Finance Minister Mathias Cormann says new cut to Clean Energy Fund , in exchange for saving Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Arena)
Coalition says deal with Labor to save Arena funding will lead to new clean energy cut
Mathias Cormann tells Sky News that the capital available to Clean Energy Innovation Fund will be reduced, Guardian, Michael Slezak, 13 Sept 16, The finance minister, Mathias Cormann, has said the Coalition’s deal with Labor to save some funding for the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Arena) will be balanced by a new cut to the Clean Energy Innovation Fund – but Labor has denied that was the agreement.
Speaking on Sky News, Cormann said: “Labor has asked for us to restore $800m of that for grants funding so we will do that but the capital available to the Clean Energy Innovation Fund will be reduced accordingly.”
It is understood that would in effect be cutting the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) by $800m, because the innovation fund is part of the CEFC……..
The Greens’ climate and energy spokesman, Adam Bandt, called on Labor and theCoalition to clarify what the finance minister meant.
“It seems the finance minister thinks the government still gets to rip over a billion dollars from clean energy and that Labor has been outplayed,” Bandt said. “Far from saving clean energy, Labor just did a dirty deal with the Liberals to gut renewables.” https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/sep/13/coalition-says-deal-with-labor-to-save-arena-funding-will-lead-to-new-clean-energy-cut
Australia loses valuable weather forecasting as Govt closes Macquarie Island research station
Macquarie Island research closure will lead to deterioration in weather forecasting, scientist says, ABC News, By Elise Fantin , 15 Sep 16 The closure of the Macquarie Island research station will put weather forecasting at risk, a climate scientist has warned.
Key points:
- Rainfall, temperature, wind and cloud measurements are taken daily on the island
- Weather balloons are launched daily for atmospheric measurements
- Loss of data will lead to deterioration of forecasting, scientist says
The Australian Antarctic Division announced on Tuesday to close the station in March next year and restrict research to field huts during the summer period only.
Atmospheric scientist Professor David Karoly — who sits on the Federal Government’s Climate Change Authority — said the station’s closure would have long-term consequences for data collection……http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-14/macquarie-island-weather-research-at-risk/7845428
Debunking five claims by climate science denier politician Malcolm Roberts
his views could now have relevance and importance – not because they are potentially true, but because they could influence the workings of parliament.
Debunking Malcolm Roberts: the case against a climate science denier
In his first speech to Parliament on Tuesday, Roberts made many false claims about climate change. He said that climate change was a “scam” and implied that it was some sort of conspiracy between all the major international research agencies. “ … there is no data proving human use of hydro-carbon fuels affects climate,” he said.
Most news outlets had stopped covering the views of climate science deniers in regular reporting. There is a clear scientific consensus that the world is warming and that human carbon emissions have caused it, so reporting the views of a few non-experts who push fanciful theories with no credible evidence is seen as “false balance”.
But journalists are in a different position when someone in an important office holds such views………
to avoid repeatedly having to debunk Roberts’ views, we have produced a handy reference list of his main arguments, as outlined on the ABC’s Q&A program on 15 August. This list may be updated if he introduces new elements to back his claims.: Continue reading
Your Say: Comments on safety in importing nuclear wastes
Lachlan Childs 14 Sep 2016 We are not a rich country, we don’t have money to just throw in the air. A Nuclear waste dump would not only harm the environment, and radiate the land for future generations, but it would put the country into bankruptcy. The nuclear waste dump may in fact cost millions of dollars just to set up and manufacture. I understand that the government will then say “Oh! but if we go forward with the Nuclear Waste Dump, a total of $279 billion dollars with be made,” Yea but at the risk of thousands being affected by radiation and if the shipping makes a mistake which could possibly happen, Australia would become another wasteland.
Marisol Da Silva 12 Sept 16 People predicted the Fukushima accident could happen years before it did happen. Chernobyl had it’s disaster because of human error. Because, as humans we do get it wrong. Years after both of these major catastrophes it is still costing money to maintain, clean up, not to mention the health issues of the people and children left behind to live with nuclear devastation. To this date there has been no real solution on how to store nuclear waste. It has been proven that it costs way to to much to plan, build, maintain now and far into the future as this stuff is going to stick around for what is essentially a forever (far beyond several human lifespans and our imaginations into the future). With all the information out there on radiation sickness and the unpredictability of natural disasters occurring, how can anyone hold a straight face and claim nuclear waste, power, mining, bombs are safe? Because ultimately all these things are linked. If you feel you have forgotten then ask the children of Chernobyl and the former USSR, Fukushima, the Marshall Islands, the survivors of the atomic bomb, British Maralinga SA tests, the tribals in Jagugoda Jharkhand India, and the list goes on. We don’t learn. Why don’t we learn from their stories? Why do you think South Australia suddenly will solve what no one has solved? Do you think future children are ever going to thank you for even entertaining this idea? It is a shame that a few greedy people can ruin the earth for the rest of us. We can’t let this happen. We wont let this happen here.
Craig Gordon 01 Sep 2016 I have a question relating to sea transport and geology.
When I stopped at a “Know Nuclear” stand recently the person I spoke to mentioned that with 10km’s of the coast lost cargo would be retrievable.. but past that it wouldn’t be accessible/safe/whatever to bring the waste back to the surface.
She wasn’t quite sure how to answer my follow up question though.. (her expertise was physics, not geology).
My (limited) understanding is that unlike continental crust, which is stable, oceanic crust is constantly being subducted into the core of the earth into the mantle… I understand the rate of this is slow.. but I was wondering how that process might relate to any high level waste that was lost at sea?
http://nuclear.yoursay.sa.gov.au/get-invol…/statewide-survey
With careful planning, Kangaroo Island could be independent with renewable energy
A balanced local electricity supply solution and a transition to 100% renewable power could deliver a range of economic development and other benefits to the local community.
Kangaroo Island’s choice: a new cable to the mainland, or renewable power, The Conversation, Chris Dunstan September 16, 2016 South Australia’s iconic Kangaroo Island, the site of Australia’s first free settled colony, could pioneer a new age of renewable energy, according to our new research.
The first hardy settlers in 1836 had to decide whether to go it alone with a settlement on the island or revert to the mainland. Today, the 4,400 or so people who call the island home face a similarly stark choice: energy independence, or continued reliance on the mainland.
On one hand, the ageing existing cable could simply be replaced, at a cost of between A$22 million and A$50 million. This is the “preferred network option” proposed by the local electricity distribution network, SA Power Networks (SAPN).
On the other hand, SAPN is also currently considering an alternative mix of local wind, solar and biomass generation, complemented by diesel generation, battery storage and demand management. Continue reading
Your Say: Immoral and illegal for Jay Weatherill to spend taxpayer money to promote nuclear waste dump
Peter Lazic 12 Sep 2016 What consent does Jay Weatherill have to spend $600 million dollars of taxpayer money to plan a nuclear waste dump, when the proposed dump may never get approved. This and the money spent to date on the Royal Commission, the road show, now TV advertisements, etc, is obscene and immoral
Ed note : Especially as the SA Law says:
13—No public money to be used to encourage or finance construction or
operation of nuclear waste storage facility Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/A/NUCLEAR%20WASTE%20STORAGE%20FACILITY%20(PROHIBITION)%20ACT%202000/CURRENT/2000.68.UN.PDF
http://nuclear.yoursay.sa.gov.au/get-invol…/statewide-survey
Australian company exporting lithium
Why mine lithium?
Lithium is essential for wind turbines, as well as for so many 21st Century 
technologies. However, it is another potentially toxic extractive industry. There’s so much of it dumped in discarded devices. Design should be the answer, so that lithium can be recycled.
MinRes beats Galaxy in lithium export race Jarrod Lucas – The West Australian on September 16, 2016 The first shipment of spodumene concentrate from the Mt Marion mine, 40km south-west of Kalgoorlie-Boulder, is set to depart Fremantle next month bound for lithium processing plants in China.
The product, the equivalent of about 6 per cent lithium, will be delivered to Mt Marion co-owners Ganfeng Lithium (43.1 per cent), which builds batteries out of Jiangxi province and recently branched out into manufacturing electric cars.
Mt Marion, jointly owned by Chris Ellison’s Mineral Resources (43.1 per cent), and Neometals (13.8 per cent), will beat Galaxy Resources to market after its first shipment via Esperance from the revamped Mt Cattlin mine near Ravensthorpe was delayed until December.
It comes as Mt Marion’s neighbours Maximus Resources yesterday trumpeted a “new lithium discovery” on the doorstep of the mine……..https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/32629967/lithium-set-for-export/#page1
Nearly half of all Australians would consider switching banks, due to climate change concern
Switching banks: nearly half of all Australians would consider move over climate change
Poll findings released as prominent Australians call on big four to withdraw backing for fossil fuel industry, Guardian, Michael Slezak, 14 Sept 16, About half of all Australians would be likely to switch banks if they found out their bank was lending money to projects that contribute to climate change, according to polling commissioned by the financial activist group Market Forces.
The findings came as more than 100 prominent Australian individuals and organisations signed a letter demanding that the big four banks stop supporting projects that expand the fossil fuel industry. Among the signatories are JM Coetzee, Charlotte Wood, James Bradley, Missy Higgins, Peter Singer and Jack Mundey, as well as unions, religious orders and conservation groups.
Asked how important it was that their bank invest in companies and projects that don’t harm the environment and contribute to climate change, 74% of the poll’s respondents who were with the big four banks said it was at least “somewhat important”, according to the Essential Research poll of 1,017 people.
Forty-eight per cent of respondents said they would be more likely to switch banks if they learned their bank was lending to projects that harmed the environment or contributed to climate change.
When the researchers drilled down into specific types of projects, respondents appeared very concerned. Forty-seven per cent said they were likely to switch banks if they found out their bank was lending to coal and gas export projects in the Great Barrier Reef world heritage area. And 48% said they were likely to switch if they found out theirs was lending to coal seam gas projects near agricultural communities.
Respondents also overwhelmingly supported the big four banks’ decisions to support the goal to limit warming to “well below” 2C. But 65% of people agreed that given their support of that goal, the banks should no longer lend to projects that expand the fossil fuel industry.
In August Market Forces conducted research that found the big four banks had lent $5.6bn to fossil fuel projects and companies since they expressed support for the target.
In the open letter, released at the same time as the poll findings, the signatoreis outline a number of actions that the banks must commit to in light of their support for the Paris agreement goal……..https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/15/switching-banks-nearly-half-of-all-australians-would-consider-move-over-climate-change
When will Premier Weatherill admit that the nuclear bonanza is a really bad idea.
an illusion
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/opinion/margaret-beavis-claims-south-australia-will-make-a-fortune-out-of-nuclear-waste-are-just-an-illusion/news-story/de432ce34d9deac7cfbfab406ec32c71 Margaret Beavis, The Advertiser September 13, 2016 THE acclaim around the pot of gold to be made importing nuclear waste into South Australia increasingly feels more like an illusion.There are so many invisible parts making up this story, it is probably only a matter of time before Premier Jay Weatherill finds the courage to say the nuclear bonanza is a really bad idea.
So what are these invisible items?
Firstly, there are no high level nuclear waste facilities anywhere in the world. None. Anywhere.
Both Germany’s efforts have leaked radiation into the water table, and they are currently spending billions pulling the waste out again.
In Nevada, the US government has spent over US$10 billion building a site, only to find multiple problems including deliberately falsified data about the water table, and massive community opposition. It will never open. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico closed two years ago after a fire and later an explosion exposed 22 workers and contaminated the whole site. Official investigation found cost cutting, corner cutting and human error was to blame, with a “loss of safety culture”.
The high level nuclear sites in Sweden and Finland were described by the recent Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission in South Australia as “successful”.
These locations have been researched for 40 years, and will not even start taking waste for at least another six years and, in the Swedish case, well over a decade. It is easy to succeed when there is no radioactive stuff to actually deal with.
For the last forty years we have counselled pregnant women to avoid X-rays as we know their babies have much higher rates of leukemia.
Evidence from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, from vast human trials literally involving hundreds of thousands of nuclear workers to research about Cat scans and nuclear heart scans, all point to significant harms with additional radiation.
There is no evidence of a safe lower dose; the higher the exposure the higher the risk.
And recent large research trial found rates of stroke and heart attack are also increased.
There is a good reason why countries want so badly to be rid of this material, which is toxic for over 100,000 years.
Thirdly, we have nowhere to put it.
The plan is to import it, and then find some poor remote community to take it.
The problem with that theory is that for almost twenty years the government has been looking for a site for Australia’s own intermediate level waste, without success.
Aboriginal communities have been disproportionately targeted. We clearly already have more nuclear waste than we know what to do with.
Finally the promised billions, so pivotal to the whole proposal, are risky.
They have been modelled by a firm that works in this area and has potentially a strong vested interest in this venture going ahead
They have not allowed for potential competition, which would massively reduce the prices paid. They have included countries like Ukraine as clients, when Ukraine is looking into building its own facility at Chernobyl.
They have included countries like Bangladesh, which does not even have a reactor yet.
And it has made assumptions about the viability of the nuclear power industry, when plants in places like the US are closing down as they cannot compete financially.
Nuclear waste facilities are very expensive to build, and historically costs inevitably blow out. For example, in the current French waste construction project costs have doubled in the last decade.
There has been no independent financial modelling done by the government, which is extraordinary given the enormous financial risks and the extraordinary time frames.
And the income to cover the clean up — decommissioning and other costs — does not start until 2042.
In essence, this proposal is startling in its optimism.
The likely outcome if it goes ahead is a whole lot of highly toxic radioactive waste lasting for 100,000 years in South Australia, and billions of taxpayers’ money spent trying to find a way that works to get rid of it.
If it is such a financial bonanza, many countries would be racing to do it.
The reality is that a royal commission, lots of clever marketing, 100 consultation sites and a couple of citizens’ juries still don’t make this a smart idea.
Margaret Beavis is president of the Medical Association for Prevention of War
Is Australina government secretly planning nuclear submarines?
Dick Smith questions submarine project, says plans are ‘ludicrous’ and ‘we’re being conned’ 891 ABC Adelaide, 14 Sept 16
French company DCNS won the $50 billion contract to build Australia’s next fleet of 12 submarines in Adelaide, which will replace the current Collins Class fleet. The company won the contract to build a modified version of its nuclear submarine, called the Shortfin Barracuda.
The Australian Government stipulated that the winning contract would need to use conventional power, ruling out larger, nuclear-powered submarines. The lead up to the submarine contract has involved election promises, business and political campaigns and lots of speculation.
Mr Smith said the re-designed version of the submarine would have to be converted to a diesel engine.
But he told 891 ABC Adelaide that was a ludicrous plan and he believed it would never happen.
“So the plan is for us to buy a nuclear submarine design and then convert it to a piston submarine,” he said. “Now no-one has ever done that in the world and in fact when I talk to submarine experts they say it is so ridiculous, so we’re being conned.”
Mr Smith said if the Government’s real agenda was to use nuclear technology, it should be up front about it……….
More details on subs project needed: Xenophon South Australia Senator Nick Xenophon said more detail about the submarines project was needed…..Senator Xenophon said he was concerned about the lack of certainty surrounding the project. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-13/dick-smith-questions-submarines-project-over-nuclear-power/7837946
South Australian govrenment sucked in by the Small Modular Nuclear Reactor lobby?
The SA Government’s “Energy Market Transition Plan”, obtained by Freedom of Information request, has revealed that prospects for small modular nuclear reactor deployment in South Australia have been explored.
SA government probes nuclear option as Premier Jay Weatherill promises cheaper power https://au.news.yahoo.com/video/watch/32558838/sa-government-probes-nuclear-option-as-premier-jay-weatherill-promises-cheaper-power/#page2
7News Adelaide September 7th, 7 News can reveal a top level report clearly indicates small scale nuclear reactors have been on the short term radar. Mike Smithson reports
An expert witness to the Nuclear Citizens Jury – sceptical of the “economic bonanza”
The price is a guess; there is no market price for accepting dumped waste at the present time.
The cost of shipping the waste to South Australia seems also to be a notional allowance in Appendix J ($0.20m/tonne heavy metal). Where this comes from is not obvious.
far from being a financial bonanza, as proposed by the Royal Commission, the project could make minimal returns, and be a real distraction from alternative paths to the economic future of the state
The SA economy, the nuclear waste dump and democracy Richard Blandy INDaily, 12 Sept 16 ANALYSIS As TV messages encourage South Australians to become informed about a proposed nuclear waste dump, Richard Blandy argues the project could prove a distraction from exploring alternative solutions to the state’s economic challenges.
Several times in recent days I have seen a brief message on our TV in which a South Australian mother advises her small daughter that everyone must become informed about the proposed high-level nuclear waste dump in the state. Her daughter looks suitably mystified.
No doubt this is part of the exercise in citizens’ democracy that is currently underway to determine whether there is a “social licence” to proceed with such a dump. Other elements in this process include two meetings of citizens’ juries (one of which has already been held), as well as citizens’ information meetings.
The TV message could have come from the satirical 1970 movie The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer, in which conman Rimmer (Peter Cook) eventually becomes British Prime Minister. …….
my experience of the first citizens’ jury, which I attended as an expert witness on July 9, was very positive. I was invited principally as a result of my InDaily articles opposing the dump.
There was one other expert economics witness present questioning the economics of the dump: Rod Campbell, research director of the Australia Institute in Canberra.
Several of the expert witnesses present who supported the economics of the dump had been involved in undertaking the economic/financial analysis for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission.
The citizens’ jury operated as a free-flowing discussion rather than with set pieces presented by the witnesses followed by questions from the jurors. The issues are difficult and technical, but the jurors were great. They made me think that if I am ever in deep trouble with the law, I will always opt for trial by jury.
The 54 South Australian citizens on the jury were sensible, common-sense people who asked pertinent questions. They quite properly insisted that the business case for the dump should be made watertight – or the dump abandoned. Continue reading
Discord in nuclear submarine lobby
Businessmen lobby for nuclear subs, news.com.au SEPTEMBER 13, 2016 Australian Associated Press A group of Australian businessmen is lobbying for Australia’s next fleet of submarines to be nuclear-powered and supplied by another country, warning the current deal to build the vessels in Australia will “condemn our sailors to their graves”.
The group says it can’t understand the federal government’s decision to award a multi-billion deal to French supplier DCNS, which will be required to deliver 12 diesel-powered submarines for which there are no drawings and no plans…….
The businessmen, including Dick Smith, Gary Johnston of Jaycar Electronics and ad man John Singleton took out a full-page advertisement in The Australian slamming the move to go with French producer DCNS, suggesting buying off-the-shelf nuclear subs would be a better option……
It also questioned the economics of the decision, saying it would be cheaper to subsidise car industry jobs, if creating jobs was the desired outcome.
Mr Johnston said DCNS was being asked to build a diesel-powered version of what is essentially a nuclear-powered sub.
“They haven’t got a drawing, they haven’t got a plan. Their current nuclear submarine, the Barracuda, is sitting on a slipway…..http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/sa-premier-hits-back-at-sub-criticism/news-story/b8dd63476f1a4552c6685d3533163cd1
Turnbull govt slashes half-a-billion dollars from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency,but doesn’t actually kill it
Australian Renewable Energy Agency saved but with reduced funding – experts react, The Conversation, September 13, 2016 The Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) has been granted a funding lifeline of A$800 million over the next five years, after the federal government and opposition came to an agreement that will save the agency.
ARENA had faced being wound down as a result of the government’s earlier proposal to strip A$1.3 billion from the agency. This was part of a wider package of measures designed to save the federal budget more than A$6 billion.
Renewable energy researchers had reacted with dismay to that proposal. An open letter to the government in defence of the agency attracted 190 signatures.
Below, our experts react to the news.
Nicky Ison, Senior Research Consultant, Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney
Today the Coalition government and the Labor Party struck a deal to:
- slash half-a-billion dollars from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency; and
- save the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA).
These statements seem like a contradiction, but both are true. However, it is also true that the need to save ARENA exists because of the Coalition government’s efforts over the past three years to dismantle Australia’s renewable energy policy. If the benchmark is that we keep our existing renewable energy institutions, today was a win. However, if the benchmark is that we have institutions and policies that have sufficient funding and scope to tackle the policy challenges of climate change, our changing energy system and driving innovation, then today was a loss.
Andrew Blakers, Professor of Engineering, Australian National University
The Australian research community is pleased that the government’s proposal to debilitate ARENA by removing A$1.3 billion and ending its granting function will not go ahead. At the same time, we are disappointed that yet again ARENA is subject to huge funding cuts.
The fastest and surest way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to accelerate the introduction of renewable energy into the electricity system. ARENA has focused heavily in this area (among others), covering the full gamut from support for early-stage research, through grants to young renewable energy companies, to acceleration of deployment of large-scale solar photovoltaic systems.
ARENA will need to heavily prune its activities to cope with a A$500 million budget cut. We look forward to restoration of ARENA funding, and to a concerted effort at the national level to move rapidly to 50-100% renewable electricity……https://theconversation.com/australian-renewable-energy-agency-saved-but-with-reduced-funding-experts-react-65334
Taxpayers up for huge costs in South Australia – just for the PLANNING for nuclear waste importing
Political Reporter Sheradyn Holderhead, The Advertiser September 11, 2016 THE State Government will need to find up to $600 million to plan a nuclear waste dump even if the project never gets off the ground, a consultant working on the Royal Commission has revealed.
Jacobs Engineering Group project manager Tim Johnson told a parliamentary committee investigating the project that the total cost prior to the decision to proceed and sign contracts with client countries would likely be $300 million to $600 million.
Premier Jay Weatherill said precommitment from participating countries could reduce the risk for taxpayers.
But Dr Johnson questioned the likelihood of doing that earlier than year six of the project, at which time up to $600 million would already have been spent.
Late last week, the committee visited a dump site in Nevada where more than $10 billion has been spent by US government. The project has stalled for years as the state and federal governments fight over approvals.
Liberal MLC and committee member Rob Lucas said the large costs were “a potential deal breaker”.
“I don’t speak for the committee or my party at this stage. Personally, I would find it very hard to support any proposal which meant we could spend $600 million and then decide we wouldn’t proceed with the project,” he said.
“That would simply mean taxpayers had wasted $600 million for nothing.” Continue reading
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 