Article Rating
0 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
Article Tools
Email This Story Share This Story Add to Bookmarks Printer Friendly Version 14 Comments
Article Tool Sponsor:

Learn More About Online Advertising with RenewableEnergyWorld.com

Australia to Build 154 MW Solar Energy Plant

Climate change forces Australian Government "u-turn" on renewable energy.
by Rich Bowden, Contributing Writer
Published: November 1, 2006

In the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, the Australian Government has made a significant change in its energy policy by announcing it will contribute AUS$ 75 million [US$ 57 million] towards the building of the world's largest solar energy plant as part of its recently unveiled renewable energy package.

"I think it's an important shift [to support renewables] and a welcome shift. I think we are seeing from the federal Government for the first time, a recognition that there is such a thing as global warming."

-- Victorian premier Steve Bracks
The 154 megawatt solar power station -- to be built as a private/public partnership in the southern state of Victoria -- is the first component of a total AUS$ 125 million [US$ 96.7 million] Government package to clean carbon emissions on two projects in Victoria.

The Federal Government has hailed the allocation of public funds for the station as a major step forward in its support for alternative energy.

"These are exciting projects. These are practical projects," said Treasurer Peter Costello announcing the package to reporters last week. "[The solar power station] will power 45,000 homes, it will cut carbon emissions by 400,000 tons, and it will make sure that solar energy becomes mainstream and commercial for the first time."

The package is a distinct shift in policy from a Government known for its long-standing scepticism on climate change. Australia, along with the United States, was one of two Western nations not to sign the Kyoto Protocol -- the 1997 accord designed to set targets to reduce carbon emissions. Prime Minister John Howard has consistently refused to ratify the agreement on the grounds of the damage such an agreement would do to Australia's coal powered economy.

Criticized domestically and internationally for its indifference to tackling climate change, the Government has been slow to acknowledge the role that carbon emissions have played in global warming and consequently hesitant to encourage alternative energies. However with a Federal election due next year, and polls consistently showing Australians are concerned over the reality of climate change, the Government has measurably reshaped its energy policy.

Victorian premier Steve Bracks -- a long time advocate for alternative energy whose state will be the first to benefit under the new scheme -- alluded to Canberra's sudden conversion to renewable energy.

"I think it's an important shift [to support renewables] and a welcome shift," said Bracks to reporters. "I think we are seeing from the federal Government for the first time a recognition that there is such a thing as global warming."

The change in emphasis to support renewable energy has come as a raft of scientific data is released supporting the theory that excessive carbon emissions from traditional power sources such as coal have contributed to the potentially catastrophic warming of the planet.

A comprehensive report written by former World Bank economist Sir Nicholas Stern and commissioned by the British Treasury, has warned of dire economic consequences for the world should climate change continue.

Describing the report, Britain's chief scientist Sir David King said, "if we don't take global action...we will be faced with the kind of downturn that has not been seen since the Great Depression and the two world wars."

"If you look at sea level rises alone, and the impact that will have on global economies where cities are becoming inundated by flooding...this will cause the displacement of hundreds of millions of people," said King.

Prime Minister Howard though, when questioned over his Government's new apparent commitment to renewable energy, remained equivocal in his support, preferring to talk up nuclear power as the energy future for Australia.

"Solar power will never be able to provide base load power or solar resources in the way that, say, coal and I believe in the long run nuclear power can, but it's part of the response [to climate change]," said Prime Minister Howard to reporters.

"There's no one single response to global warming. You need renewables, you need cleaner coal, you need, in the long run, nuclear energy," he said.

While welcoming the Government's change in strategy on renewable energy, Don Henry, chairman of the leading environmental group the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) called on the Federal Government to do more to combat climate change.

"Public concern about global warming has made a huge jump forward in recent months. It's time Government policy and funding made a corresponding leap," said Henry in a media release following the Government's announcement.

"While money for research and development is useful, on its own it is not enough. We desperately need strong laws and targets that require big polluters to cut emissions."

"Ultimately, any climate change policy will be judged on whether it manages to reduce emissions to a level that avoids dangerous climate change," said Henry.

Rich Bowden is an Australia-based freelance journalist specializing in political, environmental and human rights with an emphasis on the Asia/Pacific region.
Previous Article
Next Article
Add Your Comment 14 Reader Comments
No image available
Comment
1 of 14
November 1, 2006
The problem with renewable fuels is that they never seem to live up to all the hype. The wind people consistently make fraudulent claims about the output of windfarms, nearly always providing figures in terms of maximum rather than actual energy outputs. The country has 10,000 MW of maximum wind output, but only about 2500 MW is actually produced.
Wind doesn't even account for 1/4 of one percent of this country's electricity. Wind proponents also brag about wind power growing faster than other power generation types which is totally misleading, since many other power types, including nuclear and gas have added many many times more MW of power to our system than wind has over the past few years. Renewable people : quit lying. So far
the effects of renewables have been virtually undetectable. I would suggest harvesting trees
and burning their pellets instead of coal if you want to make an effect that is more than just hot air and braggadocio. The truth hurts, doesn't it?
No image available
Comment
2 of 14
November 1, 2006
The Dingo and the Dust
A.A.

"Australians all let us rejoice
For we are young and free
We've golden soil and wealth for toil,
Our home is girt by sea"

Renewables should be the future and our leader's mighty boast,
Sun, wind and waves developed from the land and sea and coast
Mistaken Aussie leader's thoughts are nuclear and coal,
They do not seem to care about the cost of climate toll.

Oh, round and round and up and down the politician speaks,
When now the bloke would surely choke from chimneys that reek,
Of sulfur fumes and blackish plumes that fill the air with dirt,
You'd want to snub the nearest pub your lungs are bound to hurt.

adrianakau@aol.com
No image available
Comment
3 of 14
November 1, 2006
I fear that the Government of Australia is only using this solar plant development to promote political ends since elections are close. They had a positive policy for wind a few years ago but then recently withdrew support for wind farms which hurt investors.

I think that as soon as the elections are over, it will be full steam ahead on coal thermal heating and on nuclear and renewable sources will be forgotton.

Considering new advances in wave and free flow hydro energy extraction, I think Australia's leaders are making a mistake by closing their minds to these types of available energies.

adrianakau@aol.com
No image available
Comment
4 of 14
November 1, 2006
There is no mystery why Australia's Prime Minister John Howard rejects the Kyoto agreement and supports coal and nuclear power generation in favour of renewables. It is the same reason as for "uncle George" Bush - Howard's decisions depend on massive election campaign donations from the mining and nuclear power lobbies. Also he likes to keep George happy.
Chris Peters
No image available
Comment
5 of 14
November 1, 2006
The nuclear option is short-sighted, as there is only an estimated 40 years of nuclear fuel (uranium, deuterium) left at current (and yearly indexed) consumption rates. If the world starts putting more of its eggs in the nuclear basket, this will decrease this 40 years proportionally. Wake up, Little Johnny!
No image available
Comment
6 of 14
November 1, 2006
"Solar power will never be able to provide base load power..."

Never say never. Solar tower designs can produce power at night from the thermal energy stored in the molten salts they use. Flow batteries can be used to capture power from solar panels for release at night. These technologies are ready now, and they can be made more economical.

Stephen
No image available
Comment
7 of 14
November 1, 2006
The energy required to extract uranium from low-grade ores may approach the energy gained from the uranium's use in power reactors. Likewise, the increased greenhouse gas emissions from mining and milling low grade ores will narrow nuclear's greenhouse advantage in relation to fossil fuels, and widen nuclear power's greenhouse deficit when compared with most renewable energy sources.

Wind, Wave, Geothermal (HDR) & solar thermal combined with energy storage technologies such as fly wheels, pump storage, new battery technologies and V2G are much better options for future baseline power generation. Also these technologies dont carry the negative externalities associated with nuclear, i.e. waste issues.
No image available
Comment
8 of 14
November 1, 2006
In reference to: "There's no one single response to global warming. You need renewables, you need cleaner coal, you need, in the long run, nuclear energy..."

On the subject of Nuclear net-carbon emissions including the constrution & decomissiong of nuclear plants as well as the complete fuel cycle including waste repository storage, according to a study by van Leeuwen and Smith, C02 emissions from nuclear power per kilowatt hour of generation are from 20-120% of those for natural gas fired power stations depending on the availability of high grade ores. The mining of lower grade ores is likely to have significant implications in relation to energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions.
No image available
Comment
9 of 14
November 2, 2006
Also (from www.ewea.org)

"It is worth noting that wind power has received 0.03% of all IEA government energy
research expenditures since 1974, while nuclear power received 60%, or $175
billion, in the same period, according to the International Energy Agency."

And we all know that research desides the future.
No image available
Comment
10 of 14
November 2, 2006
"Existing reactors have been heavily subsidized for decades, receiving 56 percent of the federal energy supply research and development funding between 1948 and 1998 (amounting to 107 billion dollars), capped insurance rates and limited liability in the case of an accident, and billions in taxpayer bailouts in the 1980s."
(www.citizen.org)

In 2005, the nuclear industry recieved $10.1 billion in subsidies and tax breaks, as well as unlimited taxpayer-backed loan guarantees.

Oil has been heavily subsidized. Beyond the virtuous reasons for the war in Iraq, oil security has cost the American taxpayer over 300 billion in the last 5 years.

Since the beginning of the renewable energy movement in the US federal subsidies have been less than $3 billion. Best of all, solar thermal, and wind are both cost competitive with natural gas power generation.
No image available
Comment
11 of 14
November 2, 2006
(I understand renewable energy is not a partisan issue)
It suprises me that a disproportunate number of Republicans are anti-renewable energy. Renewable energy supports the key components of Republican ideals. Through the distributed generation of power resources, small government is achievable, i.e. taxpayers dont need to support natural monopoly technologies such as transmission and distribution grids, and all the equity issues that go along with this, i.e. merit goods and cross subsidies, which Republicans are usually against.

In agreement with conservative Republican goals, subsidies for renewbles have and continue to be minimal when compared with fossil fuel or nuclear power generation.
No image available
Comment
12 of 14
November 2, 2006
Nuclear power may well have a place but at the very least users of nuclear should dispose of their waste in their own back yard . So far Sweden seems to be the only nation willing to do this.
To suggest that nuclear power companies do not have powerful lobby groups is as nieve as saying that wind power proponents dont have lobby groups.
As with most things the answer to power requirements in the end is going to be a mix of all types but; the world has already gone down the path of over exploiting resources in many areas. The smart response surely is to choose to pursue renewable resources . At some stage if humanity is to continue inhabiting this planet we will have to strike a balance between what the planet can sustainably provide and what we use. We can do this as a matter of choice in an orderly manner or we can have nature impose its own remedy. It is up to us .
No image available
Comment
13 of 14
November 2, 2006
The problem Kerry Beauchard has is largely due to inadequate research.
World wide renewables are reported to exceed Nuclear energy power production for the first time.( source New Scientist)
There is nothing unusual about power plants not producing the sum of their designed capacities over any given period. In fact it would be disastrous if they had to.

Denmark has base powerload supplied from wind power and sells excess to the rest of Europe.
No image available
Comment
14 of 14
November 3, 2006
The Government is to be commended on its contribution, however it is too little. I heard on Sir Richard Branson of Virgin Airlines fame has invested three billion dollars into renewal energys. $ 125 million for Australia is very poor in contrast. The refusal of the minister for transport to allow the registering of an electric car (Reva) in Aus. on safety grounds is crazy when other countries have made them welcome, ie: UK. Canada, and in Europe.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
 
Trina Solar Ltd. Magnum Energy Inc. GoGreenSolar.com Leybold Optics Virtual Media Inc. Green Energy Promotions Renewable Energy World North America
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters