Report finds 100% renewable grid “reliable, robust and stable”
100% renewable grid not just feasible, but “reliable, robust and stable” http://reneweconomy.com.au/100-renewable-grid-not-just-feasible-reliable-robust-stable-12185/?utm_source=RE+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=dd172b60b8-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2016_12_09&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_46a1943223-dd172b60b8-15634933 By Sophie Vorrath on 9 December 2016
The discussion paper, released on Friday by not-for-profit group the Alternative Technology Association, found that a fully renewable electricity grid would provide long-term economic and social benefits for Australia, while also playing an important part in its commitments to fight climate change.
The publication of the paper coincides with Friday’s meeting of COAG, to discuss the preliminary report of the Finkel Review into the security and stability of the national electricity market.
The ATA report, 100% Renewable Grid – Feasible?, reviewed evidence from recent developments in Australia and overseas, as well as previous studies including those by the Australian Energy Market Operator.
“We found all experts agree that a 100% renewable grid will be reliable and stable, as long as it uses an appropriate mix of renewable generation sources, energy storage and upgraded infrastructure,” said Andrew Reddaway, the paper’s author and ATA energy analyst.
During periods of calm, cloudy weather electricity could be sourced from sunny or windy parts of the country and supplemented with energy stores such as hydroelectric dams, molten salt heat storage, batteries, renewable gas and stockpiles of pelletised woody waste, the report found.
“This grid would be robust, with smarter renewable generators and batteries automatically injecting extra electricity when required for grid stability,” Reddaway said.
“Similarly, smart appliances would detect disturbances in the grid and independently adjust their power level to compensate.”
The ATA report also found that the cost of such a smart and diverse grid would be manageable, and compared it to a “21st century version of the Snowy Mountains Scheme.”
The Snowy hydro scheme, said Reddaway, cost the equivalent of 16 per cent of Australia’s Gross Domestic Product in its commencement year, but these costs were spread over the project’s duration, and were balanced by the creation of many local industry jobs.
“During the transition energy costs are likely to be slightly higher than ‘business as usual’, but in the longer term it would place downward pressure on electricity bills because renewable energy generation is cheap to run,” Reddaway said.
“Widespread energy efficiency measures would further offset costs.”
On the technical side of things, the report noted that there were “many possible solutions to maintain grid stability as levels of wind and solar generation increase.”
For example, to maintain inertia in the grid, the report recommends retaining the steam turbines of decommissioned fossil fuel power plants, keeping them connected to the grid, and allowing them to continue to rotate in synch with grid frequency, without burning fuel.
For wind farms, the report notes, when a slowdown in grid frequency is detected, the wind turbine’s controller could immediately increase its power output by temporarily sacrificing some blade speed – an app roach known as synthetic inertia that ATA says is already required in part of Canada.
As for rooftop solar, the report says this is already evolving to help keep the future grid stable.
“As of October 2016, all new grid-connected inverters must be capable of reducing their generation or export, in response to a signal from the grid operator,” it says.
“Known as Demand Response Mode (DRM), this feature allows solar generation to be curtailed when it exceeds overall demand – although this is not expected to be implemented for many years, the ATA notes, and requires and additional device known as a Demand Response Enabling Device (DRED) to be plugged into the inverter.
And, like other reports released recently on this subject, the ATA notes that battery storage will play a big role in future renewables-heavy grids.
“Batteries are especially well suited to support grid stability,” the report says, “as they can discharge electricity into the grid with zero start-up time.
“Large batteries have already been installed in the grid for such purposes overseas,” it says, adding that household batteries can also provide this service, while also delivering savings and other benefits to consumers.
Australia’s nuclear industry – a history of crude racism against Aborigines
Dumping on Traditional Owners: the ugly face of Australian racism The Drum, 29 March 12 The nuclear industry has been responsible for some of the crudest racism in Australia’s history.
This racism dates from the British nuclear bomb tests in the 1950s but it can still be seen today.
The British government conducted 12 nuclear bomb tests in Australia in the 1950s, most of them at Maralinga in South Australia. Permission was not sought from affected Aboriginal groups such as the Pitjantjatjara, Yankunytjatjara, Tjarutja and Kokatha. Thousands of people were adversely affected and the impact on Aboriginal people was particularly profound.
Many Aboriginal people suffered from radiological poisoning. There are tragic accounts of families sleeping in the bomb craters. So-called ‘Native Patrol Officers’ patrolled thousands of square kilometres to try to ensure that Aboriginal people were removed before nuclear tests took place. Signs were erected in some places – written in English, which few in the affected Indigenous communities could understand. The 1985 Royal Commission found that regard for Aboriginal safety was characterised by “ignorance, incompetence and cynicism”. Many Aboriginal people were forcibly removed from their homelands and taken to places such as the Yalata mission in South Australia, which was effectively a prison camp.
In the late-1990s, the Australian government carried out a clean-up of the Maralinga nuclear test site. It was done on the cheap and many tonnes of debris contaminated with kilograms of plutonium remain buried in shallow, unlined pits in totally unsuitable geology. As nuclear engineer and whistleblower Alan Parkinson said of the ‘clean-up’ on ABC radio in August 2002:
“What was done at Maralinga was a cheap and nasty solution that wouldn’t be adopted on white-fellas land.”
Despite the residual contamination, the Federal Government has off-loaded responsibility for the land onto the Maralinga Tjarutja Traditional Owners. The Government portrays this land transfer as an act of reconciliation, but the real agenda was spelt out in a 1996 government document which states that the clean-up was “aimed at reducing Commonwealth liability arising from residual contamination.”….. http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3919296.html
The Australian tax-payer is the sole investor in Adani’s coal export plans.
Aside from the culture, environment and cost, is Adani a good investment?, The Age, Julien Vincent , 13 Dec 16,
The Australian public is the sole investor in Adani’s coal export plans.
Adani is an Indian conglomerate that wants to build the largest thermal coal mine in Australia, a rail line of almost 400 kilometres connecting it to the coast, and a coal export terminal in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. The coal would be shipped out through the reef, giving it a perfect view of the bleaching and mortality that has been decimating our valuable natural icon recently before being burned in power stations overseas, only to further contribute to climate change and ocean acidification, considered the greatest long-term risks to the reef.
Given that the reef sustains 60,000 jobs and provides $6 billion per year of economic benefit to Australia, investors may want to consider conflicts of interest before moving ahead.
Some other niggling environmental risks investors might want to consider is the drainage of 12 billion litres per year of water from the Great Artesian Basin and the impacts of coal dust on people’s health along the transport corridor, along with particulate matter from the power stations as the coal is burned.
We’d also want to be content with supporting a mine that has not received free, prior and informed consent from traditional owners, potentially making this a major human rights issue.
But enough of the existential threats posed to culture, people, sites of natural World Heritage and the climate.
Let’s look at the numbers. Last week’s proposal by the Australian government of a $1 billion loan from the Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund means as investors we need to understand the business case.
First of all, don’t be put off by Adani’s corporate debt, which is two-and-a-half times the size of the company. Or the fact that Adani’s share price is down 20 per cent this year. This loan would actually be going to Adani’s private family company, based in Singapore and ultimately owned by Atulya Resources in the Cayman Islands, where we can be sure the money will be totally secure.
The mine will supply new coal power stations in India, whose power minister said yesterday would not be required until 2022, and who wants to get India off imported coal within the next few years. The power will only cost twice that of new renewable energy, and so an exciting market has been identified among those living in energy poverty.
Should the India option fail, the coal could be sold onto the seaborne market, which has declined by 10 per cent in recent years, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Bernstein and others declaring it in structural decline.
Conditions like these have frightened off a few more faint-hearted commentators, such as the Queensland Treasury under the Newman government, which described the project as unbankable. Or Wood Mackenzie, which still considers the project as having a negative net present value.
Should the India option fail, the coal could be sold onto the seaborne market, which has declined by 10 per cent in recent years, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Bernstein and others declaring it in structural decline.
Conditions like these have frightened off a few more faint-hearted commentators, such as the Queensland Treasury under the Newman government, which described the project as unbankable. Or Wood Mackenzie, which still considers the project as having a negative net present value…….
It’s clear that our investment is going to make a major difference. But will it be enough? $1 billion is a huge lifeline but depending on what assumptions you make about the scale of the project or who you’re prepared to believe, this project is going to cost anywhere from $7 billion to $21 billion……http://www.theage.com.au/business/mining-and-resources/aside-from-the-culture-environment-and-cost-is-adani-a-good-investment-20161213-gta0nq.html
Heatwaves are killers – and they are getting worse
Heatwaves are more deadly than bushfires and they’re going to get worse, Canberra Times, Karl Kruszelnicki , 13 Dec 16 In 2009, the terrible Black Saturday bushfires killed 173 people. What most Australians don’t realise is that the crippling heat around the horrendous bushfires killed 374 people.
In the European heatwave of 2003, 50,000-70,000 people died between June and August. The Russian heatwave of 2010 killed about 55,000 people.
A bushfire leaves obvious signs of the cause of death (burns, blisters, etc), but a heatwave does not. Deaths from heatwaves are revealed indirectly. In Victoria in 2009, the first sign that the heatwaves were killing people was the morgues filling up. The unexpected extra corpses had to be stored in universities, mortuaries, funeral parlours and the like.
There are many definitions of a heatwave. The one from the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) is widely accepted. According to the WMO, a heatwave happens when you have five days in a row, each with a daily maximum temperature five-or-more degrees higher than the average maximum temperature……..
The science is quite clear that climate change (which has been accepted as real since in 1988, and yes, we caused it) is worsening heatwaves. Dr Thomas Knutson and colleagues from the US Geophysical Fluids Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton University wrote a paper showing that (with a very high degree of confidence) climate change caused the extreme heat Australia experienced in 2013.
In Australia, heatwaves now arrive earlier, are hotter, and last longer……http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/heatwaves-are-more-deadly-than-bushfires-and-theyre-going-to-get-worse-20161212-gt9fyl.html
Australian Capital Territory (ACT) – jobs growth with renewable energy
Renewable jobs grow as ACT drives down emissions from government operations by 17 per cent in three years, Canberra Times, Katie Burgess, 13 Dec 16, Jobs growth in the ACT renewable energy sector in the past six years was 12 times faster than the national average, a report into the territory government’s action on climate change has revealed.
The Minister’s Report into Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Reduction also showed the rate of job growth in the ACT’s renewables sector was six times higher than any other state and territory, as the government invested $12 million into a renewable energy industry development strategy.
Ahead of the COAG Energy Council meeting on Wednesday, climate change minister Shane Rattenbury said he would push other states and territories to take up their own renewable energy targets.
“We must not allow the federal government’s inaction to limit what we can achieve at a state and territory level. The ACT is a great example of what subnational governments can achieve. We are on track to meet our 100 per cent renewable electricity target by 2020 and to become Australia’s first zero emission jurisdiction by 2050,” Mr Rattenbury said.
Emissions from government operations have fallen 17 per cent since 2012-2013, the report also revealed. The ACT government is aiming to be carbon neutral in its own operations by 2020……http://www.canberratimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/renewable-jobs-grow-as-act-drives-down-emissions-from-government-operations-by-17-per-cent-in-three-years-20161213-gta1ha.html
Energy transition means Australia needs power grid upgrade
Aust needs energy grid overhaul: report
, Herald Sun, Melissa Meehan and Kaitlyn Offer, Australian Associated Press December 12, 2016 Australia’s power grid needs a multi-billion dollar upgrade to safeguard future energy supply amid the shift away from coal-fired power stations, the nation’s energy operator says.Local councils, consumers, energy companies lead the way to clean energy
Fossil fuel divestment is worth $7tn globally yet Australia still clings to coal, Guardian,
Blair Palese, 13 Dec 16 While the Australian government lags behind on climate change action, consumers, local councils and energy companies lead the way to clean energy. The Turnbull government has been an utter disappointment on so many things but nowhere as much as on the biggest issue of our time: climate change.
Unable to shrug off the legacy of the climate-denying Abbott government, it has been bullied out of any climate change ambition by science-denying fringe elements on the right.
The list of dishonourable mentions are long. Despite signing the Paris agreement last year, the Australian government has consistently undermined any efforts to keep the world below the safe level of 2C. Last week’s backflip on the idea of a carbon-intensity emissions trading scheme – supported by most of the banks and the energy sector as the best way to reduce emissions and provide a level-playing field – is just the latest in a long line.
But the biggest worry is seeing Turnbull’s coal-loving ministers push through the Adani mega coalmine in Queensland, replete with the offer of a $1bn taxpayer-funded loan to build a railway line through rich farmland to a coal terminal on the Great Barrier Reef. If constructed, the Adani mine will almost certainly condemn the Great Barrier Reef to the annals of history, not to mention blowing almost any chance of us living in a safe climate future.
But while climate change is mired in partisanship and cheap political point-scoring on a federal level, Australian organisations, driven by a strong market shift away from polluting fossil fuels, particularly coal, are leading the way towards the clean economy.
On Tuesday a report by global financial outfit Arabella shows that fossil fuel divestment is now worth an astounding A$7tn globally. It spans almost 700 organisations as diverse as the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund, the City of Newcastle and the Australian National University.
This $7tn that is not invested in coal, oil and gas provides a significant financial indicator to back up what we already know: fossil fuels are on the nose.
While Australia may be lagging on a government level, many of our businesses are leading the world in waking up to the risks posed by fossil fuels and the opportunities of the new clean economy.
The Arabella report highlights that Australia has the most divestments per capita of any developed nation. And these organisations that have divested are by no means radical. It is groups such as the Australian Capital Territory’s government, Australian Academy of Science, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians and the National Tertiary Education Union. Add to the mix almost 30 local government councils, 10 super funds, a handful of our top universities and you get the picture.
There is even a chance you live in a fossil-free council considering that more than one in 10 Australians now live in a council area that has sworn off fossil fuels…….https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/dec/13/fossil-fuel-divestment-is-worth-7tn-globally-yet-australia-still-clings-to-coal
Growing food in a desert. #auspol
Sundrop Farms produces healthy, sustainable food in the middle of the Australian Desert, without using pesticides, fossil fuels or fresh water.
The scarcity of food resources in many parts of the world is one of the major population threats. Agricultural lands deplete continuously, as climate change and inappropriate agricultural practices cause intense soil degradation and nutrient deficiencies. Desperate farmers continue to add enormous amounts of fertilizers and pesticides, while wasting millions of gallons of fresh water for irrigation. Many even feel obliged to opt for growing genetically modified crops with questionable health benefits, but which are apparently resistant to certain factors and can result in high yields.
Sundrop Farms, a modern agricultural company, has set a task to show that healthy, organic food can be produced everywhere. Their aim is to bust the myth that genetically modified foods, toxic pesticides, and large sums of money are the only solution to…
View original post 320 more words
1835 (and counting) South Australians sign up to No Nuclear Waste Dump for SA
The Federal Government has selected South Australia for their national nuclear waste dump – saying that Barndioota in the Flinders Ranges is their only option.
This is on top of the South Australian Nuclear Royal Commission promoting South Australia as the World’s high level radioactive waste dumping ground.
Constructing a nuclear waste dump in SA is currently illegal and the Greens want it to stay this way. We ask:
• Is this the best our State can aspire to?
• Is the damage to our State’s reputation worth it?
Radioactive waste is not only dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years, but its storage can never be 100% foolproof.
Last year in the US, a barrel of nuclear waste stored underground at an intermediate waste site in New Mexico ruptured, exposing 22 workers to radiation and costing an estimated $500 million to remediate.
Exposure to radiation can cause serious health problems – including cancer, cardiovascular disease, emphysema and cataracts – and if it enters the soil can contaminate our food and water.
Add you voice and sign the petition below to call on the South Australian Government to enforce our laws and stop nuclear waste being dumped in SA.
We the undersigned residents of South Australia, call on the Weatherill Labor Government to enforce the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000, to prevent a nuclear waste dump in South Australia. signatures:http://sagreens.markparnell.org.au/no_waste_dump_for_sa So the current count is 25 to 1833?
25 prominent South Australians sign up to Ben Heard’s Bright New Nuclear Bullshit
12 Dec 16 Australian nuclear lobbyists have had remarkable success in making themselves famous internationally, which is probably their main aim. . Barry Brook set this off, with a thin veil of environmentalism covering his dedication to the nuclear industry, in Brave New Climate. He got a heap of well-meaning environmentalists to sign up to a pro nuclear letter.
Now Ben Heard has gone a step further, with HIS nuclear front group – Bright New World. He’s got 25 important people to sign up to a pro nuclear campaign for South Australia. As with Brook’s disciples, some of these people seem quite altruistic and disconnected with the nuclear and mining industries.
Others do not:
Dr Ian Gould: chairing South Australia Energy and Resources Investment Conference 23-24 May 2017 Adelaide, geologist with 40 years experience in the minerals industry in diverse and senior positions, mainly within the CRA/Rio Tinto Group, current Chancellor of the University of South Australia and was awarded an AM in the 2011 Queen’s Birthday Honours for services to mining.
David Klingberg is a South Australian businessman, civil engineer and former Chancellor of the University of South Australia. director of ASX listed companies E & A Ltd and Centrex Metals Ltd. Klingberg is chair of a technical sub-group working on the Australian Government‘s National Radioactive Waste Management Project.
Dr Leanna Read is South Australia’s Chief Scientist, Expert Advisory Committee of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission in South Australia.] Read is a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering,[which advocated for nuclear power in Australia in August 2014.. Read is also the Chair of the South Australian Science Council.
Stephen Young director or Chairman on a number of companies including ,Electricity Trust of South Australia, Australian Submarine Corporation ,The University of Adelaide ,E&A ltd and its Subsidiaries.
Mr Jim McDowell Chancellor of the University of South Australia Jim McDowell is currently Chair of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation and non-Executive director of a number of private and listed companies. He advises the Federal Government in a number of areas of Defence and Defence Procurement. He is a member of the First Principles Review of the Department of Defence and is currently on the Expert Advisory Panel for the Future Submarine. Formerly CEO OF BAE Systems Australia, the nation’s largest defence contractor.
Michael John Terlet Primary qualification in Electrical EngineeringNon Executive Chairman of Sandvik Mining and Construction Adelaide Ltd, a Director of Australian Submarine Corporation Pty. Ltd. Served as the Chief Executive Officer at AWA Defence Industries, Chairman of SA Centre for Manufacturing, Defence Manufacturing Council SA (MTIA)
Graham Douglas Walters AM, FCA Mr. Graham Douglas Walters, AM, FCA, serves as Chairman of the Board of Directors at Minelab Electronics Pty Ltd. Mr. Walters serves as Chairman and Director at Minelab International Pty Ltd.
David Noonan dissects the draft ARPANSA Information for Stakeholders on nuclear radioactive waste facility
Effectively this is the same draconian situation that existed under the earlier Commonwealth 
Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005 introduced by the Howard government to override State and Territory interests to protect community health, safety and welfare from the risks and impacts of nuclear wastes and to nullify Federal laws that protect against imposition of nuclear wastes.
Public submission to the draft ARPANSA Information for Stakeholders & associated Regulatory Guide to Licensing a Radioactive Waste Storage or Disposal Facility
Summary
Revised ARPANSA “Information for Stakeholders” should address the following:
The nuclear fuel waste Store in the Flinders Ranges is intended to operate for approx. 100 years.
The ARPANSA “Information for Stakeholders” fails to be transparent and is not fit for purpose.
ARPANSA must inform the public on the proposed licence period for this nuclear fuel waste Store.
ARPANSA should also publicly acknowledge the Contingency that the proposed nuclear fuel waste Store may be at a different site to the proposed near surface Repository in the Flinders Ranges.
The proposed above ground Store in our iconic Flinders Ranges is unnecessary as the ANSTO’s existing Interim Waste Store (IWS) at the Lucas Heights Technology Centre can manage reprocessed nuclear fuel waste on contract from France and from the United Kingdom over the long term.
The ANSTO application for the Interim Waste Store was conservatively predicated on a 40 year operating life for the IWS, and ANSTO has a contingency to “extend it for a defined period of time”.
ANSTO also has a contingency option for the “Retention of the returned residues at ANSTO until the availability of a final disposal option” – which does not involve a Store in the Flinders Ranges.
The Lucas Heights Technology Centre is by far the best placed Institution and facility to responsibly manage Australia’s existing nuclear fuel waste and proposed waste accruals from the Opal reactor.
The Interim Waste Store (IWS) at the Lucas Heights Technology Centre can conservatively function throughout the proposed operating period of the Opal reactor without a requirement for an alternative above ground nuclear fuel waste Store at a NRWMF in the Flinders Ranges or elsewhere.
It is an inexplicably omission or an unacceptably act of denial for ARPANSA to fail to even identity or to properly explain Australia’s existing nuclear fuel wastes and proposed further decades of Opal reactor nuclear fuel waste production in the “Information for Stakeholders”.
Australia’s nuclear fuel wastes are by far the highest activity and most concentrated and hazardous nuclear wastes under Australian management, and must be distinguished from other waste forms. Continue reading
Western Australia’s Premier (like South Australia’s) risks political oblivion in promoting nuclear power
With a state election around the corner it is time for all candidates to understand that support for clean renewable power will increasingly be a community pre-condition for access to political power.
Premier’s nuclear push is proof of a government in meltdown, http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=18719 By Mia Pepper . 12 December 2016 “…..At the recent COAG meeting our Premier has gone out on a glowing limb in a bid to revive the debate on nuclear power. Now there’s nothing wrong with a healthy debate, but this debate has been had repeatedly and the answer is always the same. It is time to put this tired talking point to bed and get on with the energy transition we can no longer ignore.
In 2016 the SA Government’s Royal Commission into the Nuclear industry found that “it would not be commercially viable to develop a nuclear power plant in South Australia…”
A decade earlier in 2006 the Switkowski Report found that “Nuclear power is likely to be between 20 and 50 per cent more costly to produce” than existing power sources and acknowledged that the reality that disposal of “high-level waste including spent nuclear fuel remains an issue in most nuclear power countries.”
Both these reports were initiated with a pro-nuclear agenda. Both sought to progress the contested nuclear industry within Australia. Both found insurmountable barriers including cost, time, contest and the complexity of nuclear waste.
None of these key factors have changed and they are not likely to. Many in the community remain deeply sceptical of nuclear power – and in the shadow of the Australian uranium fuelled and continuing Fukushima nuclear crisis – this too is unlikely to change.
A mystery akin to whale beachings is why do conservative politicians periodically wash up demanding that ‘we should include nuclear in the debate’ when we all know that the numbers simply do not add up?
Well, in short it is not a real proposal rather a headline grabbing convenient distraction from the very real issue of the need to rapidly transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy.
The reality is that we do not have the decades that nuclear reactors take to build, license and start. Our emissions are rising alongside global temperatures and the global climate clock is ticking loud.
The Premier’s latest foray into the nuclear space shows how little he understands about the risks – both nuclear and climatic. In 2015 when there was talk of West Australia possibly hosting Australia’s nuclear waste his reaction was effectively ‘don’t worry about it as it’s just a couple of X-rays’. The national nuclear waste problem in Australia has zero to do with x-rays and everything to do with spent nuclear fuel from the Lucas Heights reactor in Sydney – material that is far more serious and long Continue reading
While Barnaby Joyce trashes South Australia’s renewables, his electorate gets multi-million dollar loan for wind farm
Windfarm in Barnaby Joyce’s NSW electorate gets $120m CEFC loan Clean Energy Finance Corporation loan comes three months after minister slammed SA’s over-reliance on wind power, Guardian, Gareth Hutchens, 12 Dec 16, The Clean Energy Finance Corporation has made a multi-million dollar loan for a new windfarm in Barnaby Joyce’s electorate.
General Electric in support of State-based renewable energy targets
US energy giant GE backs states going own way on renewables, The Age, Peter Hannam 11 Dec 16 Renewable energy can add resiliency to electricity grids and there’s no reason why individual states can’t set their own goals higher than a national target, says a US industry veteran.
Nick Miller, senior technology director of General Electric’s energy consultancy, said US states such as Texas now supplied as much as half their electricity from renewable sources.
“If Australia wants to try its own state by state [approach] that is not intrinsically a bad thing,” the 36-year GE veteran engineer told Fairfax Media during a visit.
“If some states want to move forward faster, they will reap the economic benefits first, and the states that stay behind — sort of embracing the past — are probably going to get left behind.”
Mr Miller’s comments will bolster the case made by governments in states such as Queensland, Victoria and South Australia, and the federal Opposition, all of which have set renewable energy targets beyond 2020 unlike the federal government.
They will also stoke debate over the best way to meet Australia’s climate goals. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull last week drew widespread criticism for ruling out a price on carbon even before his government begins a year-long review from early 2017.
Mr Miller said both Republicans and Democrats had managed to find common ground on clean energy in the US.
“It’s not ideologically driven, it’s business driven,” he said. “There are huge amounts of wind going into Oklahoma and Kansas, and that’s as red [Republican] as you get.”
GE is a supplier to both the thermal and renewable energy sectors. It’s found that, contrary to may public views, wind power actually advances rather than undermines the resilience of the grid.
With modern electronic controls added, a wind plant is now “more tolerant of grid disturbances than the equivalent size synchronous [thermal] plant”, he said. “It is extremely agile, and finely and quickly controlled.”
While recent blackouts in South Australia show that state’s power sector to “very highly stressed”, the response should be to increase flexibility in the system by altering market rules and investment incentives……. http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/us-energy-giant-ge-backs-states-going-own-way-on-renewables-20161211-gt8jdl.htm
Carnegie Wave Energy to build its first commercial wave plant in ENGLAND
Windfarm in Barnaby Joyce’s NSW electorate gets $120m CEFC loan, Guardian, Gareth Hutchens, 11 Dec 16 “…..Australia’s chief scientist, Dr Alan Kinkel, warned last week that investment in the electricity sector had stalled because of “policy instability and uncertainty”.
Over the weekend, the Australian Financial Review reported the pioneering Australian wave-power company Carnegie Wave Energy was planning to build its first commercial wave plant in Cornwall, England, because the climate policy chaos in Australia was too much.
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 