Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

Rose and Karina Lester: the personal story of two feisty Aboriginal sisters

When I heard that [SA premier] Jay Weatherill had announced the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission in March 2015, I knew I had to campaign against the nuclear waste dump. I asked Sis to support me because she helped Nanna – Dad’s aunt, Eileen Kampakuta Brown – with the successful Irati Wanti Campaign against a nuclear dump in Coober Pedy in 2004. So we’re fighting it together.

Rose and Karina Lester: How illness has driven our anti-nuclear campaign work http://www.smh.com.au/good-weekend/two-of-us/rose-and-karina-lester-how-illness-has-driven-our-antinuclear-campaign-work-20170619-gwu0em.html  Rosamund Burton , 24 June 17 

Indigenous activists Rose Lester, 47, and her sister Karina, 42, are the daughters of Yami Lester, who went blind after the “black mist” fallout from the British nuclear tests in 1953 came over his family’s camp.

ROSE: When Mum went to hospital to have Karina, my grandparents came to Alice Springs to look after my older brother, Leroy, and me. They were proper traditional, and built a little humpy in our backyard and camped there. I was chuffed I had a sister. She was a gorgeous, dark, chubby thing. Continue reading →

June 26, 2017 Posted by | aboriginal issues, opposition to nuclear, personal stories, South Australia | Leave a comment

Australian Greens REJECT Australia joining Generation IV Nuclear Energy Accession

Dissenting Report – Australian Greens, Senator Sarah Hanson-Young Australian Greens Senator, 
While not always supporting the outcomes, the Australian Greens have acknowledged previous JSCOT inquiries on nuclear issues for their diligence and prudence. We are disappointed on this occasion to submit a dissenting report into the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Accession. The inquiry process into the Framework Agreement for International Collaboration on Research and Development of Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems has been unduly rushed and lacked adequate public hearings or detailed analysis and reflection of public submissions. This is particularly disturbing given that this inquiry relates to public spending for an undefined period of time towards a technology that is prohibited in Australia.
The Australian Greens’ dissent to Report 171 (Section 4: Generation IV Nuclear Energy Accession) is based on a range of grounds, including:
The lack of transparency regarding the costs to the Australian taxpayer over an undefined period of time;
The technology that this agreement relates to is prohibited under Australian law and its promotion is inconsistent with the public and national interest;
The lack of consideration of the global energy trends away from nuclear technology;
The lack of procedural fairness in refusing adequate public hearings and consideration of public submissions;
An unjustified reliance on the submissions from the highly partisan Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO). The Australian Greens note that ANSTO is not a disinterested party in this policy arena. Furthermore, ANSTO has made a number of unfounded assertions, particularly regarding the Agreement’s impact on Australia’s standing on nuclear non-proliferation.

Unchecked capacity and resourcing

The timeframe for the agreement is loosely stated as being between 10 and 40 years. Over this period there is a commitment for Australia to pledge resources and capacity at the expense of Australian taxpayers. In exchange for this undefined public expense for an undefined period of time, there is no clear public benefit – given that the technology is, properly and popularly, prohibited in this country.
Point 4.20 states that the Framework is in essence about spreading the significant costs associated with the development of Generation IV reactors. In public submissions made to JSCOT there are detailed cost estimates for individual projects that are all in the range of billions of dollars. There have been numerous delays, cost constraints and problems with the various types of reactors described as Generation IV. While some countries continue to pursue this technology, there is no clear end-game in sight and many nations are stepping away from this sector. Most Generation IV reactors only exist on paper while some others are modified plans of expensive failed projects but are still just conceptual.
It is understandable that countries who are invested in Generation IV would seek to transfer costs and inflate the potential benefits. It is unreasonable, however, for a Government agency to commit Australian resources to fund and develop this technology which is decades away from being anything more than a concept.
ANSTO submits in the National Interest Analysis that the “costs of participation in the Systems Arrangements will be borne by ANSTO from existing funds”. The Australian Greens note that in the last financial year ANSTO reported a loss of $200 million (including $156 million in subsidies). The commitment of funds and resourcing from an agency that operates with an existing deficit that is already funded by the Australian people is fiscally irresponsible and has not been investigated through the JSCOT process.
The Australian Greens maintain that there is a particular need for the rationale of any contested public expenditure to be rigorously tested. Sadly, this Committee has failed in this role.
Point 4.24 of the report states that “Australia was required to demonstrate that it could contribute to the research and development goals of the GIF” yet the inquiry process failed to establish exactly what form those contributions will take and the cost of those contributions to the Australian people.

Prohibited Technology

Point 4.39 on the question of nuclear power in Australia brushes aside the fundamental issue that the future of nuclear energy in Australia is entirely dependent on changing Commonwealth laws.
Report 171 section 4 fails to acknowledge that the technology in question is prohibited under two separate pieces of Commonwealth legislation:
Section 37J of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999;
Section 10 of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998.
These Acts reflect considered positions, public opinion and the environmental and economic risk associated with nuclear technology which has repeatedly proved to be dangerous and expensive. The position reflected in these laws has been repeatedly reiterated in subsequent Government reports into the technology and prospects for development in Australia. For example:
The Switkowski Report – Uranium Mining, Processing, and Nuclear Energy – opportunities for Australia? (2006)
The Australian Power Generation Technology Report – Summary (Nov 2015)
Department of Energy and Science Energy White Paper (2015)
Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission (South Australia) (May 2016)
These reports all arrive at the same conclusion: that there is no case to develop nuclear power in Australia, albeit for different reasons. These reasons include costs, time constraints, legal constraints, public opposition, restrictions on availability of water and other environmental factors.

Lack of Procedural Fairness and over reliance on evidence from ANSTO

ANSTO has pursued this agreement, signed the agreement, will be responsible for enacting the agreement, drove the National Interest Analysis and were the only agency invited to present at a hearing. This agency is publicly funded, has run at a deficit, and is seeking to further commit Australian resources to a technology that is not only unpopular but is prohibited under Australian legislation.
There is a wide range of experts and public interest groups who have lodged detailed submissions and requested an audience with the Committee to offer some scrutiny and balance to the highly selective view of Generation IV options presented by ANSTO.
These submissions are barely mentioned in Report 171 and additional public hearings were denied. This level secrecy and denial of procedural fairness is of grave concern and, while out of character for JSCOT, is very much in line with the secrecy synonymous with ANSTO and the wider nuclear industry.

Australia’s accessibility to nuclear technology and standing on nuclear non-proliferation

ANSTO claim in the NIA that a failure to accede “would impede Australia’s ability to remain constructively engaged in international nuclear activities and would limit our ability to forge links with international experts at a time when a significant expansion in nuclear power production is underway……. It would diminish Australia’s standing in international nuclear non-proliferation and our ability to influence international nuclear policy developments in accordance with our national economic and security interests.”
The Australian Greens understand that Australia currently pays $10 million per annum to the International Atomic Energy Agency which grants us access to the safety and regulatory fora and to publicly published research. Where there is a commercial interest in the technology this would no doubt be made available to Australia at a price – but a price not borne by the taxpayer in this crude subsidy by stealth proposed in report 171 (Section 4).
Claims that our failure to accede would somehow diminish our standing on nuclear non-proliferation are absurd. While the industry might promote Generation IV as addressing issues of nuclear non-proliferation there is little concrete evidence that it can or ever would be done. It was the same promise industry proponents made about Generation III reactors and failed to deliver.
Australia’s standing on nuclear non-proliferation is currently being diminished because this Government is actively boycotting the current UN process supported by 132 nations on negotiating a treaty to ban nuclear weapons, not because our country has not been funding research into nuclear power.
The Australian Greens fundamentally dissent from this Committee’s findings and believe that no compelling or credible case has been made to proceed with the treaty action. Rushed, limited and opaque decision making processes are a poor basis for public funding allocations in a contested policy arena.

June 24, 2017 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics, reference | Leave a comment

Labor politicians give half-hearted support to Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems

MPs  Michael Danby, Josh Wilson ,  Susan Templeman  and Senator Jenny McAllister support the recommendation that binding treaty action be taken to enable further collaboration in relation to international research and development of Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems.

At the same time, they note Labor’s policy :

       Labor will [inter alia]:
 
       Prohibit the establishment of nuclear power plants and all other stages of the nuclear fuel cycle in        Australia.
On that basis, they :
make it clear we strenuously disagree with the argument put by Mr Barry Murphy  that the Framework Agreement will provide an opportunity for Australia to develop a nuclear energy program. It does no such thing, nor should it
The labor politicians  are:
grateful for the joint submission from the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) and Friends of the Earth Australia (FOE), and the submission from the Medical Association for the Prevention of War, both of which provide a detailed and cautionary context for the consideration and pursuit of ‘next generation’ or ‘Generation IV’ reactors… http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Treaties/CITES/Report_171/section?id=committees%2freportjnt%2f024073%2f24870

 

June 24, 2017 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics, technology | 1 Comment

A renewed push for climate change action in Australia

Climate forces consolidate as coal backers rush for government help http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/climate-forces-consolidate-as-coal-backers-rush-for-government-help-20170623-gwx3qy.html, Mark Kenny 22 June 17 Forces on the green-energy side are positioning for a renewed climate change debate in coming months, as the Turnbull government struggles to convince internal dissenters of the need for tougher carbon reduction measures.

The nation’s preeminent advocate of strong laws against carbon emissions, the Climate Institute, will close its doors on June 30 after a dozen years in operation, and transfer its assets and intellectual property to high-profile progressive think tank the Australia Institute.

The financial terms of the new arrangement have been kept confidential.

As the recipient body, the economically-oriented Australia Institute will in turn establish a dedicated “Climate and Energy Program” with the aim of stepping up the public pressure on lawmakers to meet Australia’s obligations under the Paris Accord.

It comes as some opponents of renewable-energy subsidies have called for the government to directly finance investment in coal-fired power.

 Its final annual survey of community attitudes to climate change will be released within days. “At a time when climate sceptics are revealing themselves to be economic sceptics, it is significant that there is a coming together of a key Australian economic think tank and a leading climate organisation,” said the Australia Institute’s executive director, Ben Oquist.

“As capital increasingly seeks out clean-energy projects with a long and sustainable future, the lions of the free market have become lambs of largesse, so desperate to keep coal going they’d have taxpayers carry an unconscionable risk which is both financial and environmental” he said.

Climate Institute chairman Mark Wootton said the Australia Institute had been selected from a shortlist of strong candidates.

“Its expanded role in the climate change debate comes at a pivotal moment for policy development, economic transformation, and public expectations,” he said.

Chief Scientist Alan Finkel this week told the National Press Club that investors tended to favour new projects in wind and solar over coal because they could be started small and then scaled up as demand rises. His clean energy target proposal is now mired in internal government debate as conservative MPs push for the CET model to be skewed to allow for the subsidisation of new coal generators, or old generators retro-fitted with carbon capture and storage, to qualify for partial clean energy certificates.

Under pressure to reverse rising household electricity prices – driven largely by a scarcity value on local gas – the government has announced plans to mandate reserves for domestic access ahead of export sales – even where that gas is already contracted.

That has raised eyebrows with private capital markets wary of new sovereign risks caused by changing government policy.

The government has also left open the possibility of directly financing new generation coal-fired power, given the absence of private sector investors.

June 23, 2017 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming | Leave a comment

Australia’s peril: ignoring the climate ‘disaster alley’that we are already in

Australia, deep in climate change’s ‘disaster alley’, shirks its moral responsibility http://www.smh.com.au/comment/australia-deep-in-climate-changes-disaster-alley-shirks-its-moral-responsibility-20170621-gwvhs6.html Ian Dunlop, 

A government’s first responsibility is to safeguard the people and their future well-being. The ability to do this is threatened by human-induced climate change, the accelerating effects of which are driving political instability and conflict globally. Climate change poses an existential risk to humanity that, unless addressed as an emergency, will have catastrophic consequences.

In military terms, Australia and the adjacent Asia-Pacific region is considered to be “disaster alley”, where the most extreme effects are being experienced. Australia’s leaders either misunderstand or wilfully ignore these risks, which is a profound failure of imagination, far worse than that which triggered the global financial crisis in 2008. Existential risk cannot be managed with conventional, reactive, learn-from-failure techniques. We only play this game once, so we must get it right first time.

This should mean an honest, objective look at the real risks to which we are exposed, guarding especially against more extreme possibilities that would have consequences damaging beyond quantification, and which human civilisation as we know it would be lucky to survive.

Instead, the climate and energy policies that successive Australian governments adopted over the last 20 years, driven largely by ideology and corporate fossil-fuel interests, deliberately refused to acknowledge this existential threat, as the shouting match over the wholly inadequate reforms the Finkel review proposes demonstrates too well. There is overwhelming evidence that we have badly underestimated both the speed and extent of climate change’s effects. In such circumstances, to ignore this threat is a fundamental breach of the responsibility that the community entrusts to political, bureaucratic and corporate leaders. Continue reading →

June 23, 2017 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming | 1 Comment

More renewable energy stories from Giles Parkinson and REneweconomy team

 RenewEconomy
  • IPART bumps up benchmark range for NSW solar tariffs
    Regulator further lifts benchmark for NSW solar tariffs – well above AGL’s proposed tariff – but rejects notion rooftop solar and storage have network benefits.
    VisitGiles Parkinson, 20h ago
  • $9 million to begin hydrogen roadmap
    The South Australian Government is continuing to support the transition to a low- carbon economy through a $9 million commitment to begin hydrogen roadmap.
    VisitGovernment of South Australia, 21h ago
  • NSW follows Victoria, South Australia in major push to demand management
    Households and businesses in NSW will get paid for reducing loads during critical peaks, as governments and institutions decide to circumvent objections by fossil fuel lobby with smarter, cleaner and cheaper alternatives.
    VisitGiles Parkinson, 21h ago
    $53.8 million for Stanwell Power Station
    $53.8 million will be invested for a series of major projects at Stanwell Power Station west of Rockhampton, over the next year.
    VisitQueensland Government, 21h ago
  • Inertia in power system: We don’t actually need that much
    We don’t need as much inertia in the power system as many think, and with a few simple changes we won’t need to mandate inertia limits either. Here’s why.
    VisitBruce Miller, 21h ago

June 23, 2017 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, energy | Leave a comment

Today’s renewable energy news: Queensland, S Australia, NT, WA

Queensland
Birdsville geothermal plant to finally get major upgrade
Australia’s only geothermal power supply is to finally get its long awaited upgrade.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/birdsville-geothermal-plant-finally-get-major-upgrade-30440/ 
 
South Australia
Fast-track to a low-carbon highway
ADELAIDE is set to become home to six hydrogen-fuelled buses as part of a $9 million commitment that the State Government hopes will achieve its goal of becoming the world’s first carbon-neutral city.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/fasttrack-to-a-lowcarbon-highway-as-state-government-announces-hydrogen-bus-trial/news-story/dfd9e5905c36a39209c29be422a0ae97
Northern Territory
Battery storage “gigafactory” planned for Darwin for 2018 
Energy Renaissance, backed by engineering group UGL, plans a gigawatt-scale battery storage factory in Darwin, that it says will begin production in late 2018.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/battery-storage-gigafactory-planned-darwin-2018/

Western Australia
‘Death spiral’ for power grid after price rise, critic warns
The West Australian Government’s decision to almost double the fixed supply charge for electricity in a bid to boost ailing state coffers could see households seek cheaper alternatives and send the state’s grid into a death spiral, a sustainability expert says.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-23/electricity-fee-hike-could-send-power-grid-into-death-spiral/8644258

June 23, 2017 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, energy | Leave a comment

Kimba community divided over federal nuclear waste dump plan – fairly narrow “yes” vote

Kimba votes yes to radioactive waste dump in Eyre Peninsula http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/kimba-votes-yes-to-radioactive-waste-dump-in-eyre-peninsula/news-story/96ca27ddaa0f67519b60a366584156bc, Polly Haynes, The Advertiser, June 22, 2017 

 RESIDENTS of Kimba have voted in favour of building a radioactive waste dump in their Eyre Peninsula district. Posted on the council’s website, the interim results for the postal ballot on the National Radioactive Waste Management Project show 698 ballot papers were received by the Australian Electoral Commission.

Of those, 396 voted for and 294 voted against, while eight ballot papers were informal votes.

The Federal Government is considering two properties near Kimba, in addition to a previously short-listed block of land at Barndioota, near Hawker in the Flinders Ranges.

In March, the Kimba Council called in the Australian Electoral Commission to run a postal vote of the 1100-strong community on the options. At the time, Mayor Dean Johnson said he believed there was strong support in the community for the two local sites to be formally considered. This morning he said: “The numbers are what they are… in the end the people have voted.”

However, a group opposing the dump — No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA — said the results of the vote showed the community was still divided.

“There has been no shift in community sentiment over the past two years,” a statement said. “Despite the Working for Kimba’s future group’s claims of a large swing toward support … results from three rounds of consultation and surveying show sentiments much the same as previously recorded.”

“This last consultation has resulted in a waste of government time, money and resources. Not to mention unnecessary pressure and stress on our already fractured community.”

The Federal Government is expected to make a decision early next year on the location for the centre, which will host radioactive waste currently held at sites around Australia.

The centre will initially store low and medium-level waste before a second purpose-built centre is opened for the medium-level waste.

Opponents of the waste dump say Australia’s radioactive waste should be centrally stored at the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor campus in Sydney.

Conservation and anti-nuclear groups have petitioned the Federal Government to scrap any plans for a dump at Kimba.

The groups, including Conservation SA, Friends of the Earth and the Australian Conservation Foundation have lodged a submission with the federal Department of Industry, Innovation and Science calling on the government to abandon any plans for a dump at Kimba.

Friends of the Earth campaigner Jim Green says the process to find a dump site had been flawed and divisive.

“The Federal Government has consistently misled Kimba residents about its intentions. Residents have been repeatedly told that the above-ground store for long-lived intermediate-level waste (including spent nuclear fuel reprocessing waste) would hold waste for ‘several decades’ until a deep underground disposal facility is available,” Mr Green said.

“But in fact, several documents from the national regulator ARPANSA indicate long-term storage for 100 years or more. Moreover the Federal Government has no idea what sort of deep underground disposal facility might be built, where or when it might be built, and ‒ incredibly ‒ the Federal Government is doing next to nothing to progress the matter.”

 Australian Conservation Foundation campaigner Dave Sweeney said radioactive waste was a national issue that demanded the highest level of inclusion and scrutiny.

“All Australians have a right to be involved to help make sure that this difficult issue is given the best possible consideration,” he said. “What is planned is a national radioactive waste facility so while local community consultation is useful, an evidence based, national conversation is essential.”

June 23, 2017 Posted by | Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia | Leave a comment

Strong union opposition to uranium mining in Western Australia

Union ‘showdown’ looming over U-deal, West Australian , Daniel Mercer, 21 June 2017, One of WA Labor’s most influential unions is promising a “showdown” at the party’s State conference over Mark McGowan’s decision to allow a raft of uranium mining projects to go ahead.

Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union State secretary Steve McCartney yesterday condemned as “weak” and “disappointing” the Government’s announcement it would not block four uranium mining proposals.

The projects — Cameco’s Yeelirrie and Kintyre, Toro Energy’s Wiluna extension and Vimy Resources’ Mulga Rock — were all granted environmental approval by the previous government.

Mr McCartney vowed the AMWU would draw up a motion against the decision for Labor’s State conference in August, the key policy-setting body for the party. He said it was unacceptable the Government would allow the exploitation of radioactive material and the union would be seeking to “support and stiffen” the party’s anti-uranium position.

“The last thing we want is to be the glowing State,” Mr McCartney said.

“We have the strongest policy in the country and we believe the general feedback and phone calls we’re getting is that there will be a showdown at conference about it.

“I know that people are very upset about the fact that we’re going to be out there saying ‘Hello, you can dig up uranium’.”

The warning from the AMWU came as the Conservation Council of WA flagged a court challenge to the validity of the four projects’ environmental approvals.

Conservation Council nuclear campaigner Mia Pepper said the group was “looking at all legal avenues and options”…..https://thewest.com.au/politics/state-politics/union-showdown-looming-over-u-deal-ng-b88513503z

June 23, 2017 Posted by | Opposition to nuclear, uranium, Western Australia | Leave a comment

# uranium mining companies in Western Australia could lose their licences

Uranium mining ultimatum in Western Australia sparks nuclear debate,  Xinhua Song Lifang, SYDNEY, June 22) — A nuclear debate is heating up in Western Australia on Thursday, after the state government informed three uranium mining companies that their approval licenses will expire if their sites are not operational within five years.

The newly formed State Government’s clarification on its policy has followed on from an election promise to ban uranium mining in the State for environmental concerns.

But prior to their victory in the vote, under the former State Government, three companies at four separate sites were given the go ahead to develop projects.

Vulnerable to legal action from the operators, the Premier of Western Australia, Mark McGowan, on Wednesday told local media, “everyone knows our position is we are not very happy about these approvals, so the mining companies need to be aware that they have a potential deadline heading at them in five years from now.”

“Bear in mind five years is a long time, I mean they’ve already had eight years of getting a project approved and another five years to develop it, that’s a pretty reasonable length of time for them to get a project up,” McGowan said.

“If they can’t do that, then that’s not our problem, that’s their problem.”

In response to the ultimatum, chief executive of Vimy Resources, Mike Young, said, “We’re confident that we will start substantive works before 2021.” And Toro Energy general manager, Andrew Worland, stated, “Their policy statement is not surprising to us.”

The main reason for the delay in getting the mine-sites up and running has been due to the historically low trading price of the commodity……. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-06/22/c_136386192.htm

June 23, 2017 Posted by | politics, uranium, Western Australia | Leave a comment

A Kimberley cattleman’s powerful argument for renewable energy

Arguments against renewable energy are rubbish, Harold Mitchell , The Age 23 June 17 “…….. More than 60 years later, I’m delighted to report that I have been free of power bills for some time at the cattle properties I’m involved with in the East Kimberley.

The three properties and the land controlled by our Aboriginal neighbours, whom we work with, cover 3.5 million acres. That’s an area almost half the size of Denmark.

Nine years ago, we installed a solar plant at a cost of $425,000, with the support of the Gillard government. This power generation system provides all the power for the homestead plus station hand accommodation. It also powers our sheds and workshops. It would cost just $90,000 to replace today. The new batteries are four times better than the original ones and give the property reliable supply 24/7.

The water is not hard to find in the East Kimberley. It’s no more than 20 metres underground. It’s one of the biggest groundwater supplies in Australia. But you need power to get it. In the old days we needed windmills augmented by diesel pumps. This entailed endless trips across a vast landscape to carry expensive fuel.

The case of our cattle properties proves we can live a modern life at a much lower cost and environmental impact.

Now it’s done by almost maintenance-free submersible pumps powered by solar panels. Five years ago, they cost $22,000; they now cost $7000.

And again, no electricity or fuel bill.

This modern approach to agriculture is made all the simpler because we don’t have to consult with a backbench to make things happen.

Our backbench is 45,000 head of cattle, which are happy with the current arrangements.

But in contrast, our hard-working Aboriginal neighbours are caught up in grossly out-of-date government policy. Their houses and farm operations get electrical power from huge diesel generators that cost the government $250,000 a year for fuel alone. If they had a solar system installed like ours, the government would get its money back in less than six months…….

The current gridlock of argument and political power plays is robbing our country of a sustainable future. We have to get beyond the election cycle and there are a few farmers in the East Kimberley who can show the way. http://www.theage.com.au/business/indigenous-australians-can-help-build-a-more-sustainable-future-20170622-gww3nj.html

June 23, 2017 Posted by | energy, Western Australia | Leave a comment

Mark Parnell on South Australia’s budget

Mark Parnell MLC, Parliamentary Leader, Greens, 22 June 17 
The Government is spending two thirds of their $550 million energy security fund on fossil fuels.  This includes a $360 million gas fired power station and $48 million to gas companies for exploration, including in high value farm land in the South East.  These priorities are all wrong.  We need to phase out fossil fuels and move to a more reliable and affordable renewable energy future with battery storage, such as the proposed solar thermal plant at Port Augusta.
ENVIRONMENT
Every budget in the last decade has cut funding to the Environment Department. This budget is no exception, cutting 43 full-time jobs at a time when the urgency of climate change requires even more attention than ever.
The Greens will be ever vigilant in holding the Government to account and will continue to push for a better and brighter future for all South Australians.

June 23, 2017 Posted by | politics, South Australia | Leave a comment

Seven stories from REneweconomy today

 RenewEconomy
  • IPART bumps up benchmark range for NSW solar tariffs
    Regulator further lifts benchmark for NSW solar tariffs – well above AGL’s proposed tariff – but rejects notion rooftop solar and storage have network benefits.
    VisitGiles Parkinson, 22h ago
  • $9 million to begin hydrogen roadmap
    The South Australian Government is continuing to support the transition to a low- carbon economy through a $9 million commitment to begin hydrogen roadmap.
    VisitGovernment of South Australia, 23h ago
  • Battery storage “gigafactory” planned for Darwin for 2018
    Energy Renaissance, backed by engineering group UGL, plans a gigawatt-scale battery storage factory in Darwin, that it says will begin production in late 2018.
    VisitGiles Parkinson, 23h ago
  • NSW follows Victoria, South Australia in major push to demand management
    Households and businesses in NSW will get paid for reducing loads during critical peaks, as governments and institutions decide to circumvent objections by fossil fuel lobby with smarter, cleaner and cheaper alternatives.
    VisitGiles Parkinson, 23h ago
  • Trump bashes wind energy in state that gets a third of its power from wind
    Trump rants against wind energy, warning of lights going out and “birds falling to the ground”.
    VisitNatasha Geiling, 23h ago
  •  
    $53.8 million for Stanwell Power Station
    $53.8 million will be invested for a series of major projects at Stanwell Power Station west of Rockhampton, over the next year.
    VisitQueensland Government, 23h ago
  •  Inertia in power system: We don’t actually need that much
    We don’t need as much inertia in the power system as many think, and with a few simple changes we won’t need to mandate inertia limits either. Here’s why.
    VisitBruce Miller, 23h ago

June 23, 2017 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, energy | Leave a comment

Kimba vote to investigate nuclear waste facility, but opposition to this is strong

Kimba votes to investigate nuclear waste facility on Eyre Peninsula, The Australian, June 23, 2017,  MEREDITH BOOTH, Reporter, Adelaide, @MeredithBooth

The thought of having a nuclear waste ­dump in your backyard would be a step too far for many.

But for wheat farmer Andrew Baldock and the majority of his fellow residents in the shrinking rural South Australian town of Kimba, the promise of a $10 million community fund and better internet was enough to convince them that the positives outweighed the negatives.

Mr Baldock, a father of two, hopes Kimba’s “yes” vote for a nuclear waste dump on South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula will kickstart the town’s shrinking rural economy, which has seen a steady exit of businesses and people over the past two decades.

Kimba’s 700 residents have for years been divided on whether to allow a waste dump near the town, but this week voted 396 to 294 in favour of advancing consultation on building a low- and medium-level facility on the town’s edge.

Mr Baldock and his brother stand to inherit from their parents one of the two farms nominated to house the nuclear waste dump……..

A series of rejected sites was put forward between 1991 and 2004 and the Northern Land Council put forward Muckaty Station in the Northern Territory in 2005. But nine years of opposition, including a Federal Court challenge, saw the NLC withdraw its nomination in 2014 and a fresh search began.

The result of the Kimba vote, reported by the Australian Electoral Commission yesterday, is in line with the opinion polls that have pitted neighbour against neighbour in the rural service centre over the past two years.

Farmer Peter Woolford, part of opposition group No Radio­active Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA, said the vote had not changed anything and he expected continued railing against the project. “The opposition is still strong,” he said. “The results of the vote showed the community was still divided.”http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/kimba-votes-to-investigate-nuclear-waste-facility-on-eyre-peninsula/news-story/dab04e32a1be76f1e48ecb2f26fe37ae

June 23, 2017 Posted by | Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia | Leave a comment

Matt Canavan calls for taxpayers to fund corporate gas exploration

Matt Canavan now wants public money for gas exploration in South East Australia as well as $1 billion taxpayer leg-up for Adani.
https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/matt-canavan-calls-for-taxpayers-to-fund-corporate-gas-exploration,10428

June 23, 2017 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »