Solar change brings economic, social benefits to remote community
Solar change brings economic, social benefits
In the space of three months, the community’s power bill dropped by more than half, the population grew from three to 40, and local jobs and a school sprang up.
“The sun hits your solar panel, which is on the roof, and creates energy,” Mr Pratt said. “The community will either use that energy during the day, and energy that they’re not using will get stored in the batteries, and they’ll use that energy at night-time when the sun goes down.”
Indigenous Business Australia bought the Allgrid solar system and leased it to the Munungurra Aboriginal Corporation.
Graeme Smith said leasing the system saved the corporation making a large capital withdrawal and allowed the community to change along with developments in technology.
“We can go back and renew our lease upon the latest technology that comes in, so we’re not stuck with the system we’ve got,” Mr Smith said.
Income from the community’s investment portfolios will pay the leasing costs until Munungurra owns the power system outright. With the promise of cheaper power, the community transformed.
Remote community transformed after swapping diesel generator for solar panels http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-14/remote-community-swaps-diesel-for-solar-panels/7508300 By the National Reporting Team’s Kate Wild Graeme Smith was mulling over a long-standing problem at the end of 2015: how to provide affordable power to his tiny, off-grid community.
Despite having freehold title to 170 square kilometres of land east of Tennant Creek and plenty of money in the bank, members of the Munungurra Aboriginal Corporation could not afford to live on their country.
The cost of providing power to such a remote location prevented them building an economy on their land.
“We originally had no power and no water, because we’re not on a grid. We put houses on it, we put generators on it. But still that wasn’t enough,” said Mr Smith, the corporation’s chief executive.
The corporation paid for two diesel generators to run power to two small communities, where two out of eight houses were permanently occupied.
“Whilst it gave people reliable power with two houses pulling off a generator, we’d be going through $600 to $700 a week in diesel,” he said.
“Because we have no employment on community, people weren’t able to pay for the diesel. So they decided to live in town, look after their kids at school, get houses in town, and just go on the dole.”
So on Mr Smith’s initiative, Munungurra Aboriginal Corporation leased a solar power system at a cost of more than $200,000 from Indigenous Business Australia (IBA), and switched off its diesel generator.
IBA is a government-funded organisation that promotes economic independence for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Continue reading
Most Australian prioritise Great Barrier Reef over coal industry
YourVote: Great Barrier Reef should be prioritised over coal mining, survey shows http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/most-australians-want-great-barrier-reef-saved-at-expense-of-coal-mining-survey-20160614-gpim6w.html June 14, 2016 Nicole Hasham Environment and immigration correspondent A thumping majority of Australians want the health of the Great Barrier Reef prioritised over coal mining, according to a survey of more than 63,000 Fairfax Media readers.
However the result suggests neither major party has fully grasped the strength of public sentiment for protecting the natural wonder, which is suffering from declining water quality, and record coral bleaching largely caused by warming oceans.
An analysis of Fairfax Media’s YourVote tool, which gauges respondents’ beliefs to determine their political leanings, shows about 49,900 respondents – or 79 per cent – “strongly agree” or “agree” that the health of the Great Barrier Reef should be prioritised over coal mining. Continue reading
The ‘pie in the sky’ financials of the South Australian Nuclear Royal Commission’s Report
What happens when the private public partnership goes wrong, the private company can just declare bankruptcy and go back to whatever tax haven they more than are likely based in?
David Richards, Commenting on the specific recommendations in the Royal Commission’s Report, 12 June 16 http://yoursay.sa.gov.au/discussions/nuclear-community-conversation-comment-on-the-specific-recommendations-in-the-final-report
The real weakness for this report is the ‘pie in the sky’ financials: The numbers may add up, however their basis in fact is largely illusory… Completion of the construction of the underground storage facility is by use of the money collected after many thousands of tonnes of waste has been collected and stored on the S.A surface. The proposal’s model is supposed to be simple: we start collecting the used fuel for which we will be paid $1.2 million a tonne, we store it on the surface for 10 plus years while the repository is prepared under the surface, and then inter it permanently underground. The weakness of this financial model is that it relies upon our potential customers providing a constant supply of waste at a premium price that we nominate for a sustained period.What happens if not all of our customers is prepared to continue to pay the $1.2 million a tonne? They might send, 100 tonne, say, at the nominated price to get things started, and then ask for a discount. The potential suppliers will know the score, once the canisters are on the surface; the clock in S.A is ticking: success will rest upon this timeline for permanent storage below the surface, achieved by the sustainability of the cash flow generated by maintenance of the waste stream at the nominated price. The overseas suppliers will have done their sums, some of them have held on to this waste for the last 50 years, holding back for a little while longer to get a cheaper price is good business sense. Paying our initial asking price may free up enough space in their local repositories to allow them to absorb new waste until we offer them disposal at a reduced rate. They will have a good idea of the breakeven point of disposing of this waste, and will if they are feeling generous offer this price. Once the waste is accumulating on the South Australian surface, who will be the most desperate, those getting rid of the stuff, them that have been stock piling it for years, or us with a partially built facility and waste in temporary storage on the surface? Continue reading
Bill Shorten ambivalent at the least, about Australia importing nuclear waste
Bill Shorten signals he may be open to supporting high level nuclear waste dump for SA, ABC News By Michael Coggan 17 Feb 2016, Federal Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has given qualified support for the establishment of a multi-billion-dollar nuclear waste storage repository in South Australia.
Key points:
- Bill Shorten may back a high-level nuclear waste dump in SA if economics and safeguards stack up
- Labor has traditionally opposed an expansion of the nuclear industry
- Mr Shorten says issue must not be consigned to the “too-hard basket”
Traditionally, Labor has opposed the expansion of the nuclear industry.
The Royal Commission into the Nuclear Fuel Cycle released tentative findings yesterday that suggested South Australia stood to reap $5 billion a year if it established a “high-level” nuclear waste facility.
The early findings suggest that nuclear power generation is not viable in the short term.
In response to the nuclear waste dump option, Mr Shorten said “on this question, (SA Premier) Jay Weatherill and I are of one mind”.…….http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-16/shorten-and-weatherill-of-one-mind-on-sa-nuclear-waste-dump/7174002
Bill Shorten refuses to back South Australian nuclear probe, THE Australian 10 Feb 15 BILL Shorten has refused to back the South Australian Labor government’s proposal to investigate nuclear energy. …..
spokesman for the federal Opposition Leader said he would not support the inquiry, and the ALP had a “longstanding position on nuclear power based on the best available expert advice”.
Labor has maintained consistent opposition to the establishment of nuclear power plants and all other stages of the nuclear fuel cycle. It is also “strongly opposed” to the importation and storage of nuclear waste sourced from overseas in Australia…… http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/bill-shorten-refuses-to-back-south-australian-nuclear-probe/story-e6frgczx-1227213806115
Melbourne’s world first renewable energy project
Climate change: Melbourne renewable energy project provides global blueprint
The project, which would create a guaranteed market for renewable energy, aims to reduce city’s annual emissions by 138,000 tonnes a year, Guardian, David Sparkes 10 June 16, “……… major cities around the world are watching closely to see if Melbourne’s strategy could become a blueprint for them to follow.
The Melbourne renewable energy project, conceived and managed by the city council, has been two years in the making. Thirteen major institutions operating in the city have formed a consortium that will sign an agreement to purchase a large chunk of their electricity from a new large-scale renewable energy project.
The consortium members are the city of Melbourne, Australia Post, National Australia Bank, the University of Melbourne, RMIT, data centre operator NEXTDC, Zoos Victoria, the city of Port Phillip, Moreland city council, the city of Yarra, Citywide, Melbourne convention and exhibition centre and Bank Australia. If the project goes ahead, it will reduce Melbourne’s carbon emissions by 138,000 tonnes per year……..
The strategy is revolutionary, as it is the first time in Australia that a group of buyers has joined forces to purchase large-scale renewable energy. In fact, the council says it is not aware of a similar model anywhere in the world, especially under the leadership of a city council………http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/jun/10/climate-change-melbourne-renewable-energy-project-provides-global-blueprint
Government rules out public funds for #Adani coal project, activists claim
‘WWF Australia says it has been advised by the federal director of the Liberal party,
Tony Nutt, that no taxpayer money will be sunk into the venture’ Joshua Robertson | The Guardian Australia
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/10/government-rules-out-public-funds-for-adani-coal-project-activists-claim
“A top Liberal party official has given “unambiguous” assurance that a future Turnbull government will not
sink public funds into Adani’s Queensland coal mining project, conservation groups have claimed. …
A spokeswoman for Australian Marine Conservation Society (AMCS), Imogen Zevothen, said
conservationists “strongly welcome this commitment from the Liberal party to rule out any public funding for Adani”. …
Zevothen said this meant “both major parties have now ruled out any public funding for Adani” after a
similar commitment from the opposition leader, Bill Shorten. Adani has most key project approvals in place
but has struggled to gain financial backing for the $16bn project amid a coal market slump … “
Some even more disturbing numbers on folly of South Australia nuclear waste import plan
Kim Mavromatis 10 June 16 MORE NUMBERS – 138,000 tonnes of high level nuclear waste in 69,000 high level radioactive waste canisters equates to a permanent underground nuclear waste dump size of around 112 square kms or 5,500 Adelaide ovals, 400 metres underground – and that’s not taking into consideration the 470,000 m3 of low and intermediate level nuclear waste.
You can’t seriously tell me they will be able to build one nuclear waste dump that big?? in ground where there is no seismic activity in SA. Say yes to one and we will have many – say yes to one and we will end up with a toxic white elephant that will do us in or an economic white elephant that will do us in.
Nick Xenophon Team has NO policy on nuclear wastes
How long can Senator Nick Xenophon sit on the fence regarding the plan for Australia to import the world’s nuclear waste?
Xenophon has said that he wants a referendum in South Australia, on this issue – BUT ONLY AFTER a dump site has been selected.
Nuclear waste dumping was the main focus of questions at a recent Nick Xenophon forum.
The nuclear waste import plan is not just a matter for South Australia. It is a critically important issue for all of Australia. With the federal election looming, it’s becoming apparent that the Nick Xenophon Team could well hold the balance of power, post election.
There’s no mention of nuclear issues in their national policy. Not good enough. Time Xenophon came clean on whether or not he will fall in with the nuclear lobby’s plans.
South Australia’s proposed nuclear waste import dump would be massively larger than Finland’s
Kim Mavromatis, 10 June 16 THE NUMBERS TELL A STORY
At the Royal Commission NFC event at the Hawke Centre in Adelaide (Wed June 1), Kevin Scarce made reference to Finland’s permanent underground high level Nuclear Waste dump, currently being built at Onkalo, which will have a capacity of 5,000 to 10,000 tonnes. Onkalo is featured in the must see doco “Into Eternity”(https://vimeo.com/111398583). The Royal Commission NFC final report specifies a capacity of 138,000 tonnes of high level nuclear waste for the proposed Nuclear Waste dump in SA and Kevin Scarce highlighted this figure at the Hawke Centre Nuclear event.
Comparing the Nuclear Royal Commission numbers with Onkalo, it’s clear that the proposed Nuclear Waste dump in SA will be of mammoth proportions.
Onkalo (Finland), permanent underground high level Nuclear Waste Dump :
• Capacity 5,000 to 10,000 tonnes high level nuclear waste,
• or 2,500 to 5,000 high level nuclear waste canisters.
Proposed SA Nuclear Waste Dump :
• Capacity 138,000 tonnes high level nuclear waste or 69,000 high level nuclear waste canisters.
• Capacity 390,000 m3 intermediate nuclear waste.
• Capacity 81,000 m3 low level nuclear waste.
• Above Ground Temporary facility Capacity 72,000 tonnes high level nuclear waste.
• Above Ground Temporary facility Capacity 175,000 m3 Intermediate nuclear waste.
Just for high level nuclear waste alone, it will require a waste dump 14 to 28 times the size of Onkalo (69,000 high level nuclear waste canisters). And for decades, half of the high level nuclear waste will be stored above ground in a temporary facility. Imagine the risk of nuclear holocaust with all that high level nuclear waste in the one location?
And the preferred site for the proposed Federal govnt’s low and intermediate level nuclear waste dump, in the Flinders Ranges, is in an area where there is regular earthquake activity.
How smart are these people?????
I suspect if the state govnt say yes to one Nuclear Waste Dump (low, intermediate, high), the floodgates will open and there won’t just be one Nuclear Waste Dump site in South Australia, there will be many (50, 100 ????). And saying yes in SA will also open the floodgates to the rest of Australia. And I question whether they’ll stop at 138,000 tonnes (69,000 canisters) of high level nuclear waste????? If the state govnt takes us down this path and we become the world’s nuclear waste dump, there is no turning back
South Australia’s Labor and Liberal leaders for nuclear jaunt together to Finland
Weatherill, Marshall to make bipartisan trip to permanent nuke waste dump in Finland June 9, 2016 , Daniel Wills and Luke Griffiths,The Advertiser
PREMIER Jay Weatherill and Opposition Leader Steven Marshall will make a bipartisan trip to Finland in August and visit the world’s first long-term nuclear waste storage facility……
The bipartisan delegation to Finland will also include members of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Consultation and Response Agency Advisory Board, which is overseeing statewide consultation on the proposal as the State Government considers whether to proceed.
It will visit the Onkalo nuclear waste facility in northern Finland, where the country plans to bury its own spent fuel in a labyrinth of tunnels 520m under the ground for permanent storage. Onkalo is expected to accept fuel for 100 years before being sealed for eternity. The facility is currently under construction is expected to become operational within a decade.
Mr Weatherill said it was critical to see first-hand the kind of facility SA could build.
“The research and evidence shows SA can safely deepen its involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle,” he said. “I want to see first-hand what this might look like and see what lessons Finland can share with us, should this be something South Australians want to consider.”
“To make an informed decision later this year, it’s important that I understand the concept of deep geological disposal. This bipartisan visit to the Onkalo site will allow us to learn valuable lessons from the Finnish experience, which we will share with the SA community.”
Mr Marshall said it’s important there is a bipartisan investigation of the opportunity and co-operation during the community consultation process.
Also on the panel was Greg Ward, chief of staff to the Nuclear Royal Commission…….http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/weatherill-marshall-to-make-bipartisan-trip-to-permanent-nuke-waste-dump-in-finland/news-story/8a1be359682fb154b4fdccd48cc36dca
Australia’s environment must remain an issue for NATIONAL, not just STATEs’ oversight
This week the Greens announced an ambitious policy for new national environment laws and an independent body to oversee and enforce them. The Greens’ policy on environmental democracy and its commitment to resource Environmental Defenders Officers would enable communities to hold government decision makers to account based on the merits of their decisions.
The truth is Australia’s nature protection laws are not adequately protecting our air, water, wildlife and places we love. The laws that protect nature are the foundations of a thriving Australia, but it’s clear they are not strong enough to keep the places we love safe and healthy.
The environment is not merely a matter for state governments http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/06/08/comment-environment-not-merely-matter-state-governments Why is the federal government so keen to give up national oversight of the environment, asks James Trezise. In regional Australia, coal mining and coal seam gas have altered landscapes forever, polluted water supplies and divided communities.
This came into sharp focus on Monday night’s Q&A program – shot in front of a live audience in Tamworth, NSW – where national environment laws came bursting right into the election frame.
From the get-go Barnaby Joyce was pegged down by a ropable community in Tamworth, frustrated at government failure to protect their farms and water supplies from invasive mining projects.
The Deputy Prime Minister tried to crab walk away from the awkward reality that his government approved the development of the Shenhua coal mine, a highly unpopular proposal at the edge of his New England electorate.
The crowd was unimpressed by Mr Joyce’s attempts to downplay the federal government’s ability to influence decisions on the environment. He claimed the states had all the power.
Former longstanding New England MP Tony Windsor appeared to be the local favourite on the night.
In 2013 Mr Windsor played a key role in having a “Water Trigger” added to our national environment law, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The rationale for the legislative change was that state government had not been sufficiently protecting groundwater resources. This has been clear for all to see at Chinchilla, where groundwater has been polluted by an experimental underground coal gasification project.
Three decades prior to the introduction of the water trigger the federal government’s role in protecting Australia’s environment was cemented by the historic Franklin Dam case. Continue reading
Record wind energy output last month kept electricity prices down
Wind energy’s biggest month, and how it keeps prices down REneweconomy, EBy Giles Parkinson on 8 June 2016 Wind energy in Australia has enjoyed its biggest every month in May, producing nearly a quarter more electricity than its previous record month, and overtaking hydro to provide 8.5 per cent of electricity demand in the country’s main grid.
The record output came, coincidentally, in the same month that the last coal fired power station in South Australia was closed (May 9). And a new analysis from energy consultants Pitt & Sherry points to how wind generation is keeping a lid on wholesale electricity prices.
The Pitt & Sherry analysis notes that four states recorded record monthly totals in May – South Australia (where wind met 49 per cent of demand), Victoria, New South Wales and Tasmania. (There is only one very small wind farm in Queensland and Western Australia operates on a separate grid).
The 3.9GW of wind generation in the month of May operated at a capacity factor of 49 per cent, according to Pitt & Sherry, meaning that it produced 22 per cent more than it did in its previous record month (July, 2015). (See this story for more details, and how most wind farms in NSW operated at a higher capacity factor than some of the biggest coal plants).
South Australia has the biggest share of wind farms, with 1.5GW, and this accounted for 49 per cent of its electricity demend in the month. On some occasions, wind energy provided more than 100 per cent of electricity demand in the state.…….http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/wind-energys-biggest-month-and-how-it-keeps-prices-down-69687
South Australia’s nuclear waste dump money mirage
Real juries hear both the Prosecution and Defence cases in open court. What I fear is that my fellow citizens selected for citizen’s jury duty will get to read and hear only what the State Government wants them to read and hear, so that they will give Premier Weatherill the “social licence” he wants in order to proceed with the dump.
South Australians do not need to mortgage their descendants’ future by building a high level nuclear dump in order to make ends meet. The alleged riches that the dump has been claimed to bring are a mirage, but the long-term risks are not.
How a high-level nuclear waste dump could lose money http://indaily.com.au/business/analysis/2016/06/07/how-a-high-level-nuclear-waste-dump-could-lose-money/ June 7 2016 The economic case for a high level nuclear waste facility in South Australia is far from convincing, writes Richard Blandy.
The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission delivered its report early in May. I submitted my InDaily article on the Royal Commission’s tentative findings to the inquiry for its consideration. I received no acknowledgement, but I know that the article was discussed within the royal commission’s processes. It does not appear to have had any substantive effect on the report.
Having read the relevant sections of the report, I continue to believe that South Australia should not use part of its land mass as a dump for highly radioactive used fuel from overseas nuclear reactors (sp-called “high level waste”) which, in the royal commission’s own words, “requires isolation from the environment for many hundreds of thousands of years”.
The only reason why most South Australians would give a high level nuclear waste dump even a second’s thought is because it is being sold to them as a financial bonanza – a no-risk economic lifeline to a state down on its luck. Something for nothing.
In the summary of its report, the royal commission says that a high level waste dump “could generate more than $100 billion income in excess of expenditure over the 120-year life of the project (or $51 billion discounted at 4 per cent)”. Note that the report says “could”, not “would”.
But, in Appendix J, the report says that “applying a commercial pre-tax discount rate of 10 per cent the net present value of profits to the State would amount to $11.5 billion”. This is a big reduction from the headline number in the summary of $100 billion. Continue reading
Rushing the South Australian nuclear waste discussion will be a failure
Royal commission engagement expert says nuclear opportunities will disappear if decision is rushed http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/royal-commission-engagement-expert-says-nuclear-opportunities-will-disappear-if-decision-is-rushed/news-story/f1bc0cf254e6b9d934669704a1b7196c June 8, 2016 Luke Griffiths The Advertiser THE person responsible for the Nuclear Royal Commission’s regional engagement says that if community consultation is rushed to meet political deadlines, the whole process will fall over.
Jon Bok, a former stakeholder engagement adviser to Santos, visited more than 50 SA communities over the course of 12 months. He told attendees at an Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy uranium conference in Adelaide yesterday that if the State Government is to develop a high-level nuclear waste repository, the “fundamental threshold issue of safety has to be addressed”.
“For many people, it’s going to take a long time to get from where they are now to have a sufficient level of trust and confidence in government and industry that this can actually be done safely and taken forward,” he said.
Resistance remained strong in many areas, which Mr Bok said can be attributed in part to legacy issues that include the British government’s nuclear tests in Maralinga and issues at Radium Hill uranium mine in the state’s far east.
Royal Commission head Kevin Scarce delivered his final report to Premier Jay Weatherill in early May. His key finding was that a high-level waste storage facility would generate economic benefits in excess of $250 billion and that its development should be pursued by the State Government.
Mr Weatherill has since established a consultation and response agency, overseen by an advisory board, and a citizens’ jury to facilitate further community feedback.
He told Parliament on May 17 that, guided by the outcomes of this engagement, he will provide the Government’s response to the Commission’s report by the end of the year.
While unwilling to criticise the Government, Mr Bok said a timeline must not be set on the education of “dubious and curious” residents.
“There’s simply not going to be enough information in the public domain to make a yes or no decision in the next 12-18 months,” he said.
“The Government wants to be in a position to know where to take this by the end of the year, which is a very short time frame. But all of the international evidence suggests that rushing this process will lead to failure — it cannot be rushed. Continue reading
Warning on threat posed by nuclear waste plan to South Australia’s clean agriculture image
Agriculture and Water Resources Assistant Minister Anne Ruston warns SA nuke plan mustn’t come at expense of clean, green image, The Advertiser, June 7, 2016 FEDERAL Agriculture and Water Resources Assistant Minister Anne Ruston has warned concerns about the country’s international reputation for exporting clean and green food must be addressed before proposals for nuclear waste storage in the state could be approved.
Senator Ruston today appeared for the Liberals at an Adelaide City Council debate of candidates for the federal seat of Adelaide, after her party’s David Colovic declined to appear……..
Senator Ruston said the Coalition was open to considering the prospect of nuclear waste in SA, but stressed it should not come at the cost of the state’s reputation for premium produce. “I am the assistant minister for agriculture and water resources. I believe that SA, but also the whole of Australia, has a competitive advantage in the international marketplace because we’re clean, we’re green and we’re safe,” she told the audience…….
Nick Xenophon Team candidate Joe Hill said the state should vote before approval was given.
“Certainly glad that we’re having a discussion around this and remain open-minded.
“We do support a referendum because of the magnitude and significance of this,” he said.
Speaking on FIVEaa radio this morning, Labor Leader Bill Shorten said: “Consultations around that have got a long way to go, so I’m going to concentrate on winning the election and prioritising jobs rather than get into that debate at this point.”……http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/agriculture-and-water-resources-assistant-minister-anne-ruston-warns-sa-nuke-plan-mustnt-come-at-expense-of-clean-green-image/news-story/baf27ae82b2098a613609d8131fe3e4f?sv=501bdd53a265db7876b5905830257d73
1 This month.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
Australians deserve the truth
about AUKUS
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 