels – that are nuclear powered.
What does the corporate profile of the “nuclear industry” look like? Continue reading →
May 13, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
South Australia, spinbuster, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
These women defy the illusion that you have to have a Ph.D. in nuclear physics or in nuclear engineering – that you must be a Ben Heard – to have a legitimate voice about nuclear power and the potential dangers of nuclear industry accidents. Our movement needs scientific experts, but all of us can gain basic knowledge and speak out
SOUTH AUSTRALIA’S NUCLEAR MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX: 
THE GLOBAL CONTEXT, Spirit of Eureka Talk by David Palmer at “SA The Nuclear State” forum 03 May 2017 There are other speakers and participants here today who have more expertise in the scientific and engineering details of this controversy than I do. My comments are aimed, instead, at those powerful elite stakeholders who are at the core of what we know as the military-industrial complex – here in South Australia, our country, but also globally, with its centre in the United States.
Is this issue of a nuclear waste dump advocated for South Australia just about jobs and economic prosperity, as Premier Wetherill claims? Or is it far broader? The words of Ben Heard, former executive director of pro-nuclear power lobby group Bright New World, sum it up well: “We must be a full service provider to the nuclear back-end.”[1] Adelaide’s Advertiser reported last month that “a new open letter [has been sent] to state MPs, 42 influential people demand[ing] the State Government commits to completing first-stage investigations of the proposed high-level repository.”[2] Many of these “influential people” signed a similar letter back in December demanding the same thing, through Ben Heard’s pro-nuclear Bright New World.
But just what is this “nuclear back-end” – the back end of what? Nuclear materials have a wide range of uses, including medical and commercial ones that are distinct from their main uses for power generation and weapons. The vast majority of government expenditures related to nuclear materials goes toward nuclear weapons and military uses (such as naval propulsion systems), and nuclear power. In the United States, virtually all nuclear-related industries and products in the energy and military-application areas are joint operations involving private companies working under government contracts and regulations. The scientific and engineering knowledge required for the nuclear industry means that universities and university-linked research centres play a major role in bringing these two institutions – private companies and government – together. In South Australia, Ben Heard (who is connected to University of Adelaide) is symbolic of this key link connecting networked institutions and elites. Continue reading →
May 13, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
South Australia, spinbuster |
Leave a comment
The Parliamentary Committee Inquiry on Australia joining the Framework Agreement for International Collaboration on Research and Development of Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems has now published the submissions that it received.
As this Inquiry has been kept quite secret from the media and the public, it is not surprising that nearly all of the submissions have come from companies and individuals with either a very clear, or a vested, interest in the nuclear industry.
For the moment, I will just single out one that particularly interested me. This is from SMR Nuclear Technology Pty Ltd . They don’t actually have much to say about Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, but just go on to fulsome praise of Generation IV nuclear reactors in general, and of ANSTO.:
“…….SMR Nuclear Technology Pty Ltd is an independent Australian specialist consultancy established to advise on the siting, development and operation of safe nuclear power generation technologies, principally Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). Two of SMR-NT’s directors were senior managers at ANSTO and have a good understanding of the facilities and capabilities of ANSTO…..
SMR Nuclear Technology Pty Ltd most warmly supports Australia acceding to the Framework Agreement for International Collaboration on Research and Development of Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems as extended by the Agreement extending the Framework Agreement for International Collaboration on Research and Development of Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems” more http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Treaties/NuclearEnergy/Submissions
SMR Nuclear Technologies sounds pretty much like ANSTO in disguise.
They dropped a little hint of what ANSTO is up to, in their previous, (rather weak and contradictory) submission to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, in which they stated: “Thorium is now being revisited, particularly in China. Australia (ANSTO) is assisting with this work” – http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2016/03/SMR-Nuclear-Technology-Pty-Ltd-30-07-2015.pdf
We didn’t know that the Australian tax-payer was funding thorium nuclear reactor development in China, did we?
May 12, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics, technology |
Leave a comment
By Annie McGovern. 23rd April 2017 (this is an extract from the Adelaide Forum held very recently, to discuss this question) “….ENDNOTE These observations have been gleaned from a fairly 
random search for relevant information which was also confined by the time available to process and present these findings. These are offered at this time as an additional body of information that may help fill some of the gaps in the thrust to force further nuclear energy production and waste disposal on the people of S. A.
Amongst the many recommendations of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission there were 3 major points which raise concerns regarding the possible imminent changes to Legislation in S.A. The Royal Commission has urged the State Government to fast-track these Legislative changes, even though there are no current viable plans for any nuclear industry developments in S.A. at this time.
- Modification of the State Waste Dump Prohibition Laws. This Legislation was almost immediately amended following presentation of the Royal Commission’s findings, to allow Government spending on proposals for the Waste Dumps. The further question of approval of nuclear waste dumps in S.A. was put to the Labour State Conference and became a stalemate to which no decision could be made. Progress of changes to Legislation on this proposal was interrupted.
- Legislation that would allow contracts of Uranium sales to be tied to obligations on S.A. taking back the resultant waste. The Royal Commission sees this possibility as an enhancement to capture sales of Uranium, despite there being no approval for waste disposal in S. A. at this time, and, the fact that no such facility would be capable of fulfilling the contract until well into the future. The Royal Commission appears to be determined to place the people of S.A. into an intractable situation where industry is forcing obligation through contractual arrangements. However, a caveat might be placed on such contracts that are not plausible…an explicit caveat and the risk is borne by the signing parties. A letter of advice is provided to the signatory and the Annual AGM of companies involved informed of this unethical business practice.
- Legislative changes to allow Nuclear Power production. Despite there being no overt plans for these developments within the foreseeable future, the Royal Commission is encouraging making changes now for future development. The absence of a ready nuclear waste disposal dump has historically been a constraint on Australia and the world in the development of greater Nuclear ambitions. Reports of illegal dumping and covert placement of radioactive waste abound both here and across the world. Reports of French waste being held at Lucas Heights and American wasteat Pine Gap are recent additions to these claims.Despite peoples’ efforts over many generations to call for and act on Peaceful Principles in our World, Environmental Sustainability and Productivity based on Need rather than Greed, capitalism and its theory of perpetual growth continues to drive forward in an overtly destructive manner.
The continued focus on South Australia to perpetuate the nuclear travesty on our planet is acknowledged through this Forum and collectively we stand against this invasion. We walk with the Protectors of Country with Respect for Life.
May 12, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
legal, politics, South Australia |
Leave a comment
Donald Trump, as a shareholder in Raytheon, maker of anti-radiation missiles, should be pleased about this.
Australia seeking to spend $180 million on US anti-radiation missiles, Australia is looking to buy anti-radiation missiles from the United States worth about $183.7 million, according to the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency.
Source: AAP 29 APR 2017
Australia is looking to spend about $183.7 million on anti-radiation missiles for its Growler aircraft fleet, according to a US defence agency.
The US State Department has approved the possible sale and Congress has been notified, a news release from the country’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency says.
The sale would include up to 70 high speed anti-radiation missiles, 40 advanced anti-radiation guided missiles and training missiles as well as other support equipment.
The total estimated cost is $US137.6 million, or $183.7 million.
“Australia is requesting these missiles for its Electronic Attack EA-18G Growler aircraft,” it says about the missiles, which are designed for attacking ground-based radar.
“Australia will use this capability as a deterrent to regional threats and to strengthen its homeland defense.”
The notice is only of potential sale, not that the sale has concluded.
If it goes ahead, the “sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security” of the US, by “helping to improve the security of a major contributor to political stability, security, and economic development in the Western Pacific”.
“Australia is an important major non-NATO ally and partner that contributes significantly to peacekeeping and humanitarian operations around the world,” the notice reads.
“It is vital to the US national interest to assist our ally in developing and maintaining a strong and ready self-defense capability.” http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/04/29/australia-seeking-spend-180-million-us-anti-radiation-missiles
May 12, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
ANU partner with China on nuclear fusion technology for power supply, The Age, Georgina Connery , 5 May 17, ANU has handed over the keys to its $35 million nuclear fusion stellarator as part of a technology exchange with China aimed at creating a new viable base-load power source by 2050.
Many nations, scrambling to find a solution to the energy crisis, view nuclear fusion as a sustainable solution…….ANU Australian Plasma Fusion Research Facility director Dr Cormac Corr said a memorandum of understanding signed with University of South China in April underpinned the exchange…..
In September 2016, Australia became the first non-member state to enter a formal collaborative agreement with ITER – set to be the world’s largest Tokamak fusion reactor and the first to create net power.
China, the European Union, India, Korea, Russia, Japan and the United States are jointly funding the construction of the $30 billion nuclear fusion demonstration facility in France.
Australia is trying to position itself as a major player in the ITER project by providing the technology to see volatile plasma, which is otherwise invisible when it reaches temperatures of 150 million degrees inside the reactor…..
ANU professor John Howard and fellow fusion science experts are lobbying, through the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, for a $30 million federal program over the next three decades to further plasma fusion capabilities.
“We want to get an instrument that Australia owns on ITER in prime core space, so we are not relegated to a side show,” Professor Howard said…..
Research conducted at the ANU facility would feed into Australia’s materials and monitoring advice to the ITER project…..http://www.theage.com.au/act-news/anu-partner-with-china-on-nuclear-fusion-technology-for-power-supply-20170505-gvz7qc.html
May 12, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, technology |
Leave a comment
Native Title Act changes stuck amid stand-off between major parties, ABC News By political reporter Dan Conifer, 11 May 17, Native Title Act changes the Government declared urgent in February will not pass Parliament until at least mid-June, amid a stand-off between the major parties.
Key points:
- Coalition moved to amend native title laws after major deal with WA Government and traditional owners scuttled in court
- Federal Court ruling threw hundreds of agreements around the country into doubt
- Coalition proposed legislation that would allow ILUAs to be registered with consent from most claimants
The Coalition moved to amend the law months ago after a court scuttled a major deal between the West Australian Government and traditional owners.
The Federal Court ruling overturned years of established law, throwing doubt over more than 100 agreements nationwide, including one covering Adani’s proposed multi-billion-dollar Queensland coal mine. The decision meant Indigenous land use agreements (ILUAs) needed to be signed by all native title claimants before coming into force. The Coalition proposed legislation that would allow ILUAs to be registered with consent from most claimants.
Since February, the bill has been repeatedly amended, with two revisions coming just this week……. The Upper House next sits on June 13. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-11/native-title-act-changes-wont-pass-until-mid-june/8519174
May 12, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
aboriginal issues, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics |
Leave a comment
Turnbull abandons fig leaf and stands naked on climate policy, REneweconomy, By Giles Parkinson on 10 May 2017 You would think that with all the hoo-ha about the scandalous increases in electricity prices that it would have rated some sort of mention in the budget. You know, one of the biggest cost inputs for business being addressed in the government’s economic centrepiece.
But no. The 2nd Morrison/Turnbull fiscal document blithely ignores the issue, despite the fact that their lack of policy direction in the last few years has been the major contributor to the price surges that are scorching household and business budgets.
There’s some pointless extra money for coal seam gas, the removal of some funds for carbon capture (finally) and some previously promised funds for solar thermal (about time), and even another thought bubble on Snowy Hydro – this time to buy it out from the state governments. See Matt Rose’s article for more details.
But there is nothing on climate change, no grand vision on energy. There are no new funds for the Direct Action policy that Turnbull had once ridiculed as a fig leaf for a climate action, and nothing on what might take Australia along the path to the pledge it signed in the Paris deal – effectively to reach zero net emissions by 2050.
As Labor’s Mark Butler noted this morning, the Coalition’s climate change policy has officially gone from that fig-leaf to a non-existent farce.
Nearly three years after celebrating the dumping the carbon price (above), slashing the RET and ignoring expert advice (CCA and the Climate Council), the Coalition government has no actual policy, on energy or climate, and its negligence is adding to the stunning rise in electricity prices it is trying to blame on everything and everyone else.
“Malcolm Turnbull, the Prime Minister who once said he didn’t want to lead a Liberal Party that didn’t feel as strongly about climate change as he did, is now the Prime Minister who has completely dropped any pretence of attempting to combat climate change,” Butler says in his statement, noting that climate change did not rate a single mention in the Budget speech.
“As the central pillar of the Direct Action policy, the Emission Reduction Fund, runs out of funds, this budget delivers ZERO new policies or funding to drive down pollution and combat climate change. This budget allocates more new money to the Department of the House of Representatives than it does to tackling climate change.
“Budgets are about choices and priorities, and this budget makes it perfectly clear the Turnbull government isn’t choosing a safe climate because they don’t think it is a priority. This budget finally makes official what we already know; this Liberal government is failing all future generations of Australians.”
We took big slabs of Butler’s comments because we don’t think we could say it any better……. http://reneweconomy.com.au/turnbull-abandons-fig-leaf-and-stands-naked-on-climate-policy-79879/
May 12, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming |
Leave a comment
Traditional Owners fighting Adani heartened by Senate’s defence of native title,
deferred vote on changes http://wanganjagalingou.com.au/senate-frustrates-governments-push-to-pass-native-title-bill/~ Wangan and Jagalingou (W&J) wanganjagalingou.com.au 11 May 2017:
“Despite the Prime Minister recently reassuring billionaire Gautam Adani that he will ‘fix’ native title laws to enable Adani’s controversial mine to go ahead, the Turnbull Government failed in the Senate again today, with its Native Title Amendment Bill being pushed off to June.
“Senior spokesperson for the Wangan and Jagalingou (W&J)Traditional Owners Council, Burragubba, said “The Senate blew the Government’s cover on the false urgency it has been relying on to push the Bill through. It is clear that there is no immediate threat to Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs) from the recent Federal Court McGlade decision.
““The Wangan and Jagalingou Council are heartened that our right to object to a land use agreement over our lands, because our common law native title is threatened with extinguishment, has gained recognition in the Federal Parliament.
““Opposition and Greens Senators spoke clearly and strongly about the need to put the native title rights of Traditional Owners ahead of all other interests, including mining, when making changes to the Native Title Act. …
“Youth spokesperson for the W&J Traditional Owners Council, MsMurrawah Johnson, said, “The Government has again failed to pass the changes to the Native Title Act
it has been seeking in its clamour to back the Adani mine.” “The Coalition has worked furiously to fast-track these amendments to overturn the recent McGlade decision in the Federal Court, which render Adani’s purported land use agreement incapable of registration.
““The Turnbull government has treated our native title as worthless and ignored the wishes of the Australian people in trying to push through this bill. We have had immense support from thousands of Australians who have implored the Parliament not to mess with our rights and those of Traditional Owners around the country.
““This reflects a recent national poll which showed that nearly two-thirds of Australians
believe that where Traditional Owners are opposed to Adani’s mine being being built on their lands,
State and Federal governments should wait for consent rather than push ahead with the mine. … “
May 12, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
aboriginal issues, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics |
Leave a comment
ABC Rural By Babs McHugh, 11 May 17 The Federal budget includes a number of multi-million-dollar measures to ensure more gas is available and shore up east-coast supplies.
May 12, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, energy, politics |
Leave a comment
Nobody Mentioned It, But Do We Stand To Lose Our Best Defence Against Climate Change? Huff Post, Anthony Sharwood, 11 May 17 Good luck, Australia. We’re going to need it. 10/05/2017 You’ve probably never heard of the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility. We hadn’t. And after reading the 2017 Federal Budget, the indications are we never will again.
Here’s why this matters.
The NCCARF, in its own words, “works to support decision makers throughout Australia as they prepare for and manage the risks of climate change and sea-level rise”.
This means it’s Australia’s only government-funded body which takes established climate science, assesses the likely impacts of climate change, then tells us what the heck we should do about it.
You can see examples of NCCARF’S excellent work
here,
here or
here. It provides solid, practical advice and strategies for dealing with things which affect so many Australians — like more intense heatwaves and bushfires, and increased coastal erosion.
Budget Paper No. 2 confirms confirms that its modest funding of $600,000 will continue for another year.
The Government will provide $0.6 million in 2017‑18 to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility. This measure supports existing online platforms that inform decision makers seeking to adapt to changes in climate.
And then? Well down on page 57 of the Environment Portfolio Budget Statements, the funding looks like it dries up after the end of the 2017/18 financial year. No more NCCARF. It may merge with the CSIRO, or it may just be lost.
“I think it’s got another year to find a funding mechanism that is stable, that’s my reading of the situation,” NCARFF Director Professor Jean Palutikof told HuffPost Australia…….
Australian Conservation Foundation CEO Kelly O’Shanassy told HuffPost Australia that NCCARF was now “a research facility without funding for research”.
“The budget commitment is for $600,000 next year with CSIRO to maintain an online database of specific parts of its research. It has no funding after that.”………
More broadly, this was a budget in which the term “climate change” barely rated a mention.
“There’s nothing on climate change and very little on the environment. It’s like someone’s gone ‘Control Alt Delete’ and the whole thing’s disappeared from the budget papers,” Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young told HuffPost Australia politics editor Karen Barlow.
Gemma Borgo-Caratti, the National Director of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition, said “the Budget ignores climate change which in turn handballs Australia’s biggest problem to the next generation to deal with”.
Greenpeace Asia Pacific said “the Turnbull government has continued to ignore climate change and the need to fund renewable energy at a time when the country is demanding leadership on the most serious threat of our age”……http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2017/05/10/nobody-mentioned-it-but-we-stand-to-lose-our-best-defense-again_a_22078630/
May 12, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming |
Leave a comment
Renewable hydrogen could fuel Australia’s next export boom after CSIRO breakthrough, ABC News, 11 May 17, By Rebecca Turner Australia’s next big export industry could be its sunlight and wind, as game-changing technology makes it easier to transport and deliver their energy as hydrogen.
Industry players are even talking up renewable hydrogen as the next liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry, which could supply hydrogen to power cars, buses, trucks and trains in Japan, South Korea and even Europe.
Their plans have been given a boost by a CSIRO-developed metal membrane, which allows the high-purity hydrogen needed for hydrogen-powered cars to be separated from ammonia.
What is renewable hydrogen?
- Hydrogen is a carrier of energy
- Renewable hydrogen is produced by purifying seawater, then separating the hydrogen and oxygen via electrolysis
- The process of separation is powered by solar or wind energy
- The hydrogen becomes a vehicle for storing renewable energy such as solar or wind
- It is converted into transportable forms for export
CSIRO principal research scientist Michael Dolan said the technology, now being trialled on an industrial scale in Australia, was “the missing link” which allowed hydrogen to be transported and used as an energy source.
“There’s potentially a very big market for the technology, given these cars are starting to get onto the road in pretty big numbers in Asian and Europe,” Dr Dolan said.
While there are only four hydrogen cars in Australia — produced by Hyundai and Toyota — South Korea already has hydrogen-powered taxis on its streets……http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-11/hydrogen-breakthrough-could-fuel-renewable-energy-export-boom/8518916
May 12, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, energy |
Leave a comment
AusNet trial successfully takes part of Melbourne suburb off-grid http://reneweconomy.com.au/ausnet-trial-successfully-takes-part-melbourne-suburb-off-grid-21015/ By Sophie Vorrath on 11 May 2017 A solar and battery storage mini-grid trial by Victorian network operator AusNet Services has succeeded in taking part of a Melbourne suburb completely off grid, demonstrating how utilities can use solar, battery storage and the internet of things to boost energy security and reliability in the future.
AusNet said on Wednesday that eight homes had been successfully separated from Victoria’s main electricity grid and operated together as a stand-alone solar and battery storage powered mini grid, as part of the company’s Mooroolbark Mini Grid trial.
The homes, including two that had neither solar or batteries, were able to maintain power by sharing electricity via AusNet’s powerlines that connect the mini grid, before being successfully re-integrated with the main grid.
AusNet said the cloud-based mini grid control system – which has been provided by locally-based energy technology company GreenSync – and the stabiliser took the mini grid through a sequence of stages to test the stability of the mini grid as an independent, unified renewable energy system.
The stabiliser, developed by Power Technology Engineered Solutions, is essentially a smart battery storage system that smooths renewable energy supply and consumption across the mini grid by either delivering or absorbing power when needed.
Parker, speaking at Energy Network Australia’s Welcome to the Grid Edge conference on Wednesday, said that the achievement was a “major milestone” on the road to a future grid with high penetration of solar and storage.
“The electricity network will continue to play an important role in our energy future, but we need to make sure it is able to support technology such as solar panels and battery storage for the benefit of all customers,” he said.
“In the future, we may be able to use this technology to keep homes powered during major storm events.
“We could also use (it) to smooth peak demand on our network, helping to reduce the need to build expensive power stations and therefore reducing costs to customers.”
The next step for the trial is to test additional control functionality to manage peak loads and generation on the network, as well as further testing of the stand-alone supply scenario involving additional customers being integrated into the stand-alone mini grid.
May 12, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
solar, Victoria |
Leave a comment
Other announcements included the Government reaffirming their $110m loan commitment for the solar thermal project in Port Augusta.
Most of the package will go to measures that will accelerate exploration and assessment of onshore gas and lay the groundwork for new gas pipelines.
It is clear from this budget that the Coalition government is failing to undertake the longer term strategic thinking that is needed to transform Australia’s energy system and wider economy to address Australia’s growing emissions
Turnbull’s budget ignores energy crisis and dodges climate http://reneweconomy.com.au/turnbulls-budget-ignores-energy-crisis-dodges-climate-24886/ By Matthew Rose on 10 May 2017
Budgets are centrepiece moments for governments. They lay out spending and savings but they also highlight values and choices, along with the agenda the government will pursue in the coming financial year. Decisions often have legislative implications that must be wrangled through the Senate and therefore dominate the political agenda for months if not the following year.
Unfortunately, the second budget of the Turnbull Government continues their dire management of Australia’s energy and climate change policy. By the government’s own admission, they are in the grip of an ‘energy crisis’ largely concerning east coast gas supplies. The energy sector overall has been plagued by policy uncertainty.
Earlier in the week the Energy and Environment Minister admitted Australia wouldn’t meet its Paris Commitment of net zero emissions by 2050 and instead the end of the century was a more realistic ambition.
This ambition ignores the overwhelming scientific evidence that net zero emissions by the end of the century is totally inadequate in avoiding extremely dangerous climate change. It is inconsistent with the Paris Agreement goal of holding global warming well below 2 degrees and to pursue a 1.5-degree limit. In short, it is a grossly negligent position from Australia’s environment minister.
Despite these self-identified challenges the Federal Budget fails to address them. The current centrepiece of the Government’s climate policy the Emission Reduction Fund (ERF) remains under a cloud with no further funding allocated in the Budget. Continue reading →
May 11, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming, energy, politics |
Leave a comment
Antinuclear 