Turnbull lies – calling coal a “dispatchable”power source
The new policy redefines coal as dispatchable, despite it having the opposite technological characteristics.
This is not an entirely new approach. Before the government
decided to abandon the proposed Clean Energy Target it put a lot of effort into redefining coal as “clean”.
The government’s energy policy hinges on some tricky wordplay about coal’s role https://theconversation.com/the-governments-energy-policy-hinges-on-some-tricky-wordplay-about-coals-role-85843?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=twitterbutton, The Conversation, The most important thing to understand about the federal government’s new National Energy Guarantee is that it is designed not to produce a sustainable and reliable electricity supply system for the future, but to meet purely political objectives for the current term of parliament.
Those political objectives are: to provide a point of policy difference with the Labor Party; to meet the demands of the government’s backbench to provide support for coal-fired electricity; and to be seen to be acting to hold power prices down.
Meeting these objectives solves Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s immediate political problems. But it comes at the cost of producing a policy that can only produce further confusion and delay.
The government’s central problem is that, as well as being polluting, coal-fired power is not well suited to the problem of increasingly high peaks in power demand, combined with slow growth in total demand.
Coal-fired power plants are expensive to start up and shut down, and are therefore best suited to meeting “baseload demand” – that is, the base level of electricity demand that never goes away. Until recently, this characteristic of coal was pushed by the government as the main reason we needed to maintain coal-fired power.
The opposite of baseload power is “dispatchable” power, which can be turned on and off as needed.
Classic sources of dispatchable power include hydroelectricity and gas, while recent technological advances mean that large-scale battery storageis now also a feasible option. Continue reading
Queensland government to take over agricultural land for Adani coal mine rail line
Government resume land for Adani
A FARM group – partly backed by the Tim Flannery-led Climate Council – has hit out over the State Government resumption of agricultural land for the Adani rail line.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/palaszczuk-government-resume-emerald-farmland-for-adani-rail-link/n
Townsville and Rockhampton councils could pay at least $31 million for Adani coalmine airstrip
Queensland councils to pay at least $31m for Adani coalmine airstrip
Townsville and Rockhampton councils may pay millions more if company’s bid to sew up deal with traditional owners fails, Guardian, Joshua Robertson, 20 Oct 17, Two local councils are paying $31m to build an airstrip for Adani’s Queenslandcoalmine – and could fork out millions more if the energy giant’s bid to sew up a deal with traditional owners hits a stumbling block.
Townsville and Rockhampton councils last week announced they would spend $15.5m each on the airport – hundreds of kilometres away – in a deal to secure Adani’s guarantee of 2,200 construction jobs for their residents.
And Townsville has agreed to pay up to $18.5m if the airport is shifted to a second location outside Wangan and Jagalingou land, where Adani’s right to build Australia’s largest coalmine is tied up in a drawn-out legal battle with a traditional owners group.
Rockhampton, which originally put up $20m for the airport in a bid to gain Adani’s guarantee, may also invest up to $18.5m but this has not been made clear.
Despite the Carmichael mine having broad support in both communities, there is some backlash to ratepayers providing infrastructure for a transnational corporation.
Councillors from both cities voted in favour of paying for the airport for Adani’s workforce in closed discussions of confidential reports, recorded in minutes that did not mention the company……….
Rockhampton councillors met on 26 September for a confidential discussion about “economic development opportunities” and an update from council’s general manager of “regional development and aviation”.
The minutes make no mention of Adani but note a confidential report contained information “for which a public discussion would be likely to prejudice the interests of the local government or someone else, or enable a person to gain a financial advantage”.
Councillors unanimously voted for their chief executive to “execute the terms sheets as discussed at the meeting” but did not put a figure on the cost to ratepayers.
Neither the Townsville mayor, Jenny Hill, nor the Rockhampton mayor, Margaret Strelow, responded to a request for comment. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/20/adani-coalmine-queensland-councils-to-pay-at-least-31m-for-airstrip
Turnbull’s National Energy Guarantee works against battery energy storage
Battery storage proponents despondent about future under National Energy Guarantee, http://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2017-10-19/concern-energy-policy-will-stymie-growth-in-battery-storage/9061948, ABC Rural, By Babs McHugh, Some in the fledgling tech-metals mining and processing industry are dismayed that the Federal Government’s new energy policy does not appear to support renewable energy storage such as batteries.
Australian Vanadium chief executive Vincent Algar said the National Energy Guarantee (NEG) unfairly pitted the batteries and renewable energy storage sector against fossil fuel electricity producers such as oil and gas.
“With coal and gas considered a dispatchable energy source under the NEG, what incentive will there be to source dispatchable energy from a battery?” he said.
Dispatchable power can be turned on and off and used immediately as needed.
The NEG will mandate that energy retailers need to buy a certain amount of energy from dispatchable sources, which include coal, gas, and pumped hydroelectricity storage.
Lower cost makes coal and gas more attractive
Mr Algar, whose company will mine and process vanadium, as well as promote vanadium battery technology, believes pure economics dictates that energy retailers will go to the much cheaper coal and gas producers.
“If a company is building a renewable energy project, what incentive will there be for them to put that dispatchable energy in the form of a battery?” he said.
“On top of that is the removal of subsidies for renewable energy, and no clean energy target, so it further reduces any incentives.
Mr Algar is also concerned the NEG will bring to a halt the research and development of advanced renewable energy and battery technologies.
“Australia has the runs on the board. It has invented things like the flow battery [which uses vanadium], and they’re doing brilliant work in eastern states that will improve the efficiency of solar panels, for example,” he said.
“These are developments that will generate jobs and make us a net exporter of renewable technology, but this policy could really put a dampener on that.”
Does Western Australia need its own renewables target?
National Energy Plan: Does WA need its own renewables target?, ABC, By Nicolas Perpitch, 19 Oct 17 The Federal Government’s flagship new energy plan was signed off by the Coalition partyroom this week with great fanfare — but there’s growing uncertainty about what it means for WA.
The McGowan Government has not yet received a briefing on the national energy guarantee (NEG) policy, which is designed to operate through the National Energy Market.
WA is not a part of this market.
The new policy will see the Clean Energy Target and subsidies for renewables cut in 2020, and Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull says there will be an opportunity to import the principles of the new system into the WA market.
While the general consensus — including from Energy Minister Ben Wyatt — is that there will be no immediate impact on WA, some in the state’s energy sector are concerned.
Solar ‘may still need boost’
Solar panel distributor and managing director of BayWA Renewable Energy Durmus Yildiz said the Government had not considered whether the fledgling solar industry was able to compete with other providers………
Energy Minister Ben Wyatt has already flagged the possibility of WA following other states and setting its own renewable energy target (RET) once the Clean Energy Target is cut.
Sustainability Energy Now WA chairman Ian Porter said such a move would provide certainty to the market.
“It provides an indication to investors that their policies are favourable to ‘x’ amount of generation being put into the system via renewables,” Mr Porter said. “It provides certainty. Investors want certainty. People know then the target is set and they can bid for it.”
Murdoch University Engineering and Information Technology School lecturer Tania Urmee said it would replace lost federal incentives.
“The cost of renewable energy technology is going down, so if the states have their own policy and their own trigger for renewable energy, that will be really good,” Dr Urmee said.
“And I think that keeps (investment) going.”…….http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-19/energy-reform-explainer-how-will-it-affect-wa/9065974
Why the High Court shut down Tassie’s anti-protest laws in Bob Brown case
Michael Bradley
The High Court has given judgment in Bob Brown’s case against Tasmanian anti-protest laws, and found the laws invalid on the basis they infringe the implied constitutional freedom of political communication….. (subscribers only )
https://www.crikey.com.au/2017/10/19/high-court-shuts-down-tassies-anti-protest-laws-in-bob-brown-case/
20 October Reneweconomy News
-
-
Why Turnbull’s plan could be disaster for renewables, climate, pricesNEG appears to be the most ill-considered, poorly detailed and potentially useless policy that anyone can remember, and a disaster for renewable energy, climate targets and consumer prices. It appears to be the work of Australia’s so-called “energy mafia”, hungry to retain power of incumbent oligopoly.
-
It’s the end, not the means that countAmongst all the sound and fury regarding the Government’s energy plan there is a central question going unanswered – what is the level of emissions reduction being proposed by the Government? And at what cost?
-
The no-name policy with little chance of reducing power pricesThe runway to strong emission reductions at an affordable price is at risk of being thrown away under the Coaliton’s new policy, which could require retailers to buy the output from its own expensive Snowy Hydro project. The energy mafia would approve.
-
States gobsmacked by lack of detail, research in Turnbull’s NEGStates stunned by lack of detail in new energy policy. In a testy phone hook-up they were told all the government had was a press release and an eight-page letter.
China set to add 50GW new solar PV in 2017China has installed 42GW of new solar PV in 2017 so far, putting it on track to reach a record 50GW for the year. Meanwhile, in battery storage…The NEG: A carbon price by any other nameAssuming it is implemented, the Turnbull government’s National Energy Guarantee will in effect establish a de facto price on carbon emissions from the power sector.Replacing the Clean Energy Target with a dirty one?The decision to walk away from a Clean Energy Target makes no sense. But small communities will forge ahead with the transition to renewable energy. -
No more money for investigating nuclear waste importing – South Australian Parliamentary Committee report
No more cash for nuclear vision as parties conspire
against waste dump. In Daily, Tom Richardson , 18 Oct 17 A parliamentary inquiry into Jay Weatherill’s doomed nuclear waste repository has told the State Government not to spend another cent of public money on the plan, with MPs from both major parties conspiring to drive the last nail into the project’s political coffin.The final report of a committee established to review the findings of former Governor Kevin Scarce’s Nuclear Royal Commission, tabled in parliament yesterday, makes only one recommendation: “That the South Australian Government should not commit any further public funds to pursuing the proposal to establish a repository for the storage of nuclear waste in SA.”
The recommendation was endorsed by Liberal, Greens and Labor members of the committee – surprisingly, including even outspoken nuclear advocate and Labor whip Tom Kenyon………
Earlier this year, InDaily revealed Weatherill’s declaration that the project would not be revisited by his Government.
But the work of the committee has continued, with the inquiry hearing “concerns from witnesses that if market conditions changed, for example through competition or changes in technology, the state may be left with a facility which, from an economic and financial perspective, is a break-even proposition at best”.
“Further, while no direct losses would be incurred, there could be significant costs attached to losing other, potentially higher value, investment opportunities,” the report stated.
“Further still, the minimum pre-commitment, or baseline viability, does not mitigate risk of writing-off pre-commitment expenditure estimated at roundly $600 million if the facility did not proceed.”
The committee noted “the possibility of a customer country unilaterally deciding not to send waste to SA despite contractual agreements to do so which, depending on the timing of the risk impact, could leave the facility significantly under-funded”.
Greens committee member Mark Parnell, a consistent opponent of the repository plan, said today “the project was ill-conceived from the outset”.
“The whole exercise has been a colossal waste of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money, but it’s now good the process has finished and we can move on to talking about more realistic projects that will create employment and opportunity for South Australians,” he said.
Calling the inquiry’s recommendation the “second-last nail in the coffin”, Parnell insisted the Government must now reinstate Section 13 of the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act of 2000, which was repealed last year.
The law prevented the Government from consulting on the merits of a nuclear waste storage facility, holding that “no public money may be appropriated, expended or advanced to any person for the purpose of encouraging or financing any activity associated with the construction or operation of a nuclear waste storage facility” in SA.
Parnell has his own legislation before parliament to re-establish the original act, saying “we need to fix the legislation to make sure no future government comes back with a project like this, without coming to parliament first”……..https://indaily.com.au/news/politics/2017/10/18/no-cash-nuclear-vision-parties-conspire-waste-dump/
South Australian Labor commends Weatherill govt on acknowledging Citizens Jury outcome – no nuclear waste importing
In addition to the parliamentary committee report released today …
Motion / resolution passed unanimously by the Australian Labor Party SA Branch, State Convention 2017
13 October 2017
Motion 22. MUA
Federal Nuclear Waste Dump
Andrew Allison, Nuclear Fuel Cycle Watch South Australia-18 Oct 17 -South Australian Labor congratulates the Weatherill government for acknowledging the Citizens Jury outcome to reject the establishment of the nuclear dump, which reflected a majority of the state’s residents, some two thirds of Jury participants. The Weatherill Government is to be commended for acknowledging the community, social and environmental concerns.
Recommendation
SA Labor continues to acknowledge, respects and endorse the ALP National Platform on Nuclear Waste.
“The Advertiser’s” nuclear advertising article drew strong responses
Jim Green, 18 Oct 17 Dean Jaensch makes two comments about nuclear power ‒ both of them false (‘Nuclear power could be the solution for Australia’s energry crisis‘, The Advertiser, yesterday). He claims that 19 of the G20 utilise nuclear energy in their power production. But in fact, Indonesia Turkey, and Saudi Arabia have no reactors.
And in most of the G20 countries that operate reactors, nuclear power is either negligible or in a world of trouble. In Japan, for example, less than one-tenth of the pre-Fukushima reactor fleet is operating. Estimated clean-up and compensation costs for the 2011 Fukushima disaster have doubled and doubled again and now stand at $245 billion.
Could the state economy cope with a $245 billion hit if Fukushima happened in SA? Of course not.
Jaensch’s claim that nuclear power “emits absolutely no carbon” is also false as a cursory review of the relevant literature demonstrates.
Robyn Wood, 19 Oct 17 Regarding nuclear power, Dean Jaensch is very mistaken when he claims that nuclear power emits no carbon (Advertiser 17/10/17). He forgets to include the fossil fuel burned during uranium mining, transport of uranium by truck, train or sea, plus the construction of a waste facility along with associated transport of waste.
He also forgets that last year’s nuclear Royal Commission
found that nuclear power is currently uneconomic compared to other sources of power. Costs for the construction of new nuclear power plants around the world are skyrocketing while the costs of renewables are rapidly falling. If our government is wise enough to also invest in constructing pumped hydro dams which act as energy storage, then renewable energy can be stabilised to provide continuous electricity for the benefit of all Australians.
Remote seismic station in the Northern Territory plays critical role in monitoring North Korea’s nuclear testing
Why Turnbull’s energy plan could be disaster for renewables, climate, prices
REneweconomy, By Giles Parkinson on 18 October 2017 http://reneweconomy.com.au/why-turnbulls-plan-could-be-disaster-for-renewables-climate-prices-57822/On the face of it a twin-pronged system focusing on reliability and environmental outcomes could have appeal. But we just don’t know because the details of Malcolm Turnbull’s National Energy Guarantee (NEG), and even the basics of how it will work, have not been explained.As one clean energy advocate said on Tuesday: “We’re still trying to understand whether we love or hate the NEG”. Part of that hesitation is based around the oft-made assumption that it might be better to have something, rather than nothing. But that remains to be seen.
The mainstream media certainly embraced it, but analysts see red flags all over the place – it is potentially bad news for renewables, bad news for emissions, and bad news for prices. It is potentially Turnbull’s energy trilemma turned upside down.
Most of all, the proposal appears to be the most ill-considered, poorly detailed and potentially useless policy that anyone can remember – the work of Australia’s so-called “energy mafia” hungry to defend the power of the incumbent oligopoly, commercial interests and their ideology.
The emissions reduction target that the ESB was asked to work with – a 26 per cent cut in electricity emissions from 2005 levels by 2030 – is manifestly inadequate, for even Australia’s current climate commitment (it loads a lot of effort on to other sectors), but also to the ultimate goal of capping global warming well below 2°C.
Even Origin Energy recognises this, noting the cavernous gap between the Paris target and the current emissions trajectory, a trajectory made worse by the government’s hint that any emissions targets will be “back-ended” to 2030. Continue reading
Turnbull govt – dumping clean energy target for “national energy guarantee”
Turnbull dumps clean energy target for “national energy guarantee”, REneweconomy, By Giles Parkinson on 17 October 2017 (note: This story updates a previous article, based on the release of further policy details).
Well, looks like he has actually done it. The Turnbull government has formally abandoned the idea of a Clean Energy Target, proposed by chief scientist Alan Finkel and endorsed by nearly everyone, in favour of a new policy that will protect fossil fuel generation and slow down the uptake of renewable energy.
The new National Energy Guarantee marks a major switch in government policy – at least on the face of it. But the major problem is, we just don’t know because there are so few details.
But it appears to hand extraordinary market power to the country’s big utilities and fossil fuel generators, and gives no obvious incentive to introduce new generation, which one would expect would be the key to lowering prices.
Dumped is any form of visible subsidy scheme – be it a renewable energy target, or carbon price, or clean energy mechanism – in favour of changes to energy market rules that put an additional burden on retailers for a “reliability guarantee” and an “emissions guarantee.”
But these guarantees can also be traded – in the form of contracts between utilities. Potentially, it will generate credits in dirty energy, as this table above [on original] illustrates.
Quite how this works is not clear, and energy participants were struggling to get their heads around it. They may struggle for a while, because the levels of these reliability and emissions guarantees have not been set, and the reliability settings will vary from state to state, depending on their level of wind and solar.
Western Australia, for instance, has been ignored and is not part of the plan, because it only applies to the National Electricity Market, which excludes WA.
It appears to allow enormous discretion on the part of the Australian Energy Market Operator and the Australian Energy Market Commission. Some described it as an emissions intensity scheme in disguise, but couldn’t be sure because of the lack of detail.
It also appears that retailers may be able to satisfy their emissions guarantee through international carbon markets. One thing is certain, the Turnbull government has undertaken not to go any further than its current Paris target of a 26-28 per cent reduction by 2030, and that is a blow to renewables.
This appears to be the minimum demand of the Coalition’s right wing, and is in effect an abrogation of the Paris climate treaty, which is to make all efforts to keep global warming well below 2°C.
The impact on the renewable sector is hard to predict, but it is clearly not good. Modelling for the government suggests that the share of renewables in total generation will be 28-36 per cent by 2030 – and the level of wind and solar 18-24 per cent.
This compares to a level of 42 per cent suggested by Finkel, Labor’s 50 per cent target, and the 70 per cent deemed necessary if Australia was to get serious about meeting the international 2°C target.
This new modelling represents only a modest increase in renewables, and possibly a virtual stop, particularly if it includes behind the meter rooftop solar, which it appears to do. If it does represent some sort of target, then it could likely bring new large-scale development of wind and solar to a halt…….
The fact that this proposal comes from the Energy Security Board also raises some questions. Finkel took nearly a year to put together his review and his painstaking modelling of a clean energy target.
The ESB, chaired by Kerry Schott, and including the heads of the AEMC, AEMO and the AER, was formed less than two months ago and only had its first meeting four weeks ago.
Little wonder that the details are so vague. Apparently it was delivered to the government last week. Investors may be mindful of Schott’s comments a few weeks ago: harnessing demand management in Australia, means “we can all stop worrying about building new plants of any description.”
The other issue about the ESB is that it is required only to look at the issue of energy security, not emissions. It appears to have been given the arbitrary number of electricity accounting for one-third of anticipated emission reductions by 2030. Who is going to do the rest?
But the involvement of the ESB has provided Turnbull with an element of political cover, saying that he was “relying on the experts”. Indeed, at the press conference, he refused to answer any question in detail, deferring instead to the members of the ESB.
Minutes later, in question time, it was obvious that the political rhetoric hadn’t changed. Quoting complete nonsense from The Australian and other conservative commentators, Turnbull claimed that the renewable energy target would cost $66 billion in renewable energy certificates, a cost imposed on consumers.
It’s rubbish, of course. Most new projects ascribe no value at all to those renewable energy certificates.
And it is this that raises concerns. The conditions of the right wing rump of the Coalition, which have been holding the government, and the nation, hostage to their demands, were laid clear by Craig Kelly, the climate change science denier who acts as chair of the Coalition’s environmental committee.
Kelly says the target must not allow renewables to get near 50 per cent, and must not go further than the 26-28 per cent committed by the Abbott government, and certainly not the 45 per cent emission cuts recommended by the Climate Change Authority, and other climate scientists, and endorsed by Labor.
In other words, it wants Australia to tear up its Paris climate commitment to keep global warming well below 2°C, and possibly as low as 1.5°C……
market power remains with the big generators – the very ones that have been dudding consumers on retail and wholesale costs for the last few years. The ESB modelling effectively locks in the recent high prices, offering only an 8-10 per cent fall over the next decade.
The ESB says this may translate into consumer savings of some $100 a year – over a 10-year period – over and above the Finkel Review. But it is not clear how if the wholesale savings are so small……. http://reneweconomy.com.au/turnbull-dumps-clean-energy-target-for-national-energy-guarantee-32239/
Rockhampton’s Mayor Strelow misrepresents Wanganand Jagalingou
Mayor Strelow misrepresents Wanganand Jagalingou
‘Rockhampton Mayor Margaret Strelow’s
‘thanks’ to the the Wangan and Jagalingou people for ‘our support’ is disingenuous
and clearly misrepresents the position of the Traditional Owners
of the proposed Carmichael mine area.
‘We do not support a FIFO (fly in fly out) hub that allows
a mass of people who have no respect for our land to fly in
and destroy our country and culture, and fly out again.
‘The Wangan and Jagalingou Traditional Owners Council
don’t know who Mayor Strelow is talking to,
but it’s clearly not the W&J Applicant or the claim group or our families.
‘A majority of Wangan and Jagalingou families have
consistently rejected Adani’s sham ILUA for the mine.
Adani has no agreement with Traditional Owners
and an ILUA has not been registered.
The purported ILUA is subject to a Federal Court trial in March 2018.
‘Our court action in March will expose the underhanded way
in which our position on the mine is misrepresented by Adani,
and our supposed support was engineered.
‘We have provided evidence to the court of Adani’s bad faith and
we will pursue this constant misrepresentation of our people and
our position on the mine until we can demonstrate once and for all
we do not and never will support this coal mine
or any project or enterprise aligned to it. …’
To continue reading this excellent statement by Wangan and Jagalingou People go here:
wanganjagalingou.com.au/traditional-owners-do-not-support-rockhampton-fifo-hub
Tradiational land owners Wangan and Jagalingou (W&J) people at forefront of opposition to Adani coal mine
‘Opposition from traditional owners of the land
‘The Wangan and Jagalingou (W&J) people are the traditional owners of the land
on which the Adani group has proposed to build its mine and they argue
that if this mine was to be built on their homelands,
it would irreversibly destroy their customs, culture and heritage. …
‘The Wangan and Jagalingou Traditional Owners Family Council
is at the forefront of the tussle with the Adani group and
have taken the matter to the federal court of Australia.
‘The matter is up for hearing in March 2018 and is being seen
as the last legal hurdle in the way of the Carmichael coal mine. … ‘
‘Note: This is the first in a three-part series
that will examine how the Adani and Carmichael coal mine has divided the Australian public
and in the process, sparked fierce debate on issues such as
coal-based energy, energy financing, jobs and the rights of indigenous people.’
To continue reading this comprehensive overview go here:
thewire.in/188092/adanis-australia-story-whats-the-fuss-all-about






