“People don’t quite grasp how much waste we’re talking about.”……………………… cases of cancers, arsenic poisoning and birth and joint deformities linked to years of unregulated dumping.
Marjorie Valix, a professor of chemical engineering at the University of Sydney, who researches sustainable mineral processing, said Australia has plenty of opportunity — and responsibility — in this space.
“Rare earths aren’t rare in Australia — especially light rare earths,” said Professor Valix.
“But water is one of the vulnerabilities.”
The bottleneck
When researcher Jane Klinger first visited China’s Bayan Obo mine at Baotou in Inner Mongolia — the world’s largest rare-earth operation — more than a decade ago, she expected to see the future of green technology.
What she found instead was a cautionary tale: acidic wastewater and radioactive residue in unlined ponds along with contaminated rivers and farmland.
“The stuff we want is typically a very small percentage of what’s dug up,” Professor Klinger, author of Rare Earth Frontiers, told the ABC.
“And then there’s the waste that’s generated to separate the valuable bits from the rest of the rock.
“People don’t quite grasp how much waste we’re talking about.”
For every tonne of rare-earth oxide produced, roughly 2,000 tonnes of acidic wastewater are left behind.
It was a local taxi driver, pointing to a new hospital built to treat bone disorders, who tipped her off to what was unfolding around Baotou.
She discovered cases of cancers, arsenic poisoning and birth and joint deformities linked to years of unregulated dumping.
Australian National University professor of economic geology John Mavrogenes said the Chinese companies were mining by drilling and pouring chemicals into the holes.
“They found it was so bad environmentally that even China decided maybe they should quit,” he said.
The health and environmental impacts were so severe Beijing has since tightened regulations and cleaned up some sites.
It has also shifted much of its most-polluting refining methods to neighbouring Myanmar.
In Jiangxi province, China’s other main rare earth mining hub in the south, more than 100 mine sites have been shut down in the past decadeand converted into parks, according to local media.
Learning from China’s mistakes
Experts insist Australia can do better.
The Donald Rare Earth and Mineral Sands mine in western Victoria — which was given major projects status last month — will use a method that uses fewer chemicals than hard-rock mining to extract rare earths.
Once operational, the site is expected to become the fourth-largest rare earth mine in the world outside China.
The company behind the project, Astron, plans to rehabilitate the land and send its rare-earth concentrate to Utah for further processing, where uranium will also be recovered.
Victoria bans uranium mining outright, but the US intends to use the by-product as fuel for nuclear power plants.
Professor Klinger said one of the most impactful lessons from what she found in China was simple.
“Don’t dump this stuff in tailings ponds without liners,” she said.
“Don’t contaminate groundwater, but also pay attention to ‘who’ is doing the modelling and monitoring.”
When the Donald mine starts production next year, processing is to take place in enclosed sheds, with waste sealed into containers and shipped off-site.
China dominates the separation and refining of rare earths, controlling over 90 per cent of global production.
In Western Australia, Iluka Resources is building Australia’s first rare earths refinery.
The process — crushing rock, separating minerals, and neutralising the waste — requires vast amounts of water.
Iluka’s refinery will consume just under1 gigalitre of groundwater per year.
Iluka head of rare earths Dan McGrath told the ABC the refinery would operate as a zero liquid discharge facility.
“Our design avoids generating liquid waste altogether, and the reagents we use create a saleable fertiliser by-product instead of requiring disposal.
“All remaining solids will be disposed of in existing mine voids, removing the need for new waste containment facilities or above-ground disposal facilities.”
Professor Mavrogenes said water scarcity was already shaping where new mining projects could go ahead.
“Water is an issue because most ores are located in areas that don’t have enough water,” he said.
The Iluka refinery will produce both light and heavy rare earth oxides used in advanced manufacturing of items, including medical devices and defence weaponry.
A wastewater treatment plant will form part of the facilities, but the plan has drawn criticism amid ongoing water shortages.
In Victoria, Astron has secured water entitlement from Grampians Wimmera Mallee Water.
Geologists including Professor Mavrogenes have warned that a secure water supply and planning needed to account for climate change.
“Flooding can shut down processing, especially with heap leaching,” he pointed out.
Heap leaching is where a chemical solution is trickled through a heap of crushed ore, often in a pond, to dissolve the metals.
Other environmental concerns once shadowed Lynas Rare Earths, Australia’s largest producer of rare earths, which ships semi-processed concentrate to Malaysia for refining.
The company initially faced local protests over low-level radioactive waste.
Kuan Seng How, assistant professor in Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman’s Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, said Lynas had since built a permanent, sealed facility to prevent groundwater seepage — an expensive but necessary fix.
Together, Iluka’s new refinery and Lynas’ remediation effort illustrate the same lesson: refining is not just an engineering problem but a resource-management one.
A cleaner frontier
China now lines its wastewater ponds with bentonite clay to reduce leakage and collects some run-off for reuse.
Yet even those measures have not stopped some seepage leaking outward, according to a recent article published in the Chinese journal Modern Mining.
Industry and researchers are now exploring waterless extraction technologies such as solvolysis — a process that uses chemical solvents instead of water to extract rare earths.
“It can leach and separate the metals in one step,” Professor Valix said.
“But it hasn’t been scaled up yet — and right now it’s more expensive.”
She sees water management as the defining test of Australia’s ambitions.
Her colleague Susan Park from the University of Sydney added that as countries raced to upgrade rare earth processing, Australia must invest more in knowledge.
“One of the issues is the absence of long-term research and development into these technological processes and training people,” she said.
China may already be a step ahead, testing new techniques on a large scale.
In January, the Chinese Academy of Sciences claimed a breakthrough: an electrokinetic extraction technique that slashes the use of leaching agents by 80 per cent, mining time by 70 per cent and energy consumption by 60 per cent.
According to the scientists who revealed the development in the journal Nature Sustainability, the method could soon be viable for large-scale production.
For Australia, Professor Valix said the barrier was not capability but commitment.
“It’s not that we don’t have the technology,” she said.
“What we don’t have is the investment and the uptake market here like battery makers or manufacturers.”
Cooperation between Australia and China could send a useful message to the Trump regime and other countries around the world about both the possibility of developing alternatives to failing American leadership and the institutional order it did so much to create.
If we are to survive, unprecedented levels of cooperation are needed, no matter how unlikely. Mark Beeson writes.
GLOBAL GOVERNANCE is failing. Nothing highlights this reality more dramatically than our collective inability to address the degradation of the natural environment adequately. Addressing an unprecedented problem of this magnitude and complexity would be difficult at the best of times. Plainly, these are not the best of times.
Even if climate change could be dealt with in isolation, it would still present a formidable challenge. But when it is part of a polycrisis of intersecting issues with the capacity to reinforce other more immediate, politically sensitive economic, social and strategic problems, then the prospects for effective cooperative action become more remote.
Indeed, the polycrisis makes it increasingly difficult to know quite which of the many threats to international order and individual well-being we ought to focus on. The “we” in this case is usually taken to be the “international community”, which has always been difficult to define, generally more of an aspiration than a reality, frequently more noteworthy for its absence than its effectiveness.
Nation-states, by contrast, can still act, even if we don’t always like what they do. The quintessential case in point now, of course, is the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump. Because it is by any measure still the most powerful country in the world, what America does necessarily affects everyone. This is why its actions on climate change – withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, gutting the Environmental Protection Authority, encouraging fossil fuel companies – matter so much.
But nation-states can also be forces for good and not just for those people who live within the borders of countries in the affluent global North. On the contrary, states that oversee a reduction in CO2 emissions are not only helping themselves, but they are also helping their neighbours and setting a useful example of “good international citizenship”.
When global governance is failing and being actively undermined by the Trump regime, it is even more important that other countries try to fill the void, even if this means cooperating with the unlikeliest of partners. Australia and China really could offer a different approach to climate change mitigation while simultaneously defusing tensions in the Indo-Pacific and demonstrating that resistance to the Trump agenda really is possible.
Friends with benefits
In the long term, if there still is one, environmental breakdown remains the most unambiguous threat to our collective future, especially in Australia, the world’s driest continent. And yet Australia’s strategic and political elites remain consumed by the military threat China supposedly poses, rather than the immediate, life-threatening impact of simultaneous droughts, fires and floods.
One of the only positives of the climate crisis is that it presents a common threat that really ought to generate a common cause. Some countries are no doubt more responsible for the problem and more capable of responding effectively, so they really ought to overcome the logic of first-mover disadvantage. No doubt, some other country will take over Australian coal markets, but someone has to demonstrate that change is possible.
China is possibly at even greater risk from the impact of climate catastrophes because of water shortages and, paradoxically enough, rising sea levels that will eventually threaten massive urban centres like Guangzhou and Shanghai. While there is much to admire about the decrease in poverty in the People’s Republic, it has come at an appalling cost to the natural environment. China also has powerful reasons to change its ways.
Unfortunately, Chinese policymakers, like Australia’s and their counterparts everywhere else, are consumed with more traditional threats to national strategic and economic security. This may be understandable enough in a world turned upside down by an unpredictable administration bent on creating a new international order that puts America first and trashes the environment in the process.
But in the absence of accustomed forms of leadership from the U.S. and the international community, for that matter, states must look to do what they can where they can, even if this means thinking the unthinkable and working with notional foes. China and Australia really do have a common cause when it comes to the environment and they could and should act on it.
Yes, this does all sound a bit unlikely. But if we are to survive in anything like a civilised state, unprecedented levels of cooperation would seem to be an inescapable part of limiting the damage our current policies have inflicted on the environment. In this context, Australia and China really could lead the way by simply agreeing to implement coordinated domestic actions designed to set a good example and address a critical global problem.
Leading by example
As two of the biggest consumers and producers of coal, Australia and China could make an outsize contribution to a global problem that would almost certainly win near universal praise, not to say disbelief. In short, China could agree not to build any more coal-fired power stations and Australia could commit to not opening any more new mines and rapidly moving to close down existing ones.
This would be a challenge for both countries, no doubt, but if we are ever going to address the climate challenge seriously, this is the sort of action that will be needed. There are no easy or painless solutions. But voluntarily abandoning the use of one of the most polluting fossil fuels is a potentially feasible and effective gesture that would make a difference. After all, China is a world leader in the development and use of green energy already, so the transition would be difficult but doable.
Australia has a shameful record of exporting carbon emissions and could live without the coal industry, which produces most of them, altogether. Coal extraction doesn’t employ many people and Australia is a rich enough country to compensate those affected by the loss of what are awful jobs in a dirty industry. If Australia can find $368 billion for submarines that will likely never arrive, to counter an entirely notional threat from China, it ought to be able to find a couple of billion to deal with a real one.
No doubt there would be significant pushback from coal industry lobbyists and politicians who think their future depends on being “realistic”, even if it means wrecking the planet. And yet it is possible, even likely, that such actions on the part of Australia and China would be very well received by regional neighbours, who would directly benefit from their actions and who might also be encouraged to consider meaningful cooperative actions themselves.
Given the failure of regional organisations like ASEAN to tackle these issues, normative pressure could be useful.
China might even get a significant boost to its soft power and regional reputation. President Xi Jinping frequently talks about the need to develop an “ecological civilisation”. Moving away from coal and collaborating with an unlikely partner for the collective good would be an opportunity to demonstrate China’s commitment to this idea, and to offer some badly needed environmental leadership.
If that’s not an example of what Xi calls win-win diplomacy, it’s hard to know what is.
A sustainable world order?
In the absence of what U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders calls a “revolution” in American foreign policy, multilateralism may well be in terminal decline. Indeed, it is an open question whether interstate cooperation will survive another four years of Trumpism, especially when the United Nations faces a funding crisis and politics in the European Union is moving in a similarly populist and authoritarian direction.
Cooperation between Australia and China could send a useful message to the Trump regime and other countries around the world about both the possibility of developing alternatives to failing American leadership and the institutional order it did so much to create. American hegemony was frequently self-serving, violent and seemingly indifferent to its impact on the global South, but we may miss it when it’s gone.
If multilateralism is likely to be less effective for the foreseeable future, perhaps minilateralism or even bilateralism can provide an alternative pathway to cooperation. Narrowly conceived notional strategic threats could be usefully “decoupled” from the economic and environmental varieties. In such circumstances, geography may be a better guide to prospective partners than sacrosanct notions about supposed friends and enemies.
Someone somewhere has to show leadership on climate change and restore hope that at least one problem, arguably the biggest one we collectively face, is being taken seriously. There really isn’t any choice other than to contemplate unprecedented actions for an unprecedented problem. Australia and China may not save the world, but they could make things a bit less awful and inject some much-needed creativity and hope into international politics.
Mark Beeson is an adjunct professor at the University of Technology Sydney and Griffith University. He was previously Professor of International Politics at the University of Western Australia.
As Russia and the US both threaten to resume nuclear testing and China has tripled its stock of nuclear arms, former foreign minister Gareth Evans has written an essay for Australian Foreign Affairs Magazine arguing that Australia should lead a new arms control push. He says “nuclear arms control has never been more necessary, and never more difficult to achieve. The important arms control agreements of the past are dead, dying or on life support. And the recent behaviour of the actors that matter most – the United States, Russia and China – has fed concerns that things can only get worse.”
Guest: Gareth Evans, Distinguished Honorary Professor, Australian National University, former Australian Foreign Affairs Minister, author of “Doomsday diplomacy: Australia can lead a new arms control push”, for Australian Foreign Affairs
Australian businesses are missing significant investment and innovation opportunities in Asia.
Education, business and professional exchange programs must be expanded.
Speaking from experience – CPA Australia has nearly 50,000 members in the region.
One of the world’s leading accounting bodies, CPA Australia, is urging the Federal government to take bold steps to strengthen Australia’s Asia capability, warning that Australian businesses are missing out on significant opportunities in the region.
Rebecca Keppel-Jones, Chief Member Operations Officer at CPA Australia, says many Australian businesses, particularly SMEs, remain domestically focused and are not capitalising on opportunities in Asia.
“Asia is central to Australia’s future prosperity. To remain competitive, we must build Asia capability from the classroom to the boardroom,” Ms Keppel Jones said.
“With Asia home to some of the world’s fastest-growing economies, Australia risks falling behind unless it invests in Asia capability now. We need more investment into existing programs, such as the New Colombo Plan, to improve Australians’ understanding of Asia.”
CPA Australia is proud to have maintained a strong presence in Asia for more than 70 years. It now represents nearly 50,000 members in mainland China, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Vietnam and the UAE.
“Australia must better leverage its people-to-people connections and professional networks to unlock economic potential,” Ms Keppel-Jones said.
CPA Australia’s four key recommendations:
Expanding Asia-focused training for SMEs to improve business readiness and regional engagement.
Showcasing Australian success stories in Asia through a government-supported case study library to inspire and educate.
Increasing scholarships and professional placements for young Australians to study and work in Asia.
Revitalising Asian language and cultural education in schools and universities to reverse declining enrolments and build long-term regional literacy.
“As global dynamics shift, our ability to engage with Asia is more critical than ever. We need to ensure Australia’s workforce is globally competitive,” Ms Keppel-Jones said. “We are ready to work with government, educators and industry to turn these recommendations into action.”
The submission highlights CPA Australia’s active contributions to regional policy development, education and professional exchange, including a reciprocal work placement exchange program with Malaysia.
Eligible CPA Australia members can enjoy temporary work placements in Malaysia as part of a broader Young Professionals Exchange Program organised by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The exchange program is designed to enhance business engagement between Australia and its Southeast Asia partners and is available in Malaysia first, before being rolled out to other Southeast Asian markets.
South Australians have a Right to Say No to undemocratic Federal imposed storage of AUKUS High Level nuclear waste in our State. All Federal MPs & Senators from SA, Members of the SA Parliament and candidates for the SA State Election on 21st March should declare their position:
Q: Will you accept or reject Federal imposed storage of AUKUS nuclear waste in SA? The Federal Government quietly took up new AUKUS Regulations (2 Oct) as powers to impose AUKUS wastes by override of State laws that prohibit nuclear waste storage in SA, NT and WA.
AUKUS Regulation 111 “State and Territory laws that do not apply in relation to a regulated activity” names and prescribes our SA Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000. The Objects of this key SA Law set out what is at stake: “To protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of SA, and the environment in which they live” from nuclear waste storage.
Federal Labor’s draconian powers to compromise public health, safety and welfare protections. n SA Law, lacks social licence, are an affront to civil society, and damages trust in governance. This is also a threat to Indigenous People with a cultural responsibility to protect their country.
Community expects our State Labor Government to give a clear State Election commitment to protect SA from the risks and impacts of untenable and illegal AUKUS High Level nuclear waste storage, see “The lethal legacy of Aukus nuclear submarines will remain for millennia – and there’s no plan to deal with it” (The Guardian, 10 August 2025, interview with Prof Ian Lowe).
Labor has a further key leadership test ahead of our Election: to commit to support Indigenous People’s human rights, set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Article 29 (UNDRIP 2007), to “Free, Prior and Informed Consent” over storage of hazardous materials on their lands. AUKUS wastes absolutely are hazardous materials!
a Question for Premier Peter Malinauskas: Will you respect and support Indigenous Peoples Rights to Say No to Federal siting of AUKUS nuclear waste storage on their country in SA?
Call for full disclosure on a N-waste siting process after Labor breaks its commitment: The public has a Right to Know what regions are being targeted for storage of High-Level nuclear wastes. A secretive ongoing Defence review “to identify potential nuclear waste disposal sites” (ABC News March 2023) must be made public ahead of the SA State Election.
AUKUS Minister Marles has broken his commitment to announce a process by early 2024 to identify a site to dispose of AUKUS High-Level nuclear wastes. The failure by Defence to set out any process – other than to take up powers to impose nuclear wastes – is unacceptable.
REPORTER: Is a high-level nuclear waste dump the price that South Australia will have to pay for the jobs that go to the state? (Minister Marles Press Conference 14 March 2023)
MARLES: Well, as I indicated there will be a process that we will determine within the next 12 months for how the site will be identified. You’ve made a leap there, which we’re not going to make for some time. It will be a while before a site is ultimately identified. But we will within the next 12 months establish a process for how we walk down that path.
It is now over 4 years since Federal Labor agreed with Morrison’s AUKUS nuclear sub agenda.
SALabor to let ‘national security interests’ decide siting for AUKUS nuclear waste?
National press reported the Woomera Area to be a ‘favoured location’ for storage and disposal of nuclear sub wastes back in August 2023 (“Woomera looms as national nuclear waste dump site including for AUKUS submarine high-level waste afr.com). WA, Qld and Vic political leaders have rejected a High-Level nuclear waste disposal site in their States, with WA suggesting the Woomera Prohibited Area in SA: “would be one obvious location within the Defence estate, however, we will await the outcomes of the federal review” (SMH 15 March 2023).
Premier Malinauskas has so far only said AUKUS nuclear waste should go to a ‘remote’ location in the “national security interest” (see “Site for high-level nuclear waste dump under AUKUS deal must be in national interest, SA premier says” ABC News 15 March 2023).
The Premier’s “Office for AUKUS” (Letter, 7 Oct 2025) accepts “safe and secure disposal” of High-Level nuclear waste, including spent fuel, produced when subs are decommissioned. The Office says no decision has been made on a location but declines to reveal what is underway, expresses no concerns over unprecedented nuclear waste storage or‘social license’, and expects “community acceptance” (in SA?) for a nuclear ‘disposal solution’:
“I can confirm that no decision has been made on a location within Australia for the disposal of intermediate, or high-level radioactive waste from nuclear-powered submarines. Determining suitable locations and methods for safe and secure disposal will take time, but Australia will do so in a manner that sets the highest standards … and which builds community acceptance for a disposal solution.”
SA is left in the dark, without a say, as an ongoing target for an AUKUS nuclear waste dump.
AUKUS is to store US origin nuclear wastes from 2nd hand Virginia Class subs in Australia:
AUKUS aims Australia take on second-hand US Virginia Class nuclear powered subs in the early 2030’s loaded with up to a dozen years of US origin military High-Level nuclear waste and fissile Atomic-Bomb fuel accrued in operations of US Navy High Enriched Uranium nuclear reactors. Swapping an Australian flag onto this US military nuclear reactor waste places an untenable ‘for ever’ burden on all future generations to have to cope these US nuclear wastes.
Scenario: an AUKUS nuclear dump imposed on SA, High-Level military waste shipped into Whyalla Port to go north, nuclear subs to be ‘decommissioned’ at Osborne Port Adelaide.
Whyalla Port is back on a nuclear waste target range. How else could AUKUS nuclear waste get to a storage site in north SA? The Woomera Area is expected to be on a regional short list for an AUKUS dump, requiring nuclear waste transport routes across SA. Port Adelaide community has a Right to Say No to nuclear decommissioning plans for expanded Osborne submarine yards.
SA politicians must protect SA and rule out both an untenable AUKUS nuclear dump and decommissioning nuclear subs and nuclear reactors at Osborne or else-where in SA.
SA must respect Traditional Owners Human Rights to Say No to imposition of nuclear wastes.
The SA public have Rights to full disclosure and for politicians to have to declare their positions, We need an informed public debate ahead of our State Election. Silence by our political leaders, while a path is paved toward nuclear decisions, makes a nuclear waste dump future more likely.
Info: see Rex Patrick & “AUKUS waste in perpetuity”, and David Noonan in Pearls and Irritations.
As one of the most advanced solar nations in the world, Australia is well placed to experiment with giving people free power – and if it succeeds, other countries may look to copy its approach
Australians received a welcome surprise this week with the news that every household will soon receive 3 hours of free electricity every day, as part of a world-first initiative to share the benefits of solar power. If successful, it could be a model for other to follow in a future that will increasingly be powered by sunshine.
The Australian electricity grid is zinging with excess capacity during the day thanks to solar power, but it is strained at night when people return from work and use most of their appliances. To address this, the Australian government says its “Solar Sharer” scheme will be rolled out from July 2026 in three states – New South Wales, South Australia and the south-east corner of Queensland – with the rest of the country joining in 2027…………………..(Subscribers only)..…………………. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2503532-australia-is-getting-free-electricity-will-other-countries-follow/
Liberals risk joining ‘baddies’ with fossil-fuel push
CanberraTimes, By Tess Ikonomou, November 9 2025
A senior Liberal has warned his party would push Australia towards joining “baddies” in rejecting international climate goals as it prepares to back fossil fuel-fired power.
Political infighting within the coalition has intensified over the Liberals’ commitment to a target of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050, a position the party is poised to follow junior partner the Nationals in dumping.
The Liberal Party’s formal position on the climate target will be decided following meetings in Canberra mid-week.
Liberal frontbencher and leading moderate Andrew Bragg on Sunday indicated he could quit shadow cabinet if his party decided it would pull out of the Paris Agreement and not maintain a clear goal for lowering emissions.
“If we left Paris, we’d be with Azerbaijan, Iran, Syria, you know, and a few other baddies,” he told ABC’s Insiders program.
“Australia has never been with those people before.
“Australia needs to be in Paris, in my opinion, and then we need to try to find a way to do net-zero better than Labor. That is better for jobs, better for industry, and better for decarbonisation.”
Senator Bragg added the Liberals were “not fringe dwellers” and most Australians want the nation to play a fair role in reducing emissions, an objective seen as key for the party to reverse its electoral decimation in urban seats.
Under the Paris Agreement, signed in 2015, members must increase their emissions targets every five years and cannot water down their goals……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Opposition energy spokesman Dan Tehan has flagged subsidies could be offered to keep current coal-fired power plants operating for longer under the coalition’s long-awaited climate and energy plan………………………………………………………………………………………………
Mr Tehan also foreshadowed the Liberals would continue their pre-election policy of supporting the development of nuclear power plants.
The Coalition’s favoured energy technology is quite clearly nuclear – perhaps for no other reason than it is not wind or solar.
The Coalition no longer pretends that nuclear is the best option to address climate change, because they are tearing up their agreement on net zero, the softest of climate targets. That may be an admission that nuclear is very slow to build, particularly for a country that has never done so, and is still built on democratic principles.
Nor can they pretend that nuclear is the best technology on economics. Real world examples continue to defy the carefully constructed modelling commissioned by the Coalition.
In the UK, financing has finally been landed for the planned Sizewell C nuclear plant – and it turns out to be £38 billion, or around $A76 billion, for a 3.2 gigawatt facility. That translates to around $24 million a megawatt capacity cost, which is more than twice as much as the Coalition modelling would have you believe.
Sizewell C is expected to be a replica of Hinkley Point C, whose costs are now estimated at up to $A94 billion, and it seems that Sizewell kept its capital costs under control, because the UK government had to step in to take a 44 per cent stake. (The builder, the French government owned EDF, only wanted 12 per cent, because of the cost risks.)
It also changed the nature of the funding game – turning the new nuclear plant into a regulated asset (like Australia’s electricity networks), which will require consumers to start paying for the nuclear plant more than a decade before it is actually built.
Remember, this is the 5th or 6th plant to be built using the French EPR technology – and yet there is no sign of it getting any cheaper. And we haven’t see the inevitable delays and cost blowouts yet. Civil construction costs are blowing up projects all over the world, and nuclear is about as big as they come.
The UN starts another climate party
The Coalition’s anti-climate and no-to-net-zero stance comes as the UN climate conference is poised to start in Belem, Brazil, where UN secretary general Antonio Guterres has lamented “more failure” to do enough to keep the world on track to cap average global warming at 1.5°C.In remarks that might have been addressed specifically at the Coalition, but were directed at the world, Guterres said:
“Too many corporations are making record profits from climate devastation, with billions spent on lobbying, deceiving the public and obstructing progress,” Guterres said.
“Too many (political) leaders remain captive to these entrenched interests,” noting that countries are spending about ($A1.54 trillion) each year subsidising fossil fuels.
“We can choose to lead – or be led to ruin. Every fraction of a degree means more hunger, displacement and loss – especially for those least responsible. This is moral failure – and deadly negligence.”
What is the real target?
Those fractions of a degree are significant. The latest “emissions gap” report published by the UNEP says the world is headed for average of 2.9°C of warming based on current enacted policies, and 2.3°C and 2.5°C based on announced commitments.
What does a world of 3°C look like. Australia’s National Climate Risk report made it clear – catastrophic impacts, rising sea levels, collapsing ice sheets, the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef. Much of northern Australia would be uninhabitable.
Gina Rinehart, who appears to hold so much sway over the Nationals, wants to build a “defence dome” over northern Australia to protect its mineral riches. It might need a geodesic dome just to make it habitable.
What could possibly be done? As the UNEP notes: “The required low-carbon technologies to deliver big emission cuts are available. Wind and solar energy development is booming, lowering deployment costs. This means the international community can accelerate climate action, should they choose to do so.”
Astonishingly, the Coalition battle over net zero has been playing out in mainstream media as nothing more than political porn, focusing on personalities, egos and power. Climate science, and the renewable solutions, have barely been mentioned.
I’ve seen and heard maybe half a dozen interviews with Opposition energy and emissions reduction spokesman Dan Tehan and can’t remember him once being asked about climate science, or the economics and the engineering of the energy transition.
Does Australia really want to host COP31
Sometime in the next two weeks we will get an answer on whether Australia wants to host COP31, the next UN climate talks in 2026.
The plan is to do it in Adelaide, which would be a grand opportunity to show off the world’s most advanced renewable grid, with South Australia already at a world-leading share of 75 per cent wind and solar, and aiming for 100 per cent “net” renewables by 2027.
The state hosted the world’s first big battery and was the first to roll out “grid forming inverters,” which will help kill the need for fossil fuel generators and often has rooftop solar meeting the equivalent of all state demand. None of which was considered possible just a few years ago.
But if it is this hard to agree to a venue (Türkiye still has its hand up), does Australia want the hassle and embarrassment of presiding over a UN conference with no particular landmark goal, squabbling nations and the notable absence of the world’s biggest economy, the US?
Some in the ALP machine are thinking not. The delays and the massive oil and gas projects still being approved and rolled out, could make logistics tricky and the politics difficult. Which would be a shame: It is a rare opportunity for the Pacific Island nations to also have their say.
They have done so before when Fiji was the official host of COP23, but that was – for obvious reasons – held in Bonn, Germany. That might happen again, with Australia and Türkiye sharing “hosting” duties and various lead-up events, expos and talk-fests.
Duck! Free solar is coming your way
As the Coalition tries to tear itself apart over its position on climate and energy, federal energy minister Chris Bowen’s advocacy of “free solar” may turn out to be a political masterpiece – if only because it promises to change the conversation about the green energy transition.
Bowen wants to force energy retailers to offer at least three hours of “free electricity,” taking advantage of the abundance of rooftop and other solar in the middle of the day, and to make sure the benefits are shared with the 60 per cent of households that do not yet have, or can’t have, rooftop solar.
It’s sparked a predictable fury about heavy handed regulation: You can’t do that! And it’s true that some retailers already do offer such a tariff, although potential customers may want to assess the rates that are being charged in the evening peaks.
Morgan Stanley says the implications are significant enough – savings of up to $660 a year for non-solar households able to take up the offer (you need a smart meter and a big enough midday load so it can make sense), and estimates it might cost big retailers like AGL and Origin around $60 million each.
That suggests an uptake of less than 100,000 customers, which sounds about right. But it’s the messaging that counts – both to the long-forgotten consumer, and to the legacy retailers who are reminded they need to be on their toes to negotiate this energy transition.
Customers should no longer be the forgotten part of the energy transition. They now own rooftop PV, and are busy installing batteries and buying EVs. That will accelerate, but the benefits should not be theirs and theirs alone. Sadly, the legacy players sometimes need to be told to do the right thing.
Podcasts to listen to
This week on the Energy Insiders podcast, we talk to Vestas’ Jan Daniel Kaemmer about the prospects for wind industry in Australia, and of course the news of the week. See: Energy Insiders Podcast: The future of wind energy
Getting access to documents concerning a nuclear submarine base in NSW has become an FOI riddle wrapped in a submarine mystery inside a nuclear enigma. Rex Patrick reports.
You can’t have the documents. Hang on, maybe you can? Nope, they’re too sensitive. OK, they’re not sensitive, you can have them all. Except you can’t.
If you’re struggling to follow this, I’ll try to explain. But keep this in the back of your mind – all Australian taxpayers are paying for the Department of Defence’s part in this, and those NSW taxpayers also get to pay the NSW Crown Solicitor’s part.
It started with a single backflip. When I first asked the NSW Government for access to documents relating to the consideration of a nuclear submarine base in NSW, they said I couldn’t have the documents because they were Cabinet-in-Confidence.
When I took the case to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT), the NSW Government backflipped. They stated that their Cabinet exemption claim was wrong and asked NCAT if the Government could remake the decision.
Double backflip
The Tribunal said, “Yes, remake your decision”.
A month later, the NSW Government issued me a new decision. No! Again, “you can’t have them”! Across 12 pages of carefully worded legalese, they tried to explain why the public can’t see the documents.
That was September. Fast forward to late October and, out of the blue, the NSW Crown solicitor wrote to me and advised, “the [NSW Government] position in relation to the information in issue in the proceedings has changed … The [NSW Government] no longer holds the view that information is subject to an overriding public interest against disclosure.”
Woo-hoo! Transparency at last. But wait…
Defence secrecy
The email went on to say, “… Defence has an interest in the Defence Information and it has objected to the release of that information. Defence has a right to appear and be heard in the proceedings …”
What secrets?
I am yet to find out the basis of Defence’s objection to releasing the material, but in a very closely related request for information, Defence objected to the release of information because those documents identified or described Defence infrastructure or capability (e.g. base locations, site suitability studies, strategic assessments).
But seriously, how sensitive can a base’s location be? How sensitive can buildings be? In five minutes, anyone with internet access can use Google Earth to avail themselves of the location and layout of HMAS Stirling in Western Australia, where US and UK nuclear submarines are currently visiting.
Moreover, the buildings that will support the permanent basing of submarines at HMAS Stirling can be seen by visiting the website of the Federal Parliament’s Public Works Committee.
Yellow peril
But what about the Chinese? Won’t they find out?
Defence may be worried that if the location is known, then the Chinese might buy land next door to the planned base. The problem is, the Chinese have already purchased land in the Port Kembla and Newcastle port precinct.
In fact, Newcastle Port is operated by a consortium with 50% Chinese ownership (98-year lease) through China Merchant Port Holdings;
“they probably already know more about Newcastle Port and its environs than Defence does.”
The Chinese purchases in both cities provide considerable ability for them to monitor and evaluate key infrastructure servicing and capacity developments; high voltage power supply arrangements, natural gas supply details, potable water arrangements, fire water supply details, rail and road access arrangements and area telecommunications.
And the Chinese won’t only have access to future strategic plans for the port areas; their purchases are significant enough that they could help shape those plans, having a seat at the table as interested constituents and ratepayers. We know Chinese officials have already used their property interest to have meetings with the Mayor of Newcastle.
And as for the details of what Australia will need to safely support a nuclear sub force,
“the Chinese already know that from their 50 years of operating nuclear attack subs.“
1×1515
0:05 / 5:59
1×1515
0:05 / 5:59
Getting access to documents concerning a nuclear submarine base in NSW has become an FOI riddle wrapped in a submarine mystery inside a nuclear enigma. Rex Patrick reports.
You can’t have the documents. Hang on, maybe you can? Nope, they’re too sensitive. OK, they’re not sensitive, you can have them all. Except you can’t.
If you’re struggling to follow this, I’ll try to explain. But keep this in the back of your mind – all Australian taxpayers are paying for the Department of Defence’s part in this, and those NSW taxpayers also get to pay the NSW Crown Solicitor’s part.
It started with a single backflip. When I first asked the NSW Government for access to documents relating to the consideration of a nuclear submarine base in NSW, they said I couldn’t have the documents because they were Cabinet-in-Confidence.
When I took the case to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT), the NSW Government backflipped. They stated that their Cabinet exemption claim was wrong and asked NCAT if the Government could remake the decision.
A month later, the NSW Government issued me a new decision. No! Again, “you can’t have them”! Across 12 pages of carefully worded legalese, they tried to explain why the public can’t see the documents.
That was September. Fast forward to late October and, out of the blue, the NSW Crown solicitor wrote to me and advised, “the [NSW Government] position in relation to the information in issue in the proceedings has changed … The [NSW Government] no longer holds the view that information is subject to an overriding public interest against disclosure.”
Woo-hoo! Transparency at last. But wait…
Defence secrecy
The email went on to say, “… Defence has an interest in the Defence Information and it has objected to the release of that information. Defence has a right to appear and be heard in the proceedings …”
Backflip, with Defence objection (Source: NSW Crown Solicitor)
What secrets?
I am yet to find out the basis of Defence’s objection to releasing the material, but in a very closely related request for information, Defence objected to the release of information because those documents identified or described Defence infrastructure or capability (e.g. base locations, site suitability studies, strategic assessments).
But seriously, how sensitive can a base’s location be? How sensitive can buildings be? In five minutes, anyone with internet access can use Google Earth to avail themselves of the location and layout of HMAS Stirling in Western Australia, where US and UK nuclear submarines are currently visiting.
Moreover, the buildings that will support the permanent basing of submarines at HMAS Stirling can be seen by visiting the website of the Federal Parliament’s Public Works Committee.
Nuclear Submarine Piers (Source: Defence)
Yellow peril
But what about the Chinese? Won’t they find out?
Defence may be worried that if the location is known, then the Chinese might buy land next door to the planned base. The problem is, the Chinese have already purchased land in the Port Kembla and Newcastle port precinct.
In fact, Newcastle Port is operated by a consortium with 50% Chinese ownership (98-year lease) through China Merchant Port Holdings;
they probably already know more about Newcastle Port and its environs than Defence does.
The Chinese purchases in both cities provide considerable ability for them to monitor and evaluate key infrastructure servicing and capacity developments; high voltage power supply arrangements, natural gas supply details, potable water arrangements, fire water supply details, rail and road access arrangements and area telecommunications.
And the Chinese won’t only have access to future strategic plans for the port areas; their purchases are significant enough that they could help shape those plans, having a seat at the table as interested constituents and ratepayers. We know Chinese officials have already used their property interest to have meetings with the Mayor of Newcastle.
And as for the details of what Australia will need to safely support a nuclear sub force,
the Chinese already know that from their 50 years of operating nuclear attack subs.
But that won’t stop Defence objecting to the release of information that would otherwise be reasonable for the grant of social licence. It’s a department addicted to secrecy (how else are they going to keep their multi-billion dollar procurement blunders from public scrutiny).
A political ruse
Greens Senator David Shoebridge offered his perspective on the Federal Government’s secrecy:
“The Albanese government isn’t worried that China will find out where they want to put another US nuclear submarine base, they are worried the Australian public will. “The community of the Illawarra have already made it crystal clear that a nuclear submarine base has zero social licence to operate at Port Kembla. “The other potential target for Defence is Newcastle, and with a growing revulsion there with the use of the Williamtown F35 hub to arm Israel’s genocide in Gaza, Labor knows that option is also deeply unpopular. “Hiding these documents isn’t about preventing a foreign adversary from organising against Labor’s war plans, it’s about preventing the public opposing them.”
So, despite the NSW Government’s double backflip (which, despite them being cavalier in the first place, I do appreciate), it looks like I’ll have to keep fighting for transparency.
At least the backflips mean I’ll stand at the bar of NCAT with the NSW Government on my side of the argument. Meanwhile, we’ll all keep having to pay for both sets of lawyers, all necessary to keep politically sensitive topics from the public.
Western Australia’s South West Interconnected System – the world’s biggest isolated grid – has reached a remarkable new record high of 89 per cent renewables, led by rooftop solar.
The new peak – 88.97 per cent to be precise – was reached at 11am on Monday, beating the previous record of 87.29 per cent set just a day earlier, and the previous peak of 85.36 per cent set on October 23. “Another milestone for WA’s clean energy future,” Sanderson wrote. “It’s another strong sign of the transformation underway in our energy system as we become a renewable energy powerhouse.”
The Australian Energy Market Operator says the record share was led by rooftop solar, which accounted for 64 per cent of generation at the time. Large scale wind accounted for just over 16 per cent, with the rest from large scale solar, solar battery hybrids, biomass and battery storage.
Former Chair of the UN Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Judge Navi Pillay has warned that Australia risks complicity in genocide if we fail to act on Israel’s assault on Gaza, Stephanie Tran reports.
Speaking at the National Press Club, the former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights reiterated calls for the Australian government to fulfil its obligations under international law in light of the findings of the UN Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory which concluded that Israel’s actions in Gaza meet the threshold for genocide under international law.
‘We are all witnesses to the carnage’
Pillay stressed that every government, including Australia’s, had witnessed the livestreamed atrocities in Gaza unfold in real time and could not claim they “didn’t know” what was happening.
“We are all witnesses to the carnage in real time on our TV screens…. 65,000 Palestinian civilians [have been] killed, including women and children and it was all shown live on our TV sets, so nobody can say we didn’t know what was happening. No Australian parliamentarian could say we didn’t know what was happening. That was the defence the Nazis put up. …That is what some South African whites said.”
The veteran jurist, who presided over the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, said the Commission’s findings were based on verified evidence collected over the past two years. Pillay said that in determining whether Israel had genocidal intent, the panel implemented the legal test established by the International Court of Justice, that genocidal intent is the “only reasonable inference” from the facts.
“We followed UN rules, and we followed the test for genocidal intent. … It must be the only reasonable inference from the acts themselves.”
In September, the Commission concluded that genocidal intent was “the only reasonable inference” from Israel’s conduct, pointing to the military’s use of heavy munitions in densely populated areas, the systematic destruction of cultural and religious sites, and repeated defiance of International Court of Justice (ICJ) rulings ordering provisional measures.
The report also found that Israeli authorities committed four of the five genocidal acts defined by the Genocide Convention, namely killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of the Palestinians in whole or in part, and imposing measures intended to prevent births.
Australia’s obligations under the Geneva Convention
Pillay criticised Australia’s muted response to the Commission’s finding that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.
“Under the Genocide Convention, every state… has the legal obligation to prevent the commission of genocide, to deal with the commission of genocide, and to protect against genocide.”
She called on the Australian government to define and publicise its policy on genocide prevention, warning that the government’s maintenance of ties to entities complicit in the genocide could leave it open to prosecution.
“Be careful what you’re doing,” Pillay said.
Listen to this story
4 min
Former Chair of the UN Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Judge Navi Pillay has warned that Australia risks complicity in genocide if we fail to act on Israel’s assault on Gaza, Stephanie Tran reports.
Speaking at the National Press Club, the former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights reiterated calls for the Australian government to fulfil its obligations under international law in light of the findings of the UN Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory which concluded that Israel’s actions in Gaza meet the threshold for genocide under international law.
‘We are all witnesses to the carnage’
Pillay stressed that every government, including Australia’s, had witnessed the livestreamed atrocities in Gaza unfold in real time and could not claim they “didn’t know” what was happening.
“We are all witnesses to the carnage in real time on our TV screens…. 65,000 Palestinian civilians [have been] killed, including women and children and it was all shown live on our TV sets, so nobody can say we didn’t know what was happening. No Australian parliamentarian could say we didn’t know what was happening. That was the defence the Nazis put up. …That is what some South African whites said.”
The veteran jurist, who presided over the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, said the Commission’s findings were based on verified evidence collected over the past two years. Pillay said that in determining whether Israel had genocidal intent, the panel implemented the legal test established by the International Court of Justice, that genocidal intent is the “only reasonable inference” from the facts.
“We followed UN rules, and we followed the test for genocidal intent. … It must be the only reasonable inference from the acts themselves.”
In September, the Commission concluded that genocidal intent was “the only reasonable inference” from Israel’s conduct, pointing to the military’s use of heavy munitions in densely populated areas, the systematic destruction of cultural and religious sites, and repeated defiance of International Court of Justice (ICJ) rulings ordering provisional measures.
The report also found that Israeli authorities committed four of the five genocidal acts defined by the Genocide Convention, namely killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of the Palestinians in whole or in part, and imposing measures intended to prevent births.
Australia’s obligations under the Geneva Convention
Pillay criticised Australia’s muted response to the Commission’s finding that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.
“Under the Genocide Convention, every state… has the legal obligation to prevent the commission of genocide, to deal with the commission of genocide, and to protect against genocide.”
She called on the Australian government to define and publicise its policy on genocide prevention, warning that the government’s maintenance of ties to entities complicit in the genocide could leave it open to prosecution.
“Be careful what you’re doing,” Pillay said.
“You may one day face charges of complicity in genocide.”
Her comments come amid growing pressure on the Albanese government over Australia’s defence ties with Israel, via the F-35 program and contracts with Israeli weapons manufacturers.
So, the Nationals have decided to stop pretending they care about climate change, and have thrown in their lot with the fossil fuel industries. It should come as no surprise – climate denial, coal and nuclear often go hand in hand.
It is the greed, stupidity and cowardice that stuns the most. This is a party that chooses not to support its regional constituency – those likely to suffer most from the impacts of climate change – but to side with billionaires determined not to let science and the fate of future generations get in the way of making money.
Climate science demands that strong action is needed as quickly as possible to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. This is true for Australia as it is for the rest of the world. Reaching net zero by 2050 is the very least that should be done – we should really be aiming for net zero in the mid 2030s or early 2040s.
The Nationals, though, having rejected near and medium term climate targets, can’t even be bothered kicking the can down the road, which is how many describe the task of net zero by 2050. And like most climate deniers, they voice support for the world’s most expensive, difficult and delayed technology – nuclear energy.
The most obvious technologies, and by far the best in the Australian context, are solar, wind, and battery storage. It is not all we need, but it is the lowest cost and the most readily deployable. The Nationals prefer to look the other way.
It looks, sounds and feels Trumpian. We’ve seen how idiots and ideologues have been promoted to the key roles in the new US administration, and the damage that has been done, the lives that have been lost and will be lost, and the attacks on science, the environment, and the foundations of western democracy.
But we really don’t have to look beyond our own shores to see how this plays out – new right wing governments in Queensland (LNP) and the Northern Territory (CLP) have ripped up renewables targets and ignored climate science to pursue what appears to be a single goal: To further enrich the fossil fuel interests that support them.
Tomago, not pronounced like tomato
This has consequences. The owners of the giant Tomago aluminium smelter last week flagged the possible closure in three years – not because of the transition to renewables, but largely because it has not come quickly enough in NSW.
There is deep irony in this. Rio Tinto believes it has secured the future of its Boyne Island smelter and associated refineries in Gladstone in Queensland by locking in a series of wind, solar and solar battery hybrid contracts – all the biggest of their type in Australia. And there are more to come, we understand.
This was the result of the state Labor government’s pro-active efforts and a common sense approach to the rollout of renewables and renewable zones in the country’s most coal dependent state, although the new LNP government has tried to bugger that up by “calling in” the wind project. It seems a phone call solved that issue.
NSW has arguably more ambitious transition plans – given the size of its grid – and a lot more urgency because of the age of its coal generators.
But behind the ostensibly bipartisan support have been acts of quiet and noisy sabotage – rabble rousing and planning delays – particularly from the Nationals that has made the rollout of wind and solar that much more difficult.
Of course, they are not the only ones to blame. The buyers’ strike by the big energy retailers, the failure of super to invest in their own country’s future, the pathetic coverage of mainstream media have all played their part………
Race to renewables
It is instructive to note the number of industries that are trying to transition to renewables as quickly as they can, to secure their future, like Boyne Island.
Fortescue is charging towards “real zero” – meaning burning no gas or diesel by 2030 to power and operate their iron more mines by 2030, which would be an extraordinary feat if they can pull that off in that time frame.
This is happening at the local level too – the federal battery rebate numbers are now at 108,000 (as of Saturday) and showing no signs of slowing down.
And there is renewed enthusiasm for vehicle-to-grid, essentially using the big batteries in EVs for the same purpose, to act as batteries on wheels. Amber’s Chris Thompson says consumer energy resources – such as batteries and EVs – is the next big wave.
“You really start to see the future forming here, where consumers are actually the backbone of the energy grid,” he says. “They are participating, they are accelerating this renewable transition, and we are desperately trying to work hard to make sure that we can help make it simple and easy for everyone to participate.”
And as ARENA’s Darren Miller noted: “We can expect the level of storage in these vehicles to exceed what we need in the grid by about three times. So all we need is a third of people plugging their cars in and having this technology to essentially provide all of the firming that we need for our grid for our home energy consumption.”
Carter had a simple message on what needs to be done.
“Stop fighting and get aligned for the common good. We need a global carbon platform and market. We can’t keep assuming that dumping manmade greenhouse gases is free or has no consequence,” he said.
The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), has called on the Australian government to urgently advance the signature of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) to address growing nuclear dangers.
The call follows last night’s ABC Four Corners investigation “Trading Fire” which highlighted elevated dangers in Australia as hosting US nuclear-capable platforms and supplying minerals that can facilitate nuclear weapons is making Australia a high probability target.
Gem Romuld, Director of ICAN Australia, said:
“The ABC has put this issue on the national radar. The government needs to lift the veil of secrecy about what’s going on and require our nuclear-armed AUKUS partners to declare whether their vessels and aircraft are nuclear-capable or carry nuclear weapons. Australians have a right to know and a right to say no. There is no place for nuclear weapons in Australia.
To stop Australia becoming a launchpad for nuclear war we must sign the Australian-born treaty that bans the bomb and could save the world.”
ICAN was awarded the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize for its role in achieving the TPNW. A year later, Anthony Albanese and Richard Marles led a successful resolution committing the Australian Labor Party to sign and ratify the TPNW in government.
However when asked whether Australia would sign and ratify the TPNW on Four Corners last night, Minister Marles said;
“What’s really clear is that the [National] Conference understands that this is a decision of government… a decision of Labor in government. And the decision that Labor has made in government has been to follow the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The NPT is at the core of Labor in government’s policy.”
Dr Tilman Ruff AO, co-founder of ICAN, said:
“Minister Marles gave the impression that the Albanese Government is walking away from Labor’s longstanding ban treaty commitment. There’s no reason Australia can’t join the TPNW as well as the NPT. It can, should and must.
As Australia pursues nuclear-fuelled submarines under AUKUS, it is essential that we send a clear message to our nation, our region and the world that nuclear weapons are a red line. We call for the government to set a timeline for the signature of the TPNW in this term of parliament.”
Energy Transition Minerals is an Australian company (formerly Greenland Minerals Limited)
On 28 October 2025, the Arbitration Court ruled on whether the case brought by Greenland Minerals A/S against Naalakkersuisut can be heard by an arbitration court. The Arbitration Court has decided that the issue of the right to exploit minerals at Kuannersuit cannot be brought before an arbitration court and that the Danish state cannot be a party to the case.
The case was brought before the Arbitration Court by Greenland Minerals A/S on 22 March 2022. According to Greenland Minerals A/S’ claim, Naalakkersuisut should be ordered to grant the company a permit to exploit minerals at Kuannersuit.
The case arose from the adoption of the Uranium Act, which prohibits preliminary investigations, exploration and exploitation of uranium. The Act prevents a permit for exploitation from being granted in the company’s license area, as the uranium values exceed the Uranium Act’s de minimis limit.
The Greenland Government was surprised that the company chose to bring the case before an arbitration court, as the Greenland Government’s discretionary decisions can only be brought before the courts, and the Greenland Government has maintained throughout the case that the arbitration court does not have jurisdiction to decide the case. The arbitration court’s decision was therefore expected.
Cheaper, greener power is on the way. As long as anti-net zero populists don’t throttle it in the cradle. Not that long ago, Mark Purcell, a retired rear admiral in the Australian navy, was paying about A$250 a month for electricity in his roomy family home on the Queensland coast.
Today, he says he makes as much as A$300 a month, or nearly $200, from the electricity he makes, stores and sells with his solar panels and batteries. “This is the future,” he told me. “This is what the energy transition could look like for a lot of folks.” Purcell is one of the 58,000-plus customers of Amber Electric, an eight-year-old Melbourne business that gives householders access to real-time wholesale power prices so they can use power when it’s cheap and sell what is stored in their batteries when it’s expensive.
The company is adding 5,000 customers a month, putting it among a new generation of fast-growing energy tech start-ups aiming to make electricity cheaper and greener, and not just in Australia. Amber’s dynamic pricing technology is due to launch soon in the UK, where the company has done licensing deals with the energy suppliers Ecotricity and E.On.
Norway’s Tibber offers similar services to the 1mn customers it has gained since launching in 2016 and expanding to Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands. In Germany, the market share of companies including Tibber, Octopus Energy and Rabot Charge has grown from 0.1 per cent in 2023 to 2.4 per cent in 2025, says the Kreutzer Consulting group. Between them they have more than 1mn customers, 77 per cent of whom are particularly or very happy with their provider, far more than the industry-wide figure of 57 per cent.
Remember those figures the next time you hear a rightwing populist condemn allegedly unaffordable net zero policies. In fact, this new class of energy tech entrepreneurs is showing how electricity can become more affordable precisely because of the renewables, batteries and electric cars that net zero efforts drive.
It is no accident Amber Electric began in Australia, long a world leader in rooftop solar systems that sit atop more than 4mn of its homes and small businesses. Its population of 28mn is now undergoing a home battery boom, following the July launch of a A$2.3bn government subsidy scheme. Industry estimates show rooftop solar can save households up to A$1,500 a year on energy bills, a figure that nearly doubles if you add a battery, and rises further with dynamic pricing. Is there a catch?
Right now, the upfront costs of green tech can be considerable. Queensland’s Purcell is a superuser who has spent tens of thousands of dollars on solar panels, batteries and a home energy management system that makes everything from his pool heater to his air conditioners price-responsive. His family also has two Teslas with even bigger batteries.
This is clearly unaffordable for many, but maybe not for long. Big home hardware retailers have begun to launch financing plans that let people pay monthly fees of less than A$150 for solar and battery packages rather than a big initial outlay.
Antinuclear 