Climate change action is essential for business: no more ‘business as usual’
Cyclone Ita: lessons after the media deluge, WA Today April 14, 2014 Crispin Hull “…………The response to extreme weather events by climate-change sceptics and business-as-usual climate-change deniers is now down pat: ”Well, you cannot assert that the climate is changing on the basis of an isolated event (insert event: cyclone. storm, bushfire, flood, drought). We have had these things before, you know.” And scientists will generally agree.
But this mantra has to stop.
For a start, with cyclones you can confidently say that they will now be more severe because of global warming. The oceans have warmed in the past 50 years. Cyclones get their energy from the heat of the ocean.
A lot of these things have exponential effect. A little extra heat means cyclones will be a lot more powerful. A little extra wind velocity means a lot more destruction. The power of wind is a cube function of its speed. Doubling the speed results in eight times the force. Trebling the speed equals 27 times the force.
So the difference between a category three and category five cyclone 500 kilometres off the Australian coastline is enormous. Once a category five is tracked, as was the case with Ita, very costly preventive measures get set in train, as they must.
My guess is that most people in Port Douglas blew between two and four days of their lives on cyclone preparation and returning to normal. Most businesses blew at least a day’s trade.
So there can be no more business as usual. Climate change has to be a major concern of business, particularly small business. Big business has the power and resources to adapt. Small businesses suffer badly at best or go broke at worse……..
Climate change must be a matter of concern for small business. Yes, we know that Australia on its own cannot affect the global climate, but we can and should influence world opinion, as we did with the bans on fluorocarbons. Those bans stopped the depletion of the ozone layer and prevented much cancer-causing radiation hitting the Earth.
The world co-operated then and we should co-operate now. The voice of small business should rally on this. Much of big business likes a high carbon economy and it does not care about the consequences……..http://www.watoday.com.au/comment/cyclone-ita-lessons-after-the-media-deluge-20140414-zquiy.html
French analysts surprised to find that Renewable Energy Target REDUCES Australia’s energy costs
Schneider study finds boosting renewables will cut energy costs (Excellent graphs) REneweconomy, By Giles Parkinson on 14 April 2014 Analysts at French based energy components company Schneider Electric have concluded that extending or expanding Australia’s renewable energy target would lead to lower electricity prices, lower carbon emissions and increased competition.
Reducing, or removing the renewable energy target – as many incumbent generators, industry lobby groups, state governments and some of its own members are urging the Abbott conservative government to do – will have the opposite impact, pushing prices higher and creating a greater reliance on expensive gas-fired generation.
The conclusions in the white paper have apparently surprised even the four-man team from Schneider that conducted the analysis, and the unnamed large energy users who commissioned it. Large energy users have normally been against the renewable energy target, and this study – along with others that have reached similar conclusions – is causing a rethink.
The Schneider Electric analysis says Australia will benefit from maintaining, extending or expanding its large scale renewable energy target (LRET) because renewable generation has lower emissions and lower marginal costs than do fossil fuels- fired generation.
“As a result of the influence of the LRET on the generation mix, electricity generation emissions in Australia are forecast to be lower under the LRET than would be otherwise,” it says.
“Again, the LRET becomes a hedge against rising carbon prices, and may help to keep carbon prices lower as a result of the lower emissions.
“Finally, and most strikingly, is the impact of the LRET on long-term energy prices. The LRET is forecast to result in a generation mix with lower marginal cost, lower carbon emissions, and increased competition in the electricity market, all which serve to reduce prices.
“Even after taking into account the cost of Large-scale Generation Certificates, the LRET in its current form is forecast to result in prices lower in the long run than those under decreased targets or outright removal of the Large-scale Renewable Energy Target.”
The analysis is important in the light of claims made by incumbent generators about the cost of the renewable energy target on consumers, and some even wilder claims in conservative commentators that renewables could add 50 per cent to consumer bills by 2020.
Pacific Hydro general manager Lane Crockett said the analysis by Schneider and others clearly demonstrated that zero fuel cost renewable energy can act as a hedge against future price rises in coal and gas.
“This report by Schneider is one of a number of recent reports that clearly demonstrate that deployment of renewable energy technologies via the renewable energy target has played a major role in keeping wholesale electricity prices down and is likely to continue to do so provided it is largely left alone,” he said.
“This report is no real surprise and clearly shows that that promise of a cleaner, cheaper energy market is now closer than ever to becoming a reality.” …..http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/schneider-89361
IPCC report shows that Australia must do more to develop renewable energy
IPCC report points to ‘renewables solution’ http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/latest/ipcc-report-points-to-renewables-solution/story-e6frg90f-1226883956621 STAFF REPORTER APRIL 14, 2014
The Climate Council says a new international report released yesterday and signed off by governments from around the world, including Australia, has found a need to lift investment in renewable energy to combat climate change.
“Renewable energy is critical to tackling climate change,” says Amanda McKenzie, Climate Council CEO.
“Australians have already taken steps to increase renewable energy and this report shows we need to do more.”
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report focuses on mitigation strategies for climate change and indicates that globally the world needs to at least triple the use of zero and low carbon energy sources by 2050.The think-tank says key players, like the United States and China, are quickly moving ahead. For example, the United States doubled renewable capacity between 2008 and 2012, and China increased its capacity in wind energy by 36% in 2012.
Australia currently has a national renewable energy target to generate 20% of the power mix from renewables by 2020. Over 130 other countries have similar targets to bolster renewable energy.
“It’s clear that the renewables race has begun,” says McKenzie.
“Shifting away from fossil fuels to renewable energy is a key part of tackling climate change and has other benefits, for instance growing new jobs, industries and investment,” says McKenzie.
“Australians know that solar power is just common sense here, so there is a lot of community support for greater investment in renewables.
“On the other side of the ledger, Australia is also home to some very inefficient and aging coal fired power plants. That means our current electricity supply is one of the most emissions intensive and least efficient in the world.”
Australia will have to come clean on nuclear weapons policy
Australian policy on nuclear weapons hopelessly conflicted http://www.smh.com.au/comment/australian-policy-on-nuclear-weapons-hopelessly-conflicted-20140410-zqt9l.html April 10, 2014 At a meeting in Hiroshima of the Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative (NPDI), a group of 12 countries led by Australia and Japan, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop made much of Australia’s supposed commitment to ridding the world of nuclear weapons.
- But Australian policy on nuclear weapons is hopelessly conflicted. With one hand, it promotes nuclear disarmament, yet with the other, it clings anxiously to US nuclear weapons for national security. Australia wants to get rid of nuclear weapons and keep them too.
- There is no secret about this: Bishop wrote in February that Australia “has long and actively supported nuclear disarmament … and worked tirelessly toward the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons” and also that Australia “will continue to rely on nuclear deterrence” for its security as long as nuclear weapons exist. She is the latest custodian of a bipartisan policy that has been passed down through consecutive governments for decades.
- As long as nothing much was happening with nuclear disarmament, Australia could safely advocate it. But the emergence of a global movement to examine the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, and a related push for a treaty banning them, has put Australia on the spot.
International conferences held in Oslo last year and in Nayarit, Mexico, in February concluded that any nuclear detonation would completely overwhelm humanitarian and disaster response capabilities, and cause unacceptable long-term harm worldwide.
Australia cautiously participated in these meetings, but clearly with misgiving. And at the United Nations last October, when 125 countries, including Japan and five other NPDI members, made a joint statement on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, Australia baulked – and weaselled out.
Pressed to explain why Australia could not join the statement, officials said the sentence, “It is in the interest of the very survival of humanity that nuclear weapons are never used again, under any circumstances,” was incompatible with Australia’s reliance on nuclear deterrence.
Calls for a new treaty to ban nuclear weapons have further exposed the contradictions in Australia’s policy. There is no legal reason Australia could not join such a treaty tomorrow: Australia has no nuclear weapons. As a member of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) it has sworn off them.
The official response, however, has been to oppose such a ban because it would not “guarantee” nuclear disarmament. This is a ludicrous excuse, given that none of the approaches Australia and the NPDI advocate will “guarantee” disarmament either (in fact most of them are hopelessly bogged down).
That a polished performer like Bishop would field such a flimsy rationalisation only shows how bare the intellectual cupboard at the Foreign Ministry is. They can’t find a better argument, because there isn’t one.
Despite the increasing visibility of its inherently contradictory policy, the government blithely continues to seek a high profile on nuclear disarmament.
- The people of Hiroshima will surely welcome Bishop’s earnest undertakings to address the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons and pursue nuclear disarmament. They will be less impressed by her extraordinary statement that “the horrendous humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons are precisely why deterrence has worked” – in other words, that Australia depends for its security on the very humanitarian consequences it claims to be working to avoid.The contradictions emerge even within the NPDI. The purpose of the NPDI is to support implementation of the 64-point “action plan” on non-proliferation and disarmament agreed by the 189 members of the NPT. Australia is a prominent proponent of the plan. But the very first of these 64 actions requires Australia to “pursue policies that are fully compatible with the treaty and the objective of achieving a world without nuclear weapons”. How is relying on nuclear weapons compatible with the objective of achieving a world without nuclear weapons?
- The circle simply cannot be squared. Follow the tortuous reasoning to its conclusion and it reduces to “Australia supports nuclear disarmament, just as soon as it has happened”.
- As the humanitarian initiative gathers momentum, and as a ban treaty looms closer, Australia’s policy will become increasingly untenable. It will soon have to choose: nuclear weapons – yes or no. If the answer is yes, the only honest course is to drop the pretence of working towards a world free of nuclear weapons and leave the NPT. If the answer is no, then there are policy challenges ahead – but overcoming them would put Australia on the right side of history.
- Richard Lennane is a former United Nations disarmament official and Australian diplomat.
Uranium supply will outlast the uneconomic nuclear industry
reality appears to be relegating nuclear power to the uneconomic category of history
Enough Uranium, but Nuclear Power Is Still Shrinking http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/enough_uranium_but_nuclear_power_is_still_shrinking_20140412 By Paul Brown, Climate News Network This piece first appeared at Climate News Network.
LONDON—There is enough uranium available on the planet to keep the world’s nuclear industry going for as long as it is needed. But it will grow steadily more expensive to extract, because the quality of the ore is getting poorer, according to new research.
Years of work in compiling information from around the world has led Gavin M. Mudd from Monash University in Clayton, Australia to believe that it is economic and political restraints that will kill off nuclear power and not any shortage of uranium, as some have claimed.
Writing in the journal Environmental Science & Technology that renewables do not have the disadvantages of nuclear power, which needs large uranium mines that are hard to rehabilitate and which generates waste that remains dangerous for more than 100,000 years.
In addition, research shows that renewable technologies are expanding very fast and could produce all the energy needs of advanced economies, phasing out both fossil fuels and nuclear.
Mudd, who is a lecturer in the department of civil engineering at Monash, has compiled decades of data on the availability and quality of uranium ore. He concludes that, while uranium is plentiful, mining the ore is very damaging to the environment and the landscape. Continue reading
Greens want Victoria to have a Clean Energy fund to help businesses and homes
Greens call for state clean energy fund, http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/greens-call-for-state-clean-energy-fund-20140413-36ldj.html 13 April 14, The Greens want the Victorian government to establish a state-based clean energy fund to make solar panels more affordable.
Australian Greens Leader Christine Milne call for the creation of a Victorian Solar Fund to help homes and businesses deal with the upfront costs of solar panels.
Senator Milne said the fund would make money for the state and reduce power bills. “Australia is a leader in solar science but is underinvested in solar power, depriving us of jobs that the community is calling out for,” she said on Sunday.
“We can create the financial incentives to put solar panels on roofs, for no money down, delivering immediate savings on electricity bills.”
Julie Bishop is out of step with Australian opinion on nuclear weapons
Julie Bishop says banning nuclear weapons impractical ABC Radio National, Tanya Nolan reported this story on Friday, April 11, 2014 TANYA NOLAN: Foreign Minister Julie Bishop is representing Australia at a 12 nation summit in Hiroshima today discussing global efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons. Disarmament activists in Hiroshima are lobbying hard for agreement to be reached on a global ban on nuclear weapons.
But Australia is one of a group of countries that is unlikely to support any such push: Ms Bishop says banning weapons won’t get rid of them and any global treaty would be impractical without the support of the world’s nuclear armed states – something unlikely to be achieved.
The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons say Australia’s position is out of step with the views of most Australians. 
It’s released a survey of 1,500 Australians who were asked whether they think the Government should support a global ban on nuclear weapons.
I spoke to Dr Tillman Ruff, co-chairman of the campaign who is in Hiroshima for the Non-Proliferation Disarmament Initiative.
So the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, ICAN has released its poll showing 84 per cent of Australians think the Government should support a global treaty banning nuclear weapons. Don’t you think it would have been more accurate to pose the question would a global ban on nuclear weapons be effective without the support of those countries that have nuclear weapons?
TANYA NOLAN: But Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has a point doesn’t she, that any global ban on nuclear weapons won’t be effective if you can’t get the nuclear armed states on board?
TILLMAN RUFF: Well, of course the elimination of nuclear weapons is going to require the states that have them to do that. I mean I think that’s obvious, but what we’ve seen essentially over the last 70 years is a failure of the nuclear armed states to live up to their legally binding obligation under the non-proliferation treaty to disarm.
There are currently no negotiations underway and arguably our, the danger of nuclear weapons being used, many experts are suggesting is actually increasing. Proliferation is certainly not under control so it’s hard to claim that business as usual is getting us very far, very fast.
So, you know, the states that have the weapons have so far shown really no serious intent to get rid of their nuclear weapons. ……….
Aboriginal community in the North to develop a strategy for the long term
For our power now lies outside of Labor or Liberal. The big parties have lost the true path. The north cannot be developed without our advancement, too. What is required now for remote Aboriginal people is a strategy beyond the election cycle. There are numerous complexities in coaxing participation out of welfare-dependent communities or productivity out of government-funded community programs. Part of the solution is developing an environment where private businesses can grow, in order to foster private wealth. That requires a strategic and efficient program of infrastructure development, including the local Aboriginal workforce.
Instead of driving remote economic development, the Labor and Liberal parties continue to treat remote Aboriginal people as a uniquely unresolvable problem. Australia’s Northern Territory has become a new colony — a moral crisis zone. By now it should be obvious there will be no change in remote Aboriginal communities unless the residents are willing. The arrogance of the major political parties will never inspire willingness.
The only path to advancement is via the bush bloc http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/the-only-path-to-advancement-is-via-the-bush-bloc/story-e6frgd0x-1226881272887# 12 April 14, Alison Anderson MLA for Namatjira.
POWERFUL factions in the major political parties have failed Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. That failure can be attributed almost wholly to a poor understanding of the aspirations of remote Aboriginal people. It’s simple — the people in power do not want to take the time to sit in the dirt and communicate with the most disadvantaged people, even if those same people gave them their power at the ballot box. Rather, they treat us as useful idiots. Continue reading
Electromagnetic radiation from mobile phones IS a danger
New Studies Show Health Risks from Wireless Tech: Warnings from the BioInitiative Working Group http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20140411005708/en/Studies-Show-Health-Risks-Wireless-Tech-Warnings April 11, 2014 RENSSELAER, N.Y.–(BUSINESS WIRE)--The BioInitiative Working Group says evidence for health risk from wireless tech is growing stronger and warrants immediate action. The Group released a mid-year update covering new science studies from 2012 to 2014.
New studies intensify medical concerns about malignant brain tumors from cell phone use. “There is a consistent pattern of increased risk for glioma (a malignant brain tumor) and acoustic neuroma with use of mobile and cordless phones,” says Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD at Orebro University, Sweden, according to studies released in 2012 and 2013. “Epidemiological evidence shows that radiofrequency should be classified as a known human carcinogen. The existing FCC/IEEE and ICNIRP public safety limits are not adequate to protect public health.”
The BioInitiative reports nervous system effects in 68% of studies on radiofrequency radiation (144 of 211 studies) in 2014. This has increased from 63% in 2012 (93 of 150 studies) in 2012. Studies of extremely-low frequency radiation are reported to cause nervous system effects in 90% of the 105 studies available in 2014. Genetic effects (damage to DNA) from radiofrequency radiation is reported in 65% (74 of 114 studies); and 83% (49 of 59 studies) of extremely-low frequency studies.
Mobile wireless devices like phones and tablets are big sources of unnecessary biological stress to the mind and body that can chip away at resilience over time. The Report warns against wireless in schools. Schools should provide internet access without Wi-FI.
“It is essentially an unregulated experiment on childrens’ health and learning. Microwave from wireless tech disrupts thinking – what could be worse for learning? Technology can be used more safely with wired devices that do not produce these biologically-disruptive levels of microwave radiation,” said Cindy Sage, Co-Editor of the BioInitiative Report.
Federal programs like ConnectED and E-Rate are calling for wireless classrooms while ignoring the health evidence. Hyperactivity, concentration problems, anxiety, irritability, disorientation, distracted behavior, sleep disorders, and headaches are reported in clinical studies.
Government reviews on health impacts of wireless radiofrequency radiation from the European Union and Australia continue to be inconclusive largely because they require certainty before issuing warnings. The FCC review of health impacts from wireless technologies is still underway, but has not affected the federal push for wireless classrooms.
Contacts
BioInitiative Working Group
David O. Carpenter, MD
(518) 525-2660
dcarpenter@albany.edu
info@bioinitiative.org
www.bioinitiative.org
Evidence to be taken in Tennant Creek, on the legal case against Muckaty nuclear waste dump
Muckaty trial to be held in Tennant Creek http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/muckaty-trial-to-be-held-in-tennant-creek/story-fn3dxiwe-1226880701026 NEDA VANOVAC AAP APRIL 11, 2014
THE federal government is exploiting the Northern Territory’s constitutional weakness by planning to build a nuclear waste facility there 
against traditional owners’ wishes, Senator Nova Peris says.
This week it was decided that a Federal Court trial would sit in Tennant Creek and Darwin in June to take evidence on the proposed dump, which is fiercely opposed by four of the five traditional owner groups at Muckaty, about 120 kilometres north of Tennant Creek.
Legal proceedings have been running against the federal government and the Northern Land Council (NLC) since June 2010, with those opposed accusing the NLC of breaching its duties by failing to properly identify the traditional Aboriginal owners of the nominated land, not consulting adequately and not getting proper consent before recommending the site. “The Northern Territory is not our nation’s dumping ground,” Senator Peris told a Muckaty dinner in Darwin on Thursday.
“The only reason the dump was proposed to be built here is because we are a Territory and not a state. Exploiting our constitutional weakness is not acceptable.”
Ms Peris called for a scientific and rational approach to determining how Australia would deal with its nuclear waste.
Lawyer Elizabeth O’Shea said it was a victory for traditional owners to have part of the trial sit in Tennant Creek.
“We’re very concerned about the health and age of a number of our witnesses,” she said.
“It’s hugely important that the court has taken this step and we’re very pleased, and it’s caused great comfort for our clients.”
The Muckaty decision affects all of Tennant Creek, traditional owner Penny Phillips says, so it’s important for the community to be able to observe the legal process.
“All the people there, the old people and the young ones too, they can step up and start talking up,” she said.
“Our people fought for country for years and years – you get back country and you have to look after it.
“If you put the dump there, who’s going to look after the next generation?”
The trial will begin in Melbourne on June 2.
1000 US marines arrive in Darwin. What a target!
Why are there U.S. marines in Darwin? Independent Australia Nick Deane 10 April 2014, The recent arrival of over a thousand marines in Darwin provides a risk for Australia, yet absolutely no reward, writes Nick Deane.
IF ONE COUNTRY INVITES the armed forces of another onto its territory, one would expect the government of the host country to have seen strategic benefits in the arrangement.
Furthermore, one would also expect, in a democracy, that this government would be happy to explain these benefits to its people. That should be simple enough.
In the case of Australia playing host to a garrison of more than 1,000 United States marines in Darwin for the next six months, the public has been offered no explanation about the strategic benefits. All we have been told (via a letter to IPAN-NSW from the Minister for Defence on 7 December 2012) is that the marines’ presence is an extension of our existing, long-standing alliance with the U.S. — as though the passage of time alone is sufficient justification for us to willingly accept foreign forces on our territory.
What is missing is any discussion of the strategic advantages to Australia that come from the presence of the U.S. garrison.
It is probably taken for granted that the advantage lies in the supposed ‘protection’ that it brings us. But are the marines really here for our protection?
And who actually benefits, in strategic terms, from this arrangement?
Certainly, the strategic benefits to the U.S. are large.
The marines occupy a ‘forward position’, thousands of kilometres beyond US territory. And, in the words of a report from CSBA (the Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment):
‘Australia’s strong ties with America provide it with the means to preserve U.S. influence and military reach across the Indo-Pacific.’
Note: that’s the United States’ influence and military reach……..
where is the benefit to Australia?
What we get out of it is the certainty that we are now directly involved, if hostilities break out between America and China. That would make parts of Australia potential targets for attack…..http://www.independentaustralia.net/article-display/why-are-there-us-marines-in-darwin,6370
Dick Warburton, nuclear power enthusiast, is heading Renewable Energy Review Panel
Tony Abbott’s renewable czar: Nuclear only alternative to coal REneweconomy, By Giles Parkinson on 9 April 2014 Tony Abbott’s handpicked head of the panel reviewing Australia’s renewable energy target, the self-avowed climate “sceptic” Dick Warburton, is no fan of renewable energy. In an article co-authored for Quadrant in 2011, Warburton insisted that nuclear energy was the only alternative to fossil fuel generation.
The two-part series for the conservative magazine – co-authored by Warburton along with poet and accountant Geoffrey Lehmann and Resmed founder Peter Farrell – is an eye-opening compendium of the major arguments that climate science deniers and fossil fuel lobbyists have ever thrown at climate science, against carbon pricing and against renewable energy.
The title of the two-part series was “An intelligent voter’s guide to global warming” (you can find Part 1 here and Part II here), and the authors pretended to “provide basic information often missing from the debate.” In fact, it is a collection of scientific howlers normally only found in right-wing blogs.
This, though, is the paragraph that might interest those likely to feel the impact of the decisions made by the RET review panel that Warburton now heads:
“Except for nuclear power, there are no straightforward strategies for reducing dependence on fossil fuels without large economic costs. Wind and solar generators often cannot function when needed. Wind machines operate at only about 25 per cent capacity in the UK. Even when the wind is blowing, “back-up capacity, usually gas-fired … had to be kept running, using fuel, generating steam, emitting CO2, ready to ramp up its turbines the moment sufficient supply from the wind machines stopped coming”. Two main obstacles with renewables are the difficulty of establishing transmission lines from sunny or windy places to where the power is needed and the absence of utility-scale storage technology for intermittent renewable energies. A US comparison estimated the following electricity generation costs per kilowatt hour: hydroelectric $0.03; nuclear and coal $0.04; wind power $0.08; natural gas $0.10 (other estimates for gas suggest about $0.04); solar power (construction costs only, ignoring production costs for which reliable data were unavailable) $0.22.”
And, a little later….
“The only current viable alternative to burning fossil fuels is to go nuclear. Although current known reserves of uranium are limited, it is likely that by developing new nuclear technologies and with new sources of uranium, humanity’s electricity needs could be satisfied by nuclear power for many hundreds of years or more.”
Fantastic. In the true sense of the word. One hopes that Warburton has caught up a little on the various technology costs. In the US, where his electricity generation costs are cited, nuclear is four times the price that he quotes. In fact, you would have to go back many, many years to find a time when it was just 4c/kWh.
Ditto with solar. Solar PV, including production costs (for which there is plenty of reliable data), costs around half that quoted by Warburton in the US. Some recent solar PV power purchase contracts, aided by a tax credit, have been at one-quarter of the price he quoted. Wind, according to General Electric, the largest provider of power equipment, is also around half of that quoted by Warburton, and new coal – according to investment bank Citigroup – is also four times the price quoted by Warburton. Even fracked gas is being priced out of the market by utility-scale solar. As Citigroup noted, quite bluntly: Nuclear and coal are not competitive with renewables on cost.
One also assumes that Warburton is aware that the cost of energy storage is falling, and likely to follow the pathway of solar, as Morgan Stanley has pointed out. This is one reason why grid operators in WA and Queensland are looking to reduce their poles and wires delivering centralised fossil fuels, because they cannot compete economically with solar and storage any more.
Warburton can catch up with Australian technology cost estimates at the Bureau of Resource and Energy Economics, which recently doubled its estimated costs of nuclear and dramatically reduced its estimates on the cost of solar.
One also hopes that Warburton is disabused of his idea that “fossil fuel” generation is left running, and polluting, waiting for the sun to stop shining and the wind to stop blowing. Such nonsense is only propagated by the most infamous of blogs haunted by climate science deniers, nuclear boosters and the anti-wind brigade. (Who are often the very same people).
A report by the US Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory puts this myth to rest. Those grids that have high renewables are actually using less fast-response peaking power than those relying almost exclusively on inflexible coal or nuclear generators………
The question that the renewables industry will be asking is this: Given that Warburton says he has investigated the climate science and declares that climate scientists do not know what they are talking about, what are the chances that he will accept the evidence from the renewable energy industry? Ideology, as we have seen with the media and the government since the September poll, is a mighty powerful editor. http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/tony-abbotts-renewable-czar-nuclear-only-alternative-to-coal-65816
Abbott planning $40 billion defence submarine project, despite known dangers
Submarines on collision course in busy sea, BRENDAN NICHOLSON, THE AUSTRALIAN, APRIL 10, 2014
AS submarines increasingly become the clandestine weapon of choice in the Asia-Pacific, an admiral from the US Pacific Fleet says regional nations must tell each other where their boats are operating or risk a deadly underwater collision.
The head of the US Pacific Command’s submarine force, Rear Admiral Phillip G. Sawyer, told a conference in Canberra yesterday the rapidly increasing number of submarines had created a greater chance of an underwater crash………
A US submarine had already collided with a supertanker in the Strait of Hormuz.
It also emerged yesterday that the Abbott government is about to start negotiating with industry in Australia and with allied nations on how to structure the consortium which is to take on Australia’s biggest ever defence project — the building of new submarines for an estimated $40 billion.
The Australian was told the government will soon issue an “intent to consult” notice to major companies keen to join the submarine project.
A 130-strong expert team is being built up in Adelaide to integrate the best technology available in Australia and internationally into the new submarine.Defence Minister David Johnston and navy Chief Vice Admiral Ray Griggs told the conference they were talking to Japan about the possibility of using some of its technology.
That sparked claims from the opposition that the government was backing away from an election commitment to build 12 submarines in Adelaide.
Premier Jay Weatherill, who will join Tony Abbott in China this week, said yesterday that Senator Johnston appeared to be backing away from a commitment to build the next fleet of submarines in the state.
“Of course when you hear language like this from the federal government it is a cause of concern,” he said. “I think that there is only one solution — to build submarines here in South Australia. Not in South Australia and the nation’s interests in terms of manufacturing, but in terms of our defence needs.”
But Steve Ludlam, chief executive of the Adelaide shipbuilder ASC, said he would not be concerned if the government shifted its focus to a submarine design from overseas.
Additional reporting: Sarah Martin http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/submarines-on-collision-course-in-busy-sea/story-e6frg8yo-1226879396585#
ERA desperately trying to restore confidence in uranium investors for Ranger mine
ERA digs deep in search of a future BARRY FITZGERALD THE AUSTRALIAN APRIL 10, 2014
“…..Chief executive Andrea Sutton told ERA’s annual meeting in Darwin yesterday that the environmental impact statement would be submitted in the second half of this year. The company is targeting first production late next year and has a $120 million exploration decline and a $57m prefeasibility study into the development running concurrently. Uranium production at Ranger from stockpiled ore is suspended following the collapse of a leach tank in the processing plant in December.
The collapse released a slurry of ore and acid which was captured by the site’s containment system, with ERA saying that no material escaped into Kakadu.
The AGM was told that ERA’s board had approved a work plan to bring the processing plant to readiness for a restart. But a final clearance is required from the NT and federal governments.
Ms Sutton was not able to put a timeline on when that might happen, raising the prospect that ERA will have to secure uranium from other sources. The meeting was told that the quantities involved would depend on the timing of operations being restarted.
The company said it understood the “importance of restoring confidence in the safety and environmental performance of the Ranger mine”. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/era-digs-deep-in-search-of-a-future/story-e6frg8zx-1226879305475#
Community solar energy project underway in Illawarra, New South Wales
Residents back renewable energy plan http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/2208044/residents-back-renewable-energy-plan/?cs=320 April 9, 2014, WOLLONGONG ADVERTISER A group of Illawarra residents aims to set up a small-scale renewable energy project, such as solar panels on a community building roof.
The plan came out of a community energy forum held at the Illawarra Aboriginal Centre, in Wollongong, on March 27.
Reading about climate change in 2006, Mr Nott said he felt this was one of the greatest challenges we faced. He organised a ‘‘Clean energy for eternity’’ human sign on Tathra Beach, which attracted 3000 people.
With the help of others, Mr Nott ran a fund-raising campaign to place solar panels on community buildings – so far they have provided solar panels to six surf clubs, 12 Rural Fire Service sheds, five churches, 15 community halls and four preschools.
The group’s most ambitious project is to build Australia’s largest community solar farm, providing half the power needs of Tathra Sewage Treatment Plant.
Graeme Jessop and John Davis from not-for-profit Clear Sky Solutions presented their investment model of renewable energy development. Last year they installed solar panels onto a Boggabri pub using investor funds.
Community Power Agency’s Nicky Ison spoke about community projects overseas. Forum participants agreed to work on a small-scale Illawarra renewable energy project, such as solar panels on a community building.
Organiser Rowan Huxtable said the network was very pleased at the community’s response and urged anyone wanting to help the project to contact them.Information: 0408 372 792 or email thuxtable55@optusnet.com.au
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 