The shift to decentralised energy generation in Australia
De-centralised Energy Generation’s Impact On Australia http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=4221 17 Mar 14, A draft discussion paper from Australia’s Clean Energy Council looks at the benefits of a shift to a more decentralised energy generation model.
The electricity system is already transitioning towards a model where large numbers of smaller generators provide the bulk of Australia’s electricity. More than two million Australians are taking control of their energy costs and driving a more competitive, productive, and open energy market says the CEC.
The paper looks at three main areas of benefit from decentralised energy generation.
More competition
With the proliferation of decentralised energy generators, such as small scale solar, this creates a supply and demand imbalance that puts downward pressure on wholesale electricity prices.
Lower cost infrastructure
Up-front costs have dropped dramatically for wind and solar PV; both large and small. Decentralised projects can be delivered through different ownership models as they are an inherently lower-cost form of infrastructure.
More efficient use of resources
A decentralised model of generation offers opportunities to reduce loss factors in the transmission of electricity; which can account for up to 10% of electricity generated via traditional means. An increase in households and businesses supplying their own power also means less pressure on the distribution grid.
The CEC sees the role of grid-supplied power potentially being inverted, switching from being the primary source of electricity to a safety net supplier of last resort.
“As with all disruptive technologies, a more distributed form of generation creates winners and losers, and many of those who have benefited from the traditional system will have an obvious tendency to resist change and the ability to protest loudly,” says Clean Energy Council Chief Executive David Green.
“Others will embrace change. It is an exciting and dynamic time for the energy sector to drive innovation and reach for the future.”
Produced for last week’s Australian Davos Connection Forum on National Infrastructure; “Centralised To De-centralised Energy: What Does It Mean For Australia” can be viewed here (PDF).
Launching of Australian Technologies Competition for Small and Medium Enterprises
Australian Technologies Competition Launches by Energy Matters 17 Mar 14, The greatly expanded 2014 Australian Technologies Competition was launched at the Powerhouse Museum last week. Now in its fourth year, the Australian Technologies Competition is open to SME (Small and Medium Enterprise) technology companies with less than 100 employees and seeks to find, mentor and develop the best among them.
“Launching the search for Australia’s next great technologies in the midst of many of the country’s best innovations from the past was perfect”, said New Inventors’ James O’Loghlin, who hosted the launch event……More than just an award, the winners of the Australian Technologies Competition gain entry to an intensive Business Accelerator Program that provides expert mentoring and networking opportunities with investors, potential customers and specialist advisors, plus connections to grant programs and international markets. The top 30 companies will win a spot in the intensive business development program……
An initiative of the Department of Industry, more information on the Australian Technologies Competition can be viewed at www.austechcomp.com. Entries close on May 6, 2014.http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=4220
South Australia election: Malina Wyra for Fisher opposes nuclear power
Dennis Matthews, 14 Mar 14 Another candidate for the seat of Fisher in tomorrow’s (15/3/14) SA state elections has opposed the importation of nuclear waste into SA.
Malina Wyra is not only opposed to nuclear waste import but to nuclear power, uranium enrichment and the entire nuclear fuel chain.
Malina supports the solar feed-in tariff and government incentives for energy efficient homes but does not support a higher tariff for users of air conditioners and is n oncommittal on the whether solar electricity exporters should pay higher costs for the electricity network and whether there should be tighter regulation of the monopoly electricity network utility. Malina prefers to tax the up-front cost of air conditioners.
On the issue of the recent changes to the SA Electoral Act, Malina supports increasing the cost of nominating a candidate from $450 to $3000. This has been a significant deterrent to independents and micro parties contesting seats in the House of Assembly but is generally welcomed by those candidates and parties that are assured of getting at least 4% of the primary vote and hence getting the $3000 returned.
Malina was non-committal on an apology to SA’s Aboriginal people for forcibly taking away their land, for imposing an alien culture, for introducing toxic substances into their communities, and for the lack of aid in combating the effects of the above.
Australian Capital Territory ready to face the anti wind farm brigade
ACT ready to tackle “wind antis” head on REneweconomy, By Giles Parkinson on 13 March 2014 ACT energy minister Simon Corbell knows he should have no problem attracting many competitive bids for his government’s “reverse auction” of wind energy capacity later this year.
Numerous wind farm developments in the regions surrounding the ACT have been waiting for the opportunity to proceed with their projects. The one big element that has been lacking has been policy certainty, and therefore the lack of power purchase agreements and bank finance. The ACT, by offering a fixed 20-year tariff for 200MW of wind capacity bid at the lowest price, provides that certainty.
As RenewEconomy noted in our report yesterday, developers are so desperate for contracts that bidding is likely to be better than previously thought. The federal government, and its effective freeze on renewable investment, has done the ACT and its consumers a favour. “We are in a buyers’ market,” Corbell told RenewEconomy in an interview.
What is less clear, however, is how the ACT will deal with the vocal and influential “antis” in the surrounding districts where the wind farms will be built. Continue reading
EPA’s inadequate response to aquifer uranium contamination by CSG company Santos
Concerns raised over EPA response to aquifer uranium contamination by CSG company Santos ABC News The World Today By Tanya Nolan 12 Mar 14 Concerns have been raised over the failure of the New South Wales Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to request follow-up tests from Santos after the contamination of an aquifer in the Pilliga forest.
The coal seam gas (CSG) company’s operations led to contamination of the aquifer in February, with the EPA fining Santos $1,500. Continue reading
Australian govt puts interest of uranium industry above efforts towards nuclear disarmament
Australia’s uranium exports and US ties behind nuclear stance: New Zealand PM John Key SMH March 11, 2014 – Australia’s uranium exports and close alliance with the United States explain Canberra’s opposition to Wellington’s nuclear disarmament diplomacy, according to New Zealand prime minister John Key.
”It’s kind of inevitable we might take a slightly different stance to a country like Australia that produces uranium and is part of ANZUS,” Mr Key said on Monday.
”It’s just one of those things where they come from a slightly different perspective. They are part of ANZUS, there’s just different factors that might play into their thinking when it comes to nuclear disarmament.”
Mr Key was responding to reports by Fairfax Media that Australian diplomats worked to undermine a New Zealand-led push at the United Nations to highlight the humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons.
New Zealand Labour opposition spokesperson on disarmament Maryan Street said the revelations Australia had tried to frustrate New Zealand’s diplomacy struck “a jarring note” in trans-Tasman relations……
One hundred and twenty five countries supported the New Zealand-led statement on nuclear disarmament while only 17 countries signed up to the Australian text – all US allies and mostly NATO members. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australias-uranium-exports-and-us-ties-behind-nuclear-stance-new-zealand-pm-john-key-20140311-34jcq.html
Australian uranium fuelled Fukushima. Time for a uranium audit
Urgent need for uranium audit http://www.bordermail.com.au/story/2144411/urgent-need-for-uranium-audit/?cs=14 — DAVE SWEENEY, March 12, 2014 THE world held its breath, crossed its fingers and learnt a new word three years ago.Fukushima went from the name of a provincial Japanese city to shorthand for a costly and contaminating nuclear disaster.
Rocks dug up in northern South Australia and Kakadu are now the source of the radioactive fallout spread across Japan and beyond on the wind and in the polluted water that continues to be dumped into the Pacific Ocean.
In September 2011, six months after the meltdown, the UN secretary general outlined the severity of the situation and the actions needed to stop a repeat, including a clear call for an in-depth assessment of the net cost of uranium mining in Australia.
This commonsense and long overdue examination has not taken place — it now needs to.Uranium mining companies, state and federal governments and industry public relations organisations need to stop the assurances and we need to urgently examine their performances.
Silence on Fukushima – Is the nuclear lobby putting pressure on South Australia’s news media?
Dennis Matthews, 12 Mar 14 The 12th of March was the third anniversary of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, a disaster which is still seriously affecting the people and economy of Japan. Given that South Australia is commercially involved with the Japanese nuclear industry then I would have thought that an up-to-date report on the Fukushima disaster would have been appropriate to furthering the nuclear debate in South Australia, a debate that both BusinessSA and The Advertiser have vigorously endorsed. Their silence over Fukushima speaks volumes.
Is it possible that the pro-nuclear lobby want to hear only one side of the debate?
South Australia- both parties urged to pledge Port Augusta solar thermal funds
Parties urged to pledge Port Augusta solar thermal funds http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-11/parties-urged-to-pledge-solar-thermal-funds/5312566 11 Mar 2014, A community action group pushing for clean energy in Port Augusta wants a commitment from both parties to convert the local power stations to clean energy.
Alinta Energy received federal and state funding for a feasibility study into a solar thermal conversion of its coal-fired power stations at Port Augusta.
However, campaigner Dan Spencer, from Repower Port Augusta, says whichever party is elected at state level needs to make a firm commitment to the project now.
“Solar thermal plants operate overseas, we’ve got lots of precedents for how other countries have made solar thermal happen, so we don’t need to wait on all the details from the feasibility study for the State Government to start planning how it can happen,” he said.
“We know that over the next three years the next state government could play a critical role in facilitating this project – the worst thing that could happen would be the feasibility study being finished and then there’s no funding available to pour some concrete and start building it.”
Queensland govt limiting people’s ability to object to mining
Controversial changes proposed for Queensland mining ABC Rural By Virginia Tapp and Cassandra Hough 12 Mar 14, Queensland’s Department of Natural Resources and Mines has released a discussion paper looking at reducing notification requirements for new mines.
Minister Andrew Cripps is proposing that only those directly affected have their say on a mine proposal in its early stages……
The Lock the Gate Alliance has reacted strongly to the discussion paper, saying it threatens everyone’s democratic right to have a say on new mining developments. The alliance’s Ellie Smith also believes it favours the miners.
“We definitely believe that landholders should not be made to stand up by themselves against huge multi-national mining corporations,” she said.
“Community groups should be able to stand with landholders and object to mining leases on their land.”………
Cecil Plains landholder David Hamilton still has concerns about any change which might limit one’s ability to object to mining applications.
“The impacts of a mining operation don’t stop at the farm gate. Neighbours are impacted, people downstream are impacted, and I think they should all have a right to have a say, and I would like to see more detail on the proposal.” http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-11/qld-mining-laws/5312262
Disarm or risk everything
The thing is, if Foreign Affairs Minister Bishop had cared to read the proposed Nuclear Weapons Convention (ban treaty) she would see that it stipulates the very “sustained, practical steps needed for effective disarmament” to which she ignorantly claims we “still have a long way to go.”
Australia’s flawed “mine-set” about coal mining
Dennis Matthews, 4 March 14 The toxic fumes that are causing residents to flee from Morwell in Victoria and the deadly smog that is covering cities in China have the same origin, burning coal.
China appears not to have learned the lessons of Europe’s industrial revolution but Australia is in no position to criticize. Coal is the fuel of centuries past but Australia is still using it in large quantities and exporting it in massive quantities to countries like China. All in the name of increased wealth with little thought of the costs to health and the environment.
The sooner we start employing more people in energy efficiency and renewable energy the sooner we can get away from this mine-set, that digging things up and polluting air, soil and water constitutes progress.
Victims of hate speech are often powerless to respond
Hate speech ignores victims’ ability to respond There is one vital point that James Allan ignores: the power relationship between abuser and victim (”These elitist hate-speech laws erode democracy”, March 3). SMH, 4 Mar 14
His naive claim that the victim can respond by saying why the abuser is wrong ignores the fact that shock-jocks or other media commentators, without such laws, are free to trade in insults without allowing their victims any opportunity to respond. Nor will a racist on a bus, screaming abuse. What would he be prepared to do to enforce the right of reply?
Ron Pretty Farmborough Heights
James Allan claims that the proof that hate speech laws don’t work is that the US doesn’t have them and Canada got rid of them, while France and Germany do have them and look at how horrible it is there.
In fact, Professor Allan would struggle to think of a country which has been successful at absorbing immigrants which doesn’t have hate speech laws – and there is a reason for that.
In countries like Australia, the community needs to send a strong message that racist vitriol is unwelcome. That is why we have laws against it………http://www.smh.com.au/comment/smh-letters/hate-speech-ignores-victims-ability-to-respond-20140303-340gg.html
Australia should stop selling uranium to Russia
Dennis Matthews, 3 March 14, The situation in Ukraine demonstrates the failure of Australian Government policy concerning the sale of uranium to nuclear weapons countries.
The sale of uranium to Russia, China and India was permitted on purely commercial grounds. These three countries are nuclear weapons countries and all are involved in regional conflicts.
All three countries have poor environmental and human rights track records. Russia under Vladimir Putin has become increasingly intolerant and expansionist. It now appears highly likely that Russia’s ambitions will expand from Crimea to Ukraine.
Australia’s uranium has been used to help power Russia’s armament industry including nuclear weapons. At the very least Australia should now come to Ukraine’s aid by putting a stop to the export of uranium to Russia or to any country that is likely to on-sell it to Russia.
False claims against Renewable Energy Target
The energy sector big boys said that the RET must be stopped because, they aren’t making the profits they used to.
Sochi and the renewable energy target, Independent Australia, 2 March 14 If we can spend $307 million on sport and $20 mill to get a few minor medals at the Winter Olympics, we can afford to keep the renewable energy target, writes Lachlan Barker. [Among]the noisome pile of slime that is Abbott Government policy was the cutting, sorry, ‘reviewing’ of the renewable energy targets.
For future reference, note that when an Abbott acolyte – sorry, troglodyte – says they are ‘reviewing’ something, it means that funding is being withdrawn; this is the simplest way to scupper anything that Government disagrees with……….
The Howard Government introduced the mandatory Renewable Energy Targets(RET) in 2001 and this led, as you would expect, to an increase in investment in clean energy sources in Australia.
One example is windfarms in South Australia is, solar, both on roof, and atconcentrated solar thermal (CST) plants, is another.
Despite all the sceptics crying at the time: “Solar only works during the day” and “none of these can provide adequate base-load power”, the various renewables got a little toehold in the market and began making slow inroads.
The problem we have today is that, slow though this progress has been, it has already frightened the major players in the energy sector – Energy Australia (EA) and Origin Energy – so much that they called Canberra and told Treasurer Joe Hockey, Environment Minister Greg Hunt and Energy Minister Ian Macfarlane that they wanted this pinko, hippy, renewable energy thingo stopped in its tracks — pronto!
The three amigos duly obliged and called for a ‘review’, with the clear goal of knocking this clean energy nonsense on the head for good.
Now, when I did my research, I thought I was going to find that the reasons given by the government for stopping the RET and continuing with coal fired power would be the old standard “solar and wind are just not practical”.
But much to my astonishment, I found that it was much simpler than that.
The energy sector big boys said that the RET must be stopped because, they aren’t making the profits they used to.
How’s that?
Apparently, because of the high prices that Origin and EA charge, we homeowners have begun reducing our power usage to save money.
Hence a drop in profit for coal-fired energy companies.
Added to which, with an increasing number of homeowners asking for their power to come from green sources, the energy sector latched onto this as the primary cause of their falling profits.And thus the call to Canberra to have the RET scrapped — an act of ecologic bastardry that will kill off, financially, many of the nascent green power suppliers.
So now we come to my vote for f$%^wit of the year, Burchell Wilson, Chief Economist of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
He was on the ABC’s 7.30 Reportspouting a load of “renewable energy is costing the homeowner more”bollocks.
I have gone over his gobbledegook in his interview with Sarah Ferguson, and even I, the writer of this article struggle with his lack-of-logic.
So let’s go with a couple of points.
First he says, the RET is costing “$1.6 billion across the economy.”
How’s that, Burchell?
$1.6 billion would buy a lot of solar panels and quite a few wind farms but, unless they’ve been superbly camouflaged with the sort of invisibility technology that Doctor Who would be proud of, I haven’t seen them.
So exactly how the RET is costing us $1.6 bill? I confess myself mystified.
Then he goes on to say:
“Look, the problem with the Renewable Energy Target is it’s a very inefficient way of abating carbon.”
Please forgive me, but:
HOW’S THAT, BURCHELL?!……. http://www.independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/sochi-and-the-renewable-energy-target,6217
1 This month
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/235274195556
20 May – Webinar – The dangerous world of AUKUS, US, military occupation and suppression of dissent
National Webinar, 20th May, 2026, 6.30pm AEST. Confronting laws restricting/suppressing protest speech and action
Speakers: Former Sen. Rex Patrick, Lawyer Nick Hanna ,Arthur Rorris ,Jorgen Doyle, Sen David Shoebbridge,
Facilitator Kelley Tranter.
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 