Shortcomings of the Finkel Energy Review
Finkel: Let’s not be railroaded into a bad deal on clean energy http://reneweconomy.com.au/finkel-lets-not-be-railroaded-into-a-bad-deal-on-clean-energy-77145/, By John Grimes on 13 July 2017 The last decade of climate wars has ground everyone down. People, understandably, want to see a resolution. They want to see a consensus on climate and energy policy and they have looked to the Finkel Review to provide that consensus.
Some have even gone so far as to say that a bad deal is better than no deal at all.
But a bad deal IS a bad deal and neither industry nor the community should put up with a climate change or energy agreement that locks in poor climate change and energy outcomes.
A false consensus has emerged over the Finkel Review and it is important to point out the significant weaknesses with this approach.
It is particularly important that State and Federal Energy Ministers, meeting tomorrow, do not lock in poor climate change and energy outcomes and continue to push for energy market reform.
The Australian Solar Council and Energy Storage Council, as peak national bodies for the solar and energy storage industries, strongly supported the Finkel Review as an independent exercise and we appreciated and applauded the consultation process undertaken by the Review.
The preliminary Finkel Review report stated “we have a once in a generation opportunity to reform the national electricity market” and we agreed.
We expected a blueprint for energy market reform, but the final Finkel Review report fell well short of that mark.
Instead of a blueprint, the Finkel Review delivered a set of piecemeal recommendations that do not represent a design for a 21st century electricity market or pathways to the necessary transformation of our electricity system.
The Finkel Review has five major shortcomings:
- Ignoring the evidence demonstrating the need for major cuts in greenhouse emissions from the electricity sector to meet current and future international greenhouse gas emission targets;
- Underestimating the transformation that is occurring and accelerating in the electricity sector and downplays the likely uptake of household batteries and smart energy systems and fails to recognise the capacity to integrate these systems by a transition to a distributed energy storage system, as envisaged by the CSIRO-ENA Energy Transformation Roadmap;
- Seeking to impose unfair obligations on new renewable energy generation whilst imposing no obligations on existing coal or gas-fired generators – requiring energy storage to be attached to specific projects rather than taking a network systems approach to energy storage will drive up the cost of new renewable energy projects;
- Recommending a Clean Energy Target and proposing emission levels which would lock in higher emissions, when its own evidence indicates the cheapest and most efficient option for the electricity sector are the ‘lowest’ emissions renewable technologies; and
- Recommending an additional regulatory body and giving existing energy regulators additional responsibilities rather than consolidating the number of regulators and reforming the regulatory environment.
- Greenhouse gas emissions
The Finkel Review has modelled the Federal Government’s emissions reduction target of a 26-28% reduction in Australia’s emissions by 2030, rather than responding to the recognised emissions reductions required to meet Australia’s current international treaty obligations.
Further the Review has recommended that the electricity sector targets should be proportional at 28% – ignoring that worldwide the electricity sector offers a greater opportunity for emissions reduction using existing commercial technologies and systems.
It is widely recognised that electricity generation is one of the easiest and lowest cost means of reducing emissions and that the electricity sector can contribute much more than a simplistic proportional share to achieve emissions reductions.
The Climate Change Authority has suggested the electricity sector could reduce its emissions by 66 per cent by 2030 to meet Australia’s international climate change commitments.
The Finkel Review should have modelled significantly greater reductions in electricity sector emissions and drawn its conclusions and recommendations from that.
Transformation of the electricity sector
The Finkel Review states “battery storage is poised to be the next major consumer-driven deployment of energy technology. Upfront costs for solar photovoltaic systems with storage are currently high, with long payback periods for most consumers.
Bloomberg expects the average payback period for residential consumers to fall below 10 years in the early 2020s, with around 100,000 battery storage systems to support rooftop solar photovoltaic generation predicted to be installed by 2020.”
The Australian Solar Council and Energy Storage Council is currently undertaking a comprehensive analysis of the Australian energy storage market and we estimate 120,000-500,000 battery storage systems are likely to be installed in Australia by 2020.
CSIRO and Energy Networks Australia have forecast there could be almost eight gigawatt hours of storage in Australia by 2020.
It is likely the Finkel Review will significantly underestimate the uptake of battery storage and the capacity to integrate residential and small business energy storage systems into a much larger peoples power plant or virtual power station.
This is not simply a large missed opportunity, it is a failure to plan for the likely reality.
The history of solar technology deployment shows us that cost reductions and uptake have always exceeded forecasts. Bloomberg itself draws attention to the innate and consistent conservatism in its new energy technology forecasts.
Generator Reliability Obligations on new renewable energy plants
The Finkel Review’s recommendation to require all new generators to have energy storage could significantly increase the number of large-scale energy storage projects up to and beyond 2020, although it may also artificially drive up the cost of large-scale renewable energy projects, reducing their viability.
This is a requirement not imposed on current generators of any technology. Coal and other fossil fuel generators, are intermittent generators: they provide firm power only when they are generating– and in Australia that is around 85% of the time. The other 15% is provided by providing additional capacity into the network.
The proposed Generator Reliability Obligation (GRO) will almost certainly be a higher cost approach than a market-based approach to firm capacity in the network.
It is discriminatory ultimately at the customers’ expense and ignores the engineering and network systems-based solutions that are being implemented world-wide to meet the outcomes sought.
The GRO may also ignore the potential for off-river pumped hydro to provide a range of services to the network including firm power to the grid complementary to variable renewable generators.
The Review has proposed a backward-looking engineering solution when it should have simply defined the outcomes desired.
The world is moving to transform grids to intelligent distributed two-way energy flow systems because they offer increased security, reliability and quality of supply at a lower cost than new fossil fuel or nuclear based generation.
There are more effective ways to add storage to the national electricity market through a system-wide approach.
One option would be to encourage the market to develop proposals through reverse auctions, which would determine the price and locations of energy storage systems. Another option would be through a capacity market.
Evidence was given to the Review on the importance of demand response and demand management tools and the critical role of digitisation and software management which it appears has not been understood.
Closure of coal-fired power stations
The Finkel Review has suggested there be a minimum notification period of at least three years for the intention to close coal-fired power stations.
This is an administrative arrangement with no financial or planning signals for closure and is not as efficient as a market mechanism. It provides no mechanism for the orderly closure of coal-fired power stations.
All this proposal does is to provide a small amount of certainty over a three-year period. It provides no means of ensuring continued operation, or operation on demand, and provides no specific incentive for new generation.
It also fails to match closures to emissions reductions. Less polluting power stations could close before more emissions intensive power stations.
We urge COAG Energy Ministers to take a different approach and develop a plan for the orderly closure of coal-fired power stations. We believe the model from the ANU, developed by Professor Frank Jotzo and others, offers a better path using market based mechanisms.
Clean Energy Target
The proposal for a Clean Energy Target appears to be a political solution to a political problem, rather than an attempt to introduce the most effective mechanisms for reducing emissions and encouraging renewable energy generation and energy storage.
The Australian Solar Council and Energy Storage Council support the continuation of current state government reverse auction programs in the absence of a national reverse auction scheme for renewable energy or a national price on carbon.
If the Government proceeds with a less efficient Clean Energy Target, the emissions intensity threshold must be set at a level that helps deliver Australia’s international climate change commitments and must be flexible enough that it can be changed to capture Australia’s future climate change commitments.
Governance
The National Electricity Market is not functioning effectively and the multitude of agencies responsible for the NEM adds to the confusion and inefficiency. Australia is the only country where the two energy market functions sit in separate bodies.
In its 2012 report on network regulation, the Productivity Commission was particularly critical of what it saw as the unusual role of AEMC in setting policy, rather than serving policy makers.
Unfortunately, the Finkel Review increases this complexity by recommending a new body, the Energy Security Board, and giving new responsibilities to existing agencies.
Governance arrangements need to be streamlined, with the Australian Energy Market Operator and the Australian Energy Market Commission merged. The new body should be led by someone who understands the extraordinary transformation that the electricity sector is going through globally and in Australia.
We believe that Energy Ministers need to take responsibility for preparing a national energy plan that takes a broader view of the changes needed for the future and puts implementation in the hands of governments as far as possible. The previous issues caused by outsourcing policy making to the AEMC should be avoided.
Other Matters
The Australian Solar Council and Energy Storage Council calls on all Energy Ministers to endorse the following measures:
- Establish a plan for the orderly closure of coal-fired power stations;
- Make action on climate change a key objective of the National Electricity Market and ensure that all climate change and energy policies are consistent with Australia’s international climate change obligations;
- Commit to at least 50 per cent renewables by 2030;
- Introduce a 5-minute settlement rule;
- Enable markets in peer to peer trading and demand response; and
- Replace the Australian Energy Regulator and Australian Energy Market Commission with a new combined energy market rule maker and regulator.
A bad deal is not better than no deal at all.
A bad deal locks in poor climate change and energy outcomes.
Energy Ministers still have a “once in a generation opportunity to reform the national electricity market” and we urge them to continue that work.
Australia should join UN nuclear weapons ban treaty, when it opens in September
Aust on ‘wrong side’ of nuclear weapon ban http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/aust-on-wrong-side-of-nuclear-weapon-ban/news-story/be98118f29f512aad05aac1134546ad4, Belinda Merhab, Australian Associated Press, July 8, 2017 Australia is accused of being on the wrong side of history after ignoring a United Nations vote to ban nuclear weapons.
No plans for real development of Adani coal mine expansion. Adani family will benefit most, if it happens
Adani’s Carmichael coal mine has slow ‘official start’ planned, leaked document shows, ABC News, by Stephen Long , 9 Jul 17 Flanked by Commonwealth and Queensland politicians, the giant Indian conglomerate Adani last month announced that its board had given final investment approval to its controversial mega-mine in North Queensland, and declared the “official start” of the Carmichael coal mining project.
But what does that mean in practice? For the moment, it seems, not much.
The ABC has obtained the plan of operations for the Carmichael coal mine project submitted to the Queensland Government last month.
It covers just six months and involves next to nothing: just re-establishing signage at the site, recommissioning an existing temporary camp and installing some additional demountable buildings.
“The plan of operations will be amended in due course to include all early works related to commencement of construction activities for the mine and related infrastructure works,” it says.
The lack of a substantive plan for development of the mine “is a huge embarrassment for the Adani cheer squad including the Prime Minister, the Premier of Queensland and [Minister for Resources and Northern Australia] Matt Canavan, who have bent over backwards to get this project over the line,” said Rick Humphries, co-ordinator of the mine rehabilitation campaign for the Lock the Gate Alliance — a group established by farmers to fight “inappropriate” coal and gas mining.
“It only really commits Adani to maintaining the existing temporary camp and looking after the signs and roads,” he said.
“It raises serious doubts about the project’s financial viability……..
Adani’s mine project, if it were to proceed to full scale, would be the largest-ever coal mining development in Australia and the biggest export coal project in the world, involving a series of open cut mines and underground pit with a capacity of 60 million tonnes a year.
Adani would also have to build an additional port at the Abbot Point Coal Terminal — which it owns — to accommodate output from the mine, though there has been speculation that Adani intends to scale down the mining venture to less than half the initial planned capacity.
Despite the question marks about Adani’s ability to finance the venture there are clear incentives for the Adani family to make the project happen.
An “overarching royalty deed” at the project will see $2 from each tonne of coal mined beyond the first 400,000 tonnes each year go a private company ultimately owned by an Adani family entity registered in the Cayman Islands.
This could potentially mean that hundreds of millions, or billions of dollars, from the venture could flow to the Adani family rather than to shareholders of the publicly-listed company that owns the Carmichael mine.
The ABC has also been told that the response of Adani’s billionaire chairman Gautam Adani to years of activism and opposition to the mine in Australia is a determination to see the project realised. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-10/adani-queensland-coal-mine-plan-raises-doubts-on-viability/8691020
Australia can play a role in promoting dialogue, not war, with North Korea
There is no point in Australia waiting to be a pallbearer at the funeral. We need to use what influence we have to shape a better response in Washington and other capitals.
We should also open a line of communication with Pyongyang — to see if there is any dialogue that might help to prevent conflict.
Australia can play a role here. Our embassy in Seoul is accredited to Pyongyang, where there hasn’t been a US embassy for years. We should co-ordinate this with key allies, but Australia should look to open a line of dialogue with the regime.
Australia has performed a similar role in Iran, where the US hasn’t had diplomatic representation since 1979.
Has Australia got the gumption to do this, or will we just wait for the conflict to start and hope others fight the war for us?
Dialogue better than all-out war with unpredictable North Korea http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/dialogue-better-than-allout-war-with-unpredictable-north-korea/news-story/f471a9a09b1dae1fe0d2464f5501d03e?nk=ba26857f63080120cbd5fc74c94d3959-1499480511, PETER JENNINGS,The Australian, July 8, 2017
The members of the G20 are meeting during one of the most serious global situations since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.
Then the Soviet Union was intent on deploying nuclear-armed missiles to an island a few minutes’ flying time from America’s southeast.
The risk was not only what missiles could be launched from Cuba but whether a conflict might spiral out of control and lead to an all-out nuclear war between Washington and Moscow.
Today the situation on the Korean peninsula is just as uncertain. With help from Pakistan and China, North Korea is within a sprint of developing a nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missile, with a widely dispersed arsenal of such weapons able to be launched from silos, mobile vehicles and, in time, from submarines.
The North already has about 20 nuclear devices and although these may not fit on missiles, it is possible they could be detonated inside submarines sent on suicide missions to Seoul or Tokyo.
After an American strike in response, we don’t know how China might react to the destruction of its ally. Once the nuclear threshold is breached we face a global situation as dire as those 13 days in October 1962 when nuclear war seemed likely. Continue reading
If North Korea attacks USA with nuclear warhead, Australia will join US in fight – Deputy PM Barnaby Joyce
Australia will join US in fight against North Korea if war breaks out, Yahoo News, JULY 6, 2017 Australia would join military action against North Korea if the rogue nation fires a nuclear warhead at the United States, acting Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce has confirmed.
As Malcolm Turnbull heads to Germany for talks with other G20 leaders, Mr Joyce is ramping up pressure on China to step in and “stop this madness”.
His call comes after US ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley warned that America would use force “if we must” against North Korea, after Pyongyang tested an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) with the potential to reach Darwin or Alaska.
“No one should ever go too far in testing the resolve of the United States of America,” Mr Joyce told Sky News on Thursday.
“If North Korea was to deliver a warhead into the United States of America then the ANZUS alliance would be called in.”……One of Australian’s most senior military commanders insists the risk of a strike on the country’s north by North Korean remains low.
Chief of Joint Operations Vice Admiral David Johnston says that despite Pyongyang’s aggressive demonstrations, the range and capability of the missile launched this week is still to be determined.
“There is very little risk at the moment to the northern part of our country,” he told reporters in Canberra……Given the low threat to Australia’s mainland, Vice Admiral Johnston says there hasn’t been an immediate focus on amassing a system to defend against missiles.
The focus now was on applying diplomatic pressure on North Korea to stop their nuclear program and the development of missile technology.
“Where there’s emerging issues that require military support, the ADF has the capability to provide the government (with) options and we’re able to do so.” https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/36295225/australia-will-back-us-if-nuclear-war-breaks-out-with-north-korea/#page1
PM Turnbull says THAAD anti- missile system is “not really suitable” for Australia
US anti-missile system THAAD ‘not really suitable’ for Australia http://www.afr.com/news/world/us-antimissile-system-thaad-not-really-suitable-for-australia-20170707-gx781e, 8 Jul 17 Australia is developing defences against missile attack but the US THAAD anti- missile system is “not really suitable” for Australia, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull says.
When asked about a possible Australian missile defence system against such threats as a North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile, Mr Turnbull said the Australian focus was on protecting deployed forces in the field.
Speaking to reporters in Hamburg, where he’s attending the G20 summit, the prime minister said the answer to the Korean threat was the denuclearisation of North Korea.
“We are developing missile defences … but the focus is on protecting our deployed forces in the field.”
Mr Turnbull said that in terms of a missile defence shield for Australia there had been talk of the THAAD system. “That’s not really suitable for our situation but I can assure you we are constantly examining how we can ensure that Australians are safe.”
Former PM Kevin Rudd now suggesting missile defence system for Australia
Australia should consider missile defence to counter North Korea: Kevin Rudd, The Age, Peter Hartcher, James Massola, 8 Jul 17
Australia needs to consider deploying a missile defence system to defend against attack from nuclear-armed North Korea, according to former prime minister Kevin Rudd. Mr Rudd has reversed the position he held in office, saying that North Korea’s newly demonstrated ability to reach northern Australia meant it was time to consider homeland defence.
And top regional security and defence experts have backed that call, arguing Australia and its regional allies must invest heavily in missile defence as the “only alternative”.
A roll out of the US-made Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defence system began in South Korea but was suspended last month, amid objections from China and Russia.
North Korea’s recent provocative launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile potentially brings Darwin and the US states of Alaska and Hawaii in range – though their missile’s accuracy remains in question – and has prompted dire warnings from the United States ahead of the G20 meeting in Hamburg, where it is set to dominate discussions.
The Rudd government’s Defence White Paper of 2009 explicitly opposed missile defence for Australia, as “such a system would be at odds with the maintenance of global nuclear deterrence,” the paper said, though it signalled an annual review.
On Friday, the former prime minister said: “Given North Korean developments, Australia would be well advised to begin analysing ballistic missile defence needs, available technologies and possible deployment feasibility for northern Australia.”
On Friday, the former prime minister said: “Given North Korean developments, Australia would be well advised to begin analysing ballistic missile defence needs, available technologies and possible deployment feasibility for northern Australia.”……. http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australia-should-consider-missile-defence-to-counter-north-korea-kevin-rudd-20170707-gx6t0u.html
Greens Senator Scott Ludlam at nuclear weapons ban treaty talks
Ludlam, not Australia, in New York for nuclear weapons ban treaty talks, Greens Senator Scott Ludlam has slammed Australia for not taking part in talks on a global ban on nuclear weapons. By Andrea Nierhoff, SBS News, 6 July 17, Senator Ludlam is in New York with delegates from 120 countries to discuss a treaty to ban nuclear weapons around the world.
A farmer deplores the planned giveaway of precious water to Adani coal mine project
Adani Carmichael mine: Water is too important for farmers to risk wasting it on a mine, ABC News, 6 Jul 17 By Robert Quirk, I’m no activist. I’m a farmer, and as a farmer I’m against the Adani coal mine for one reason: water.
My sugar cane farm is on the flood plains of northern NSW. Many of my friends and colleagues are in the industry located all over Queensland.
All farmers, no matter what the crop, or livestock, rely on water. Sugar cane requires about 1300 millimetres of well-spread rain to grow a crop. You might manage, with good irrigation, on 600-700mm. Too much in the form of a flood and you might end up with a damaged crop.
In a good year, everything you need falls from the sky, at the right time, in the right amount. Of course, not every year is a good year. In fact, good years are rare and that’s why farmers manage risk with irrigation. You store the water for use later with dams and the like, you try to use it efficiently and sometimes you need to extract it from underground, or truck it in.
It’s all pretty basic stuff, so it’s truly bowled me over to learn the detail of the Adani mine in relation to water.
Two sets of rules
Many farmers in Queensland have licences to draw their water from the Great Artesian Basin. The same basin that the Carmichael mine, once in operation, also plans to draw massive amounts of water from.
How much you ask? Good question. As much as the owners please, because the Queensland Government has granted this company unlimited access to extract groundwater…….
Those in favour of the mine are right about one thing — it is a really good deal. It’s just not a good deal for the Australian people……http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-07/adani-mine-water-is-too-important-to-farmers/8686890
World’s first solar-powered train – for Byron Bay
Byron Bay to get world’s first solar-powered train, courtesy of a coal baron http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/byron-bay-to-get-worlds-first-solarpowered-train-courtesy-of-a-coal-baron-20170702-gx31yo.html Marcus Strom, A coal baron is delivering the world’s first solar train to Australia.
And while bringing solar to Byron Bay might be a bit like taking coals to Newcastle, that’s just what the Byron Bay Railroad Company is doing. “I think this is a world first,” said John Grimes, chief executive of the Australian Solar Council, which is not connected to the project.
“There is a train in India that has solar panels to power lights and fans, but not a whole train.” The Byron Bay Railroad Company, operated by mining executive Brian Flannery, expects to have its two-carriage heritage train running before Christmas, said Jeremy Holmes, a spokesman for the company.
It will operate on part of the disused Casino-to-Murwillumbah line, which closed in 2004.
Dan Cass, a renewable energy specialist at the Australia Institute, said: “This is the first we have heard of a train this size that is literally solar powered, with PV modules on the roof.”
Federal govt shamed into revealing Australia’s pollution data
Greenhouse gas pollution up, data released after FOI struggle reveal, SMH, Lucy Cormack, 8 Jul 17, The federal government has answered calls to release greenhouse gas pollution data it had been sitting on since last year.
Energy and Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg released the quarterly updates on Friday, less than 24 hours after a Fairfax Media exclusive revealed documents confirming the department had failed to release data for the two quarters leading up to the end of 2016.
The federal government has answered calls to release greenhouse gas pollution data it had been sitting on since last year.
Energy and Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg released the quarterly updates on Friday, less than 24 hours after a Fairfax Media exclusive revealed documents confirming the department had failed to release data for the two quarters leading up to the end of 2016……The whereabouts of last year’s pollution data was confirmed by documents obtained under freedom of information laws by the Australian Conservation Foundation, extracts of which were published by Fairfax Media on Thursday. http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/greenhouse-gas-pollution-up-data-released-after-foi-struggle-reveal-20170707-gx6qy8.html
Federal govt keeping Australia’s pollution data secret
Independent estimates suggest Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions have risen sharply since the government last released its quarterly data in December – a trend that would make the nation’s commitment to cutting emissions more disruptive and expensive.
Quarterly updates by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory, described as “up-to-date information on emissions trends for business, policymakers and the public”, have been released 28 times since 2009, but not since last year.
Documents obtained under FOI by the Australian Conservation Foundation reveal that while the government possesses data on greenhouse pollution for the two quarters leading up to the end of last year, it has failed to release them……..http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/foi-documents-confirm-government-holding-almost-one-years-worth-of-pollution-data-20170706-gx5um3.html
South Australia’s big energy storage battery
Tesla to supply world’s biggest battery for SA, but what is it and how will it work? ABC By political reporter Nick Harmsen and Alle McMahon, 7 July 17 The “world’s biggest” lithium ion battery is to be built in South Australia by Tesla and French company Neoen.
It is to be close to the French renewable energy company’s wind farm near Jamestown and ready by the start of summer.
What is it?
An array of lithium ion batteries will be connected to the Hornsdale wind farm, which is currently under construction in SA. It will look like a field of boxes, each housing Tesla commercial-scale Powerpack batteries.
The array will be capable of an output of 100 megawatts (MW) of power at a time and the huge battery will be able to store 129 megawatt hours (MWh) of energy so, if used at full capacity, it would be able to provide its maximum output for more than an hour.
It will be a modular network, with each Powerpack about the size of a large fridge at 2.1 metres tall, 1.3m long and 0.8m wide. They weigh in at 1,200 kilograms each.
How will it stack up against the next biggest?
It will have just slightly more storage than the next biggest lithium battery, built by AES this year in southern California. But Tesla’s 100 MW output would be more than three times larger than the AES battery and five times larger than anything Tesla has built previously.
The largest lithium ion battery storage system that Tesla has built to date sits on a 0.6-hectare site at Mira Loma in southern California.
American electricity company Southern California Edison was also involved. It has a storage capacity of 20 MW, or 80 MWh, and is said to be capable of powering 15,000 homes.
The California array took three months to build. Tesla says the lithium ion batteries in the Jamestown array will have a life of about 15 years, depending on their usage and how aggressively they are recharged.
The company says the battery components are replaceable and the circuitry should last 20 to 30 years……..
How will it be used?
Neoen said the battery would primarily provide stability for the power grid, something traditionally the domain of coal, gas and hydro, rather than wind or solar………http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-07/what-is-tesla-big-sa-battery-and-how-will-it-work/8688992
UN poised to adopt nuclear weapons ban treaty today
The United Nations is set to adopt a global treaty to ban nuclear weapons (Friday 7 July (New York time)) – a long-awaited historic event marred by Australia’s boycott of negotiations.
“This is the biggest step towards nuclear disarmament that we have seen since the end of the Cold War,” 
said Associate Professor Dr Tilman Ruff, the Melbourne-based founding chair of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), who is attending the UN talks in New York.
“It comes at a time of growing international nuclear tension, where the risks of armed conflict escalating to the use of nuclear weapons is real and would be a humanitarian and environmental disaster,” he said.
“Pressure must now build on Australia to sign up to the treaty, as it has to treaties for the elimination of other weapons of mass destruction – biological and chemical, and other inhumane indiscriminate weapons such as landmines and cluster munitions.”
More than 130 nations are involved in the UN talks, including New Zealand and Indonesia, but Australia, at the behest of the United States, has boycotted the process. It is the first time ever that Australia has not participated in multilateral disarmament negotiations.
“If passed today, the treaty will stigmatise possession of nuclear weapons by any state, provide a source of legal, political, ethical, economic and civil society pressure on nuclear armed states to disarm, and encourage financial institutions to divest from companies that produce nuclear weapons,” said Tim Wright, Asia-Pacific director of ICAN.
“Of vital interest to Australia and the Pacific, it will also promote addressing the rights and needs of victims of nuclear use and testing, and of remediating contaminated environments,” he said.
“By failing to be involved in these negotiations, Australia has relinquished its responsibilities to its own Indigenous people, and to many others affected by nuclear testing in our region,” Mr Wright said.
Media please note:
Delegates at the UN will decide on Friday —by acclamation or vote—whether to adopt the treaty. If adopted, as is expected, it will open for signature on September 20, after which states will pursue ratification. Once 50 states have completed this process, the treaty will become binding international law.
ICAN Australia and Pacific representatives are available in New York and Australia for interviews, before and after the treaty’s expected adoption on Friday, New York time (likely Saturday morning, Australian time).
Video footage is available of addresses to the UN treaty conference plenary session (Thursday NY time) by: Australian Greens Senator Scott Ludlam, Vanessa Griffen (Fiji), FemLINK Pacific, ICAN Asia-Pacific director Tim Wright.
Elon Musk to build South Australia’s big storage battery, as he promised earlier thisyear
Billionaire Elon Musk to build SA battery, – on July 7, 2017 Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk will build the world’s biggest battery in South Australia and if it’s not finished in 100 days, it’s free. Mr Musk first made the bold promise in a Twitter exchange earlier this year, as debate raged over South Australia’s energy woes.
On Friday he said he will stand by the pledge, which has been written into the contract to construct the 100 megawatt lithium ion battery. It will be more than three times larger than any storage station anywhere in the world. “That’s what we said publicly, that’s what we’re going to do,” he told reporters in Adelaide.
Mr Musk’s company Tesla will partner with French renewable energy group Neoen to build the battery near Jamestown in South Australia’s mid-north.
It will be paired with Neoen’s existing Hornsdale Wind Farm to store energy, stabilise and bring added security to SA’s electricity grid, and put downward pressure on prices.
It forms a key part of the state government’s $550 million energy plan which was developed in response to last year’s statewide blackout.
The clock will start ticking on Mr Musk’s 100-day commitment once regulators approve the project, clearing it for grid connection. He said he was confident he could deliver on his promise but admitted the project was not without risk.
“This is not like a minor foray into the frontier. This is going three times further than anyone has gone before,” he said. “The technical challenges are those that come with scale. When you make something three times as big, does it still work as well?” the Tesla boss said. “We think it will, but there is some risk in that.”
Mr Musk said a failure to deliver the project on time would cost his group about $50 million, though the details of the contract have not been revealed.
Premier Jay Weatherill said both Tesla and Neoen were experts in energy security and the project would place SA as a world leader in the integration of renewable energy.
He expects the battery to be up and running in time for next summer. “Battery storage is the future of our national energy market and the eyes of the world will be following our leadership in this space,” he said.
Clean Energy Council spokeswoman Natalie Collard said the pioneering project would set a benchmark for the rest of Australia and the world to follow. “The South Australian government has again cemented its place as a world leader in renewable energy and we look forward to other states following their lead,” she said.”These kinds of projects have a huge role to play in modernising Australia’s energy system and enabling much higher levels of renewable energy.”
1 This month.
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/235274195556
19 May – Webinar- Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-05-19 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-05-19 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
20 May – Webinar – The dangerous world of AUKUS, US, military occupation and suppression of dissent
National Webinar, 20th May, 2026, 6.30pm AEST. Confronting laws restricting/suppressing protest speech and action
Speakers: Former Sen. Rex Patrick, Lawyer Nick Hanna ,Arthur Rorris ,Jorgen Doyle, Sen David Shoebbridge,
Facilitator Kelley Tranter.
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 