Category: Archive

Insulation lobby hotly defends Star enrgy efficiency

admin /16 July, 2006

The Insulation Council of Australia & New Zealand (ICANZ) has argued that timber floors are "entirely compatible" with the new 5 Star energy efficiency provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

Abetz sets cat among 5 Star pigeons: Responding to a call for a moratorium on the implementation of 5 Star by Senator Eric Abetz, ICANZ President Dennis D’Arcy said the 5 Star provisions flexibly accommodated a wide range of building materials, including suspended timber floors. "Senator Abetz can be assured that timber floors are easily accommodated under 5 Star and home buyers and architects can still take full advantage of their aesthetic and structural appeal."

System "very flexible": In most cases it only took the addition of a few hundred dollars of additional floor insulation to achieve 5 Star compliance. 5 Star was a "very flexible system and needs to be supported by governments for the benefits it gives home buyers and the environment," Mr D’Arcy said.

Abetz wants embodied energy measure: Senator Abetz called for a halt to 5 Star until the results of study into the economic advantages of building energy efficiency standards are completed, and until a measure of embodied energy (ie energy consumed during manufacture of building materials) is incorporated into the models upon which building regulations are based.

Insulators say that is still 10 years away: Mr D’Arcy replied: "5 Star is standard international practice. We and the rest of the world are at least a decade away from seeing viable regulations based on the embodied energy of building materials."

Information is confidential: He said a major impediment is that much of the data required by governments is commercially confidential information that remains closely guarded by material suppliers to the building industry. "Delaying 5 Star for ten years would needlessly add a further million energy inefficient homes to the housing stock of Australia, and will put Australia even further behind the rest of world."

US standards higher than Aust: He pointed out that the levels of thermal insulation for buildings in the US are very much higher than in Australia for equivalent climate zones. 5 Star has already been thoroughly researched and assessed over a long period and was widely regarded as a vital and practical step towards reducing energy waste in Australian buildings.

High cost claims denied: Mr D’Arcy also described claims that 5 Star will add $20,000 to the cost of a new home as "unfounded". Several independent surveys had shown 5 Star to be a low cost initiative. A detailed study by the Victorian Building Commission found that the direct cost of achieving a 5-Star House Energy Rating for an average 250sq m house is just $1,500.

Reference: Dennis D’Arcy, email: D.Darcy@insulation.com.au website: http://www.icanz.org.au

Erisk Net, 15/7/2006

Democrat exposes Government’s uranium agenda

admin /16 July, 2006

The Uranium Industry Framework (UIF), established by the Government in August last year to examine uranium mining expansion, has quietly expanded its terms of reference to include nuclear ‘stewardship’, according to reports.

Howard plans to make Aust waste dump, say Democrats: "This was obviously stage one of a carefully orchestrated Howard Government plan to foist nuclear enrichment and the world’s high level waste on Australia," Democrats Leader Senator Lyn Allison said.

Previously proposed by Pangea, now more likely: "Australians sent this idea packing years ago when Pangea proposed turning Australia into a global nuclear waste dump, but now that the Government has control of the Senate and is happily stomping on Territory governments, it’s looking much more likely.

Promised partnership never took place: "The UIF, stacked with pro-nuclear industry participants, was supposed to ‘examine all sides of the issue through a science based approach in partnership with relevant State and Territory governments, industry, indigenous and community stakeholders’ but there is no evidence of this."

Northern Territory, indigenous groups fight back: The Northern Land Council – a member of the UIF – came out in support of imposing a nuclear waste dump on the NT, to the surprise and horror of the Territory Government and many indigenous groups in the region. "Local Indigenous women from Tennant Creek are coming to Parliament next week to say they are opposed to the nuclear waste dump. They were told it was going to be a normal rubbish dump. So much for consultation!"

Ministers now want emissions reduced 60pc by 2050: "Coalition Ministers, after ignoring the threat of climate change now agree we must reduce its emissions by a massive 60 per cent by 2050. This too seems to be part of the plot, no doubt soon to be backed by another massive advertising campaign to convince the public that nuclear is the only answer," the senator said.

Erisk Net, 14/7/2006

UK pushes for local rather than centralised power plants

admin /15 July, 2006

easures to provide more low-carbon energy in the British Government’s energy review included looking at how to produce energy locally rather than at centralised power plants, reported The Independent Online Edition on Wednesday, 12 July. Micro-generation techniques to be encouraged: The report said another recommendation was to encourage micro-generation techniques such as household wind turbines Continue Reading →

UK includes nuclear power in energy future

admin /15 July, 2006

British Government Ministers confirmed on Tuesday, 11 July that new nuclear power stations would figure in a range of measures to combat climate change and improve Britain’s energy security, reported The Independent Online Edition.

Help in reducing emissions: The Ministers said new nuclear power stations would be built by the private sector to help reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and cut future dependence on imported energy supplies, such as Russian gas.

Green groups critical: Green groups criticised the decision. Organisations from Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace to the Government’s own environment advisers, the Sustainable Development Commission, expressed dismay.

Decision called a disaster: Many environmentalists attacked what they said was the personal preoccupation of the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, with nuclear power. Labelling the decision "a disaster", the director of Friends of the Earth, Tony Juniper, said nuclear power was "unsafe, uneconomic and unnecessary".

Business and unions back approach: However, business and labour were behind the Government: with the CBI, the Trade Union Congress (TUC) broadly welcomed the move. "While there are strong lobbies for and against almost every part of the energy mix, the only long-term solution can be a balanced approach," said TUC general secretary, Brendan Barber, adding that the Government had the balance right.

Most expect six nuclear power stations: The review did not say how many nuclear plants were expected to be built, although most observers think it would be about six. But it stood firmly behind the policy, saying: "We have concluded that new nuclear power stations would make a significant contribution to meeting our energy policy goals."

Costs to be carried by private sector: The private sector would "initiate, fund, construct and operate" the plants, and cover the cost of decommissioning them, and the disposal of their radioactive waste The Government would address "potential barriers to new nuclear build", including making the planning system simpler.

No suggestion of government subsidy: But there was no suggestion of government subsidy, or putting a floor under the price of nuclear electricity – or any hint of how the new plants would actually be financed.

Reference: Digest of latest news reported on website of Climate Change Secretariat of United Nations Framework on Climate Change Control (UNFCCC). 12 July. Address: PO Box 260 124, D-53153 Bonn. Germany. Phone: : (49-228) 815-1005, Fax: (49-228) 815-1999. Email: press@unfccc.int
http://www.unfccc.int

Erisk Net, 13/7/2006

Gas powered electricity station looks set for Mortlake

admin /13 July, 2006

Origin Energy’s proposed natural gas-fired power station near Mortlake in southwest Victoria has been formally endorsed by the Victorian Government, the company has announced. Two year process: State Minister for Energy Industries and Resources, Theo Theophanous, released his favourable assessment of the project after considering the Environment Effects Statement, public and Government submissions, and the Continue Reading →

Blair advised that global warming more dangerous than nuclear power

admin /13 July, 2006

The change of mind by British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, on nuclear power since the last energy review three years ago was being attributed to two close advisers, reported The Independent Online Edition on Wednesday, 12 July.

Who they are: The report identified the advisers as Geoffrey Norris, the industrial adviser to the 10 Downing Street policy unit, who has stressed the importance of energy security, and the Government’s chief scientific adviser, Sir David King.

Nuclear power an essential tool: Sir David had convinced Blair that dangerous as a nuclear world might be, a global warming world was infinitely more dangerous, and that despite its problems, nuclear energy was an essential tool for cutting the emissions of the gases causing global warming.

20 per cent of power from nuclear sources: While coal, gas and oil-fired power stations produced large volumes of the principal greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2), nuclear plants produced virtually none. At the moment the nuclear sector produced about 20 per cent of Britain’s power as low-carbon electricity, but this would shrink to about 6 per cent by 2020 as old stations close.

Doubts on renewable energy technologies: Sir David did not think that other low-carbon, renewable energy technologies, such as solar, wind and wave power, could fill the energy gap.

Reference: Digest of latest news reported on website of Climate Change Secretariat of United Nations Framework on Climate Change Control (UNFCCC). 12 July. Address: PO Box 260 124, D-53153 Bonn. Germany. Phone: : (49-228) 815-1005, Fax: (49-228) 815-1999. Email: press@unfccc.int
http://www.unfccc.int

Erisk Net, 13/7/2006