Renewables not to blame for South Australia’s electricity papers – says Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg
Frydenberg says renewables not to blame for South Australia energy “crisis”, REneweconomy By Giles Parkinson on 28 July 2016 Josh Frydenberg, the minister newly elevated to the combined energy and environment portfolio, says that renewable energy was not to blame for the recent energy “crisis” in South Australia, although he did deliver some mixed messages about how the government proposes to move forward.
Frydenberg delivered a series of interviews on Wednesday, the first since he was appointed to the new position in a reshuffle by the re-elected Turnbull government, and this included a “chat” with ABC personality Annabel Crabb at a dinner function at the Clean Energy Summit.
Asked about the recent electricity spikes in South Australia, Frydenberg said it was a “complex picture” that included a reduced capacity on the inter-connector, a cold snap that spiked demand, a big shift in gas prices, and the “intermittency issue about wind and solar.”
But he also noted that in 2008, as RenewEconomy has reported, the price of wholesale electricity in South Australia peaked above $5,000/MWh more than 50 times. That was before wind and solar were in that state, he said, and noted there had only been three such peaks so far this year.
“People have to understand that this volatility is not a new thing. It was back there in 2008 …. so to say that (this price spike) is the fault of renewables is not an accurate assessment,” Frydenberg said, to the applause of the audience of around 400 people.
This, however, was not how The Australian interpreted events, who attributed Frydenberg’s comments about the crises in South Australia and Tasmania as a “wake-up” call about the problems created by wind and solar.
Tasmania, it should be remembered, suffered the highest wholesale prices in Australia last financial year because its electricity supply was restricted by the loss of the Basslink cable and much of its hydro capacity due to drought. Most analysts say it was its lack of investment in wind and solar that forced it to rely heavily on expensive back-up gas and diesel…….
Frydenberg appeared well briefed, non-confrontational, and recognised the growing role of technologies such as wind, solar and battery storage whose costs had fallen quickly and would continue to do so. He also appeared to be listening, people said.
The role of coal, Frydenberg accepted, is declining, and the transition to clean energy is inevitable. But he was reluctant to put any time frames on the inevitable move to zero emissions technology, apart from saying that a shift to 100 per cent renewable energy was not going to happen overnight.
But while his comments were soothing for an industry just regaining its confidence after being battered and bruised by the first term of the Abbott-Turnbull government and the key policy decisions of Frydenberg’s good friend, the previous environment minister Greg Hunt, his next moves will be scrutinised intensely.
There is great concern about a push by the incumbent energy industry, such as the Energy Supply Council to force state governments to abandon their individual state targets, a move that will be strongly resisted by South Australia, Victoria, Queensland and the ACT……..http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/frydenberg-says-renewables-not-to-blame-for-south-australia-energy-crisis-75546
Wind and solar are NOT responsible for the doubling of wholesale energy prices in South Australia
South Australia’s ‘absurd’ electricity prices: renewables are not to blame, Guardian
Tristan Edis, 28 July 16
Wind and solar are not responsible for the doubling of wholesale energy prices in SA – that’s just part of the spin that says renewables are expensive. Reading many of the newspapers over the past few weeks you’d think South Australia had become a horrible case study in the dangers of too much renewable energy……
Politicians are now responding, with Liberal Senator Chris Back calling for a ban on new wind farms until after a review by the Productivity Commission. Meanwhile Senator Nick Xenophon’s party are backing a Senate inquiry.
Yet everyone has missed the main cause of a doubling in SA power price rises – a doubling in gas prices.
What makes it all especially worrying is the blame attributed to renewable energy appears to have originated from a public relations campaign initiated by the lobby group for the big power generators………
wholesale market data suggests renewable energy has actually been depressing power prices, not increasing them. In the months before and after the Northern Coal Power Station was taken off-line, South Australia’s wind farms, without exception, bid their entire available output into the market for a price less than a single dollar. Meanwhile rooftop solar doesn’t even bid into the market, with its output just reducing the demand for generators that do bid into the wholesale market.
This is not to suggest renewable energy imposes no costs. It is certainly true that wind and solar require a subsidy, but its cost is distributed equally across all electricity consumption around the nation via the federal RenewableEnergy Target scheme. It isn’t allocated to states depending on how many wind farms or solar panels they have installed.
The idea that renewables are to blame for the doubling in South Australian wholesale prices is an idea the Australian Energy Council, which represents big power companies, have been pushing since late last year. This campaign has sought to paint South Australia as an “accidental experiment” in the dangers of too much renewable energy.
If you scratch the surface they actually acknowledge renewable energy is depressing wholesale power prices. But they claim it pushes prices so low that, rather strangely, it is apparently increasing prices……..
It was only with the addition of wind and solar to the existing mix of coal plus the interconnector that gas could be driven down to less than a third of the electricity market. This acted to substantially shield SA from power price rises, not induce them.
So it is LNG plants, not wind and solar, that are responsible for South Australia’s “absurd” electricity prices. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/27/south-australias-absurd-electricity-prices-renewables-are-not-to-blame
Large-scale solar the next wave of renewable energy
Jul 27 2016. The federal government has allocated more than $600 million to help large-scale solar projects get off the ground, as utility solar photovoltaic projects become the next wave of renewable energy to be embedded into the national electricity market…...(subscribers only)
http://www.afr.com/news/politics/largescale-solar-the-next-wave-of-renewable-energy-20160727-gqeo4k
Queensland’s Mt Emerald wind farm – construction to start in December
Construction Mt Emerald wind farm expected to start in December The Cairns Post July 28, 2016 CONSTRUCTION on the Tablelands’ Mt Emerald wind farm is expected to start in December, following the selection of preferred contractors for the $360 million project.
Developer Ratch Australia has awarded its wind farm contract to Dutch manufacturers Vestas and the Sydney-based Downer Group.
Vestas and Downer will share responsibility for the entire 180MW project, including supply and construction of more than 50 turbines, a substation, cabling to the grid, civil and electrical works, and wind monitoring equipment.
The announcement follows Ergon Energy’s decision to purchase all of the electricity generated by the wind farm through to the end of 2030……..http://www.cairnspost.com.au/news/cairns/construction-mt-emerald-wind-farm-expected-to-start-in-december/news-story/09b600f1c8d9b6e2a4eb929d34b27768
Tough new guidelines for New South Wales wind farms
Tilting against windmills? Industry doubts NSW support for wind farms, SMH, Peter Hannam, 28 July 16 New wind farm guidelines are expected to impose tough requirements on developers to limit their visual impact in a move that proponents say will put NSW at a disadvantage to other states.
The proposed guidelines, requiring developers to prepare visual impact assessments according to the height of turbines, were disclosed by the planning department to a select group of prospective wind energy developers on the sidelines of a two-day clean energy summit in Sydney on Thursday. Continue reading
What chance for truth at the South Australian Nuclear Parliamentary Inquiry?
Well, not a whole lot, because out of the six members of this Inquiry, only one, Mark Parnell, has an antinuclear position. the other five all belong to political parties that, to put it mildly, are friendly to the nuclear industry:
Hon Tom Kenyon MP Labor’s “ true believer in SA’s nuclear potential”
Mrs Annabel Digance MP – Labor party. well, we all know how Labor MPs toe the party line, no matter what the evidence.
South Australian Nuclear Royal Commission Did Not Give The Citizens’ Jury The Full Picture
Submission to JOINT COMMITTEE ON FINDINGS OF THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE ROYAL COMMISSION Makes the case that Australians are being denied the bigger picture, and the NFCRC was deliberately or negligently selective in their assessment of evidence received. https://www.academia.edu/27087058/Submission_to_Joint_Committee_on_Findings_of_the_Nuclear_Fuel_Cycle_Royal_Commission
“………I believe that the South Australian people have a right to know about the implications of all relevant nuclear materials handling processes and their consequences for human health and the environment in advance of making or influencing any government decision to accept or reject spent nuclear fuel.
I am concerned that the Citizens’ Jury currently tasked with simplifying the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission may not comprehend the full extent of the Commission’s recommendations- that is, that they are seeking to enable currently prohibited industrial activities across the whole nuclear fuel cycle.[1] Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, Government of South Australia, ‘Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Report’, 2016: pg. XV. http://yoursay.sa.gov.au/system/NFCRC_Final_Report_Web.pdf . Accessed 2016-07-01……..
3. the question arises: how selective or otherwise was the process of assembling its Final Report and recommendations? Why was certain information received not included in the Commission’s final report?
4. the first Citizens’ Jury did not hear from a presenter who was appropriately knowledgeable on matters of radio-biology and the pathways and effects of exposure to nuclear materials in environmental or occupational contexts (with respect to uranium and nuclear fuel). The only medical professional to address the jurors for any significant length of time was Associate Professor Michael Penniment.
It is my opinion that by not providing fundamental information about the connection between radiationexposure and the development of cancers and leukaemia, the Department of the Premier andCabinet is preventing the jurors from being able to adequately consider risks, which being bombarded by the opportunity of waste storage, and the numerous mechanical processes which would need to occur to enable it………
CHERNOBYL In his presentation to the jurors, Penniment went on to describe the consequences of Chernobyl incorrectly, stating that only 28 people died as a result of the incident, and that those were the first responder clean-up workers. This misinformation conflicts with all recent accounts of the disaster, including those published in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission’s own Final Report. No-one present in the room was able to correct him……
5 I supplied evidence to the Commission for its consideration demonstrating the different approaches taken to measuring and estimating the human health consequences of Chernobyl in my submission to the Tentative Findings. I had hoped that the Commission would compare these with its own references to UNSCEAR and the WHO. No such comparisons were reflected in the Final Report…….
FUKUSHIMA In the case of the 2011 Fukushima disaster, the Commission’s final report fails to reflect the gravity, extent of harm and technical complexities related to the incident and the response thus far……
6. [On the health effects on nuclear workers]
The Commissioner’s response to my question and correction demonstrate that the Commissioner was at that time unaware of the problematic nature of the elevated risk of cancers and leukemias experiencedby nuclear industry workers, despite my submissions. This also confirmed that the evidence I provided to the Commission was ignored, either wilfully or negligently. I reach this conclusion with confidence, given Chad Jacobi’s recent admission that all submissions were read by the Commission, and by him personally.[11]
I have received further confirmation from the Royal Commission’s Chief of Staff, Greg Ward that Chad Jacobi was the chief author of the final report. If Jacobi read all of my submissions, what cause did he have to ignore the evidence that I provided?
NUCLEAR FACILITY EFFLUENT & EMISSIONS In my submissions to the Commission, I drew attention to several studies which identified or analyses clusters of leukemias in close proximity to nuclear facilities…….. The Commission chose not to include this controversial subject in its final report, despite a preliminary search revealing a substantial number of peer-reviewed medical research papers exploring this topic……..
NUCLEAR FUEL LEASING The Final Report refers to the prospect of establishing a nuclear fuel leasing scheme in South Australia, contingent on the establishment of a permanent storage facility for spent nuclear fuel. The report then goes on to say that such a program could provide a competitive advantage capable of improving prospects for the development of additional uranium processing activities in South Australia……..This process of gradual expansion into enrichment and fuel processing is summarised….
By my assessment, these statements reveal the broader intent of the Commission’s recommendations, yet this information is buried deep inside the body of the Final Report. The Commission suggests that South Australia work with established nuclear industrial players to add value to the currently exported product: uranium oxide concentrate.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Independent inquiry finds that the ABC is not biased
ABC cleared of ‘anti-business’ bias in independent review http://www.theage.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/abc-cleared-of-antibusiness-bias-in-independent-review-20160722-gqbp68.html Matthew KnottThe ABC has been cleared of systemic “anti-business” bias in a major review of its coverage, with former ANZ boss Mike Smith confessing he has rethought his negative perceptions of the broadcaster.
The independent editorial review, for which Mr Smith was a key adviser, has been one of the broadcaster’s most comprehensive yet. As well as analysing a week’s worth of ABC programming, the review included interviews with ABC business staff and submissions from business groups, think-tanks and unions.
Fairfax Media understands the review, which has not been released publicly, is overwhelmingly positive about the ABC’s coverage overall while making some criticisms.
Sources familiar with the review, led by longtime BBC adviser Kerry Blackburn, said they were relieved and surprised by its positive tone. In his submission, Mr Smith writes that when he began the review, he shared the widespread view in corporate Australia that the ABC was hostile to business and that its coverage of business issues was poor.
But after examining the broadcaster’s output in detail, he came to be impressed by the rigour and balance of most of the ABC’s business reporting.
South Australian govt spruiking nuclear waste dump to TAFE students
SA govt’s Nuclear Consultation and Response Agency (CARA)TAFE SA will host a Video Conference (VC) for students on Thursday 28thJuly between12-1pm. Mr John Phelan, CARA’s Director of Engagement, will provide information during this session.
TAFE SA Video Conference (VC) Campus Locations – Thursday 28th July 12pm – 1pm
South Australian Greens prevented law that would give full rein to taxpayer funded nuclear promotion
Nuclear waste dump ‘spruiking’ with taxpayers’ money stopped by Greens http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-14/nuclear-waste-dump-‘spruiking’-with-taxpayers’-money-stopped/7325076 14 Apr 2016 An attempt to change the law in South Australia to allow public money to be spent on promoting a nuclear waste dump has been stopped with the Greens claiming a victory.
A law passed in 2000 to stop public funds from being used in any activity associated with a nuclear waste facility.
The State Government had tried to amend the law to allow consultation with the community on the results of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission. Greens MLC Mark Parnell said the proposed change was too wide ranging and the Upper House had stepped in to protect taxpayers.
“The Greens do accept that we do need to have a public debate,” he said.”We’re confident we know what the result will be but nevertheless the Government says they only want to consult, they don’t want to spruik and they don’t want to plan for a nuclear waste dump.”
He said the Government had attempted to “overreach”.”The law now says that the Government can use public money to consult the community but they’re not to use public money for promoting or designing or even buying land for a nuclear waste dump.”
Global nuclear industry promoters influencing SA nuclear waste plan
27 July 2016 The Australian Conservation Foundation will today table to a South Australian Parliamentary committee information showing a key adviser to the state’s recent nuclear Royal Commission is a nuclear ‘true believer’ who was behind a failed attempt to open a global radioactive waste dump in Australia in the 1990s.
Charles McCombie, who was technical manager of Pangea Resources – a consortium that tried to advance a waste dump in Australia during the 1990s – is a foundation partner of MCM, a Swiss based firm contracted by the Royal Commission to model economic and technical information and analyse potential customer demand and economics.
MCM’s report strongly influenced the Commission’s enthusiastic pro-dump recommendations. Mr McCombie is also President of ARIUS, the Association for Regional & International Underground Storage. MCM and ARIUS both aim to advance global radioactive waste disposal, raising questions about the independence and objectivity of the advice provided.
MCM has stated that a positive state government response to the Royal Commission report would ‘change the worldwide paradigm of radioactive waste management’.
“In the late 1990s public outrage forced Pangea to abandon its dumping plan”, said ACF campaigner Dave Sweeney. “Today a pro-nuclear Royal Commission is using public funds so Pangea’s inheritors can re-write the proposal. South Australians deserve better.
“Understandably there is concern about commercial interests pushing a plan to ship, store and bury the largest amount of the world’s worst nuclear waste in South Australia.
“The permanent risk of nuclear waste demands the highest level of scrutiny and transparency, not limited disclosure and insiders promoting a pre-determined agenda.
“Radioactive waste management is complex, contaminating and costly – and it lasts far longer than any politician or headline. It needs real analysis, not industry assumptions.
“ACF urges Premier Jay Weatherill to seek an independent review of the Royal Commission’s research and recommendations and not to further advance this high risk plan based on a report that is compromised, deeply deficient and unfit for purpose.”
Taxpayers left with the bill for cleaning up uranium mines
The Humphries Report illuminates the challenge for the mining sector and state governments and it contains just five case studies……
For the environment, the risks are clear, the Mary Kathleen uranium mine, once controlled by Rio, was rehabilitated and relinquished in 1986, winning an award for technical excellence at the time. The waste dump has since failed and the liability and attendant costs now reside with Queensland taxpayers.
Mary Kathleen, whose AFL side once won three regional premierships, is now a ghost town. Radioactive waste has seeped into the water systems.
Taxpayers to foot the bill for mine closures, Independent Australia 26 July 2016 Mine rehabilitation – to avoid toxic seepage – is a costly business which taxpayers look likely to fund, writes Michael West.
MINING COMPANIES and regulators have gravely underestimated the costs of mine rehabilitation, leaving taxpayers in the gun for billions of dollars in clean-up costs, says Rick Humphries.
He should know. Humphries was Rio Tinto’s top adviser on land use before heading up mine rehabilitation for base metals groupMMG.
The environmental scientist has since “switched sides” to consult for conservation groups on mine closure.
Humphries told us in an interview last week:
“The problem is there is a very large and growing environmental liability and if it’s not put in check it will cost taxpayers dearly, and result in large scale degradation of national resources.”
There are some 50,000 abandoned mine sites in Australia. Many are small and old. Others though, such as Century Zinc Mine, Ranger Uranium and the first of the mega coal mines to close – Anglo American’s Drayton and Rio Tinto’s Blair Athol – are large, toxic and present a formidable challenge to close properly.
The humongous Ranger and Century open cut voids alone, will cost around $750 million to $1 billion to rehabilitate and the residual risks and liabilities for their parent companies (Rio Tinto and MMG) are as yet unknown. Continue reading
Green bonds fast gaining popularity
Green bonds the new black in the market as environmental financing surges, ABC News, 26 July 16 By business reporter Stephen Letts The environmentally sensitive shoots developing in the global bonds market appear to be heading for a serious growth spurt with another record quarter of “green bonds” issuance.
In a research note on the sector, the credit ratings agency Moody’s found environmentally focused green bond issuance in the June quarter hit a record $US20.3 billion ($27 billion), well above the $US16.9 billion ($22.5 billion) recorded in the first quarter of the year.
Added together, the two quarters raised almost 90 per cent more capital than in the first half of 2015.
“The global green bond market is now poised to reach $US75 billion ($100 billion) in total volume for 2016 and so set a new record for the fifth consecutive year, given the strong issuance already observable in the first two weeks of Q3,” Moody’s senior vice president Henry Shilling said.
That fresh flow in the third quarter includes $300 million worth of bonds from Victoria put out to tender earlier this month, the first green issuance from an Australian state or federal government……
Clean energy projects dominate the market
The increasing demand has been supported by many big pension funds now carrying mandates that stipulate portfolios must hold required levels of environmentally friendly investments.
Around two-thirds of green bond proceeds in the quarter were directed to renewable energy and energy efficient projects, with clean transport accounting for a further 17 per cent of the money raised.
The US dominated issuance, with 23 per cent of the market, followed by the big development agencies such as the World Bank, with 17 per cent, although China is expected to bounce back to its dominant position in the market with $US3 billion worth of bonds in the pipeline for sale in coming months……. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-27/green-is-new-black-in-the-bonds-market-environmental-finance/7664414
Canberra solar project co-located with wind farm
Gullen Range Wind Farm adds solar project in Australian first, Canberra Times John Thistleton 27 July 16
Australia’s first large-scale solar farm to be co-located with wind turbines will be built near Canberra, saving money and creating a more reliable, cheaper renewable energy model.
The 10 MW solar photovoltaic plant near the existing Gullen Range Wind Farm, 28 kilometres north west of Goulburn, will likely be followed by more co-located generators, says the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, which is providing $9.9 million for the $26 million project.
ARENA chief executive Ivor Frischknecht said under the co-location model developers could save money on grid connection, approvals and site development costs including access tracks by co-locating wind and solar plants, while also reducing environmental impacts. Proponents expect savings of about $6 million.
Mr Frischknecht said solar and wind were complementary sources of renewable energy that produced power at different times of the day and year.
“Co-location provides more continuous energy generation, as wind farms tend to generate more energy overnight while solar only generates during the day. Gullen Wind Farm generates more power in winter and the new solar farm will generate more in summer,” Mr Frischknecht said.
“It could also unlock new markets for medium-scale solar PV projects, because scale isn’t as important for competitiveness when plants are co-located.”……http://www.canberratimes.com.au/business/energy/gullen-range-wind-farm-adds-solar-project-in-australian-first-20160726-gqdqqh.html
South Australia is targeted for five nuclear dumps and high level waste processing
SA is targeted for five nuclear dumps and high level waste processing
Brief by David Noonan, Independent Environment Campaigner
The Nuclear Royal Commission recommended SA pursue nuclear waste storage and disposal “as soon as possible” – requiring five waste dumps and a high level nuclear waste encapsulation processing facility.
The Final Report Ch.5 “nuclear waste” and the Findings Report (p.16-20) are reliant on a consultancy “Radioactive waste storage and disposal facilities in SA” by Jacobs MCM, summarised in Appendix J.
SA is targeted for above ground high level nuclear waste storage, without a capacity to dispose of wastes, exposing our society to the risk of profound adverse impacts, potential terrorism and ongoing liabilities.
The State government is in denial on the importance of nuclear waste dump siting by claiming social consent could be granted before we know what’s involved in siting up to five nuclear dumps across SA.
Affected regions and waste transport routes are fundamental pre-requisites to transparency and to an informed public debate on potential consent to take any further steps in this nuclear waste agenda.
First: a dedicated new deep sea Nuclear port is to receive waste ships every 24 to 30 days for decades, to store high level waste on site following each shipment, and to operate for up to 70 years.
The coastal region south of Whyalla and north of Tumby Bay is the likely location for this Nuclear port.
South Australia is targeted for a globally unprecedented scale of high level nuclear waste shipments. Some 400 waste shipments totalling 90 000 tonnes of high level waste and requiring 9 000 transport casks are to be brought into SA in the first 30 year period of proposed Nuclear port operations.
This is in excess of the global total of 80 000 tonnes of high level nuclear waste shipped around the world in the 45 year period from 1971 to 2015, according to the World Nuclear Association report “Transport of Radioactive Materials” (Sept 2015) and the Jacobs MCM consultancy (Feb 2016, p.152).
Second: an above ground nuclear waste Storage facility is to take on approx. 50 000 tonnes high level waste before a Disposal facility could first start to operate in Project Year 28 (Jacobs p.5 Fig.3).
SA is proposed to import high level waste at 3 000 tonnes a year, twice the claimed rate of waste disposal (Jacobs p.114), with storage to increase to 70 000 tonnes. The Store is to operate for up to 100 years.
The Nuclear Commission budgeted to locate the waste Storage facility 5 to 10 km from the Nuclear port.
The Nuclear port and above ground waste Storage facility are to be approved in Project Year 5, ahead of pre-commitment contracts for 15 500 tonnes high level waste in Year 6 and waste imports in Year 11.
South Australia needs to know the proposed region for siting the Nuclear port AND whether the nuclear waste Store is to be adjacent to the port (likely on Eyre Peninsula) or sited in the north of SA.
Third: a Low Level Waste Repository for burial of radioactive wastes derived from all operations including final decommissioning of all nuclear facilities is proposed to be located in north SA. This Repository has a nominal waste burial capacity of 80 000 m3 of radioactive wastes (Jacobs p.144). This is some eight times the total scale of the proposed National Radioactive Waste Repository.
1 This month.
20 September –National Day of Action in Melbourne on the International Day of Peace
Help Aunty Sue Protect Her Land and Sacred Sites From Destructive Rocket Testing.
.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 