EcoRadio

Author: admin

  • Offshore energy report could dash defeatist arguments against the rocks

     

    I don’t know how to explain this unreasoning antagonism, but it casts an interesting light on the oft-repeated myth that it is environmentalists who are hostile to new technologies.

    But even the defeatists might be swayed by some of the findings of the Offshore Valuation report, just published by the Public Interest Research Centre (Pirc). It’s the first time anyone has tried to work out how much electricity could be produced by offshore renewables in the UK, and the results are fascinating.

    It examines only existing technologies – wind turbines with both fixed and floating foundations, wave machines, tidal range and tidal stream devices – and the contribution they can make by 2050.

    It accepts the usual constraints on offshore renewables: maximum water depths, the need to avoid dense shipping lanes and other obstacles, the various technical limits. Having applied these constraints, it finds that the practical resource for offshore renewables in the UK is 2,130 terawatt hours per year. This is six times our current electricity demand.

    Were we to use only 29% of the total resource, the UK would become a net electricity exporter. We would be generating energy equivalent to 1bn barrels of oil a year, which roughly corresponds to the average amount of North Sea oil and gas the UK has been producing over the past four decades.

    The report estimates that this industry would directly employ 145,000 people and produce annual revenues of £62bn. The construction effort would be roughly similar to building the North Sea oil and gas infrastructure: eminently plausible, in other words, if propelled by strong government policy.

    Were we to make use of 76% of the resource, the UK would become a net exporter of total energy. This is a tougher call, but not necessarily impossible: we’d be producing the equivalent of 150% of the energy output from UK’s peak production year for oil and gas (1999).

    It would mean building an average of 1,800 7.5 megawatt wind turbines every year. This is likely to stretch available manpower and construction capacity to the maximum, possibly beyond. But if enough investment is sunk into training, manufacturing and transport, the potential for creating both employment and income is enormous.

    The national grid, the report estimates, could accommodate about 50% variable renewables (power sources whose output depends on the weather) by 2050, as long as it had 34 gigawatts of backup capacity, energy storage and interconnectors linking it with the continent. This is both plausible and affordable. (Backup, to address another persistent myth, does not mean that the necessary thermal power plants are kept running all the time, just that they are available if needed.)

    There are some interesting implications. The UK could close its looming energy gap without using new sources of fossil fuels. It could do this without encountering the public hostility which often scuppers onshore windfarms.

    The best wind resources are mostly way out of the sight of land: the further out to sea you go, the stronger the wind becomes. A recent study shows that offshore windfarms can greatly increase the abundance of fish and crabs. (My hope is that the foundations could be connected by a web of steel cables, so the windfarms could function as marine reserves which never needed to be policed, as trawling through them would be impossible.)

    It also raises some important questions. If the offshore resource is so abundant and its deployment likely to cause hardly any political fuss, should we give up fighting for onshore windfarms? I don’t know, but I would appreciate your views.

    The report also makes me wonder whether, in the light of the damage they will do and of the far greater resources in the open sea, a Severn barrage and other tidal range devices are worth developing. The report suggests that the total practical resource for offshore wind is 1,939 terawatt hours per year, while the total tidal range resource is just 36 – and more expensive to deploy. Given the aggro tidal barrages will cause and the habitats they will destroy, are they worth developing?

    If any of this is to happen, the big decisions will need to be taken in the next year or so. So if ever you meet ministers or officials, ask them these questions. Have they read the report? What do they intend to do about it?

    monbiot.com

  • Gillard content to play waiting game

     

    Related Coverage

    Equally, although Gillard expects Rudd to win the next election and knows when he does Rudd will be on borrowed time, even if Labor did lose Gillard believes a Tony Abbott government would be so inherently unstable that she could get her party back into power swiftly (no doubt by putting the blame for the defeat at the feet of a vanquished Rudd).

    For all the increasing talk of leadership tensions at the top of the government following recent backdowns in policy positioning, accompanied by a slump in the polls, Rudd and Gillard continue to get on quite well. She is one of the few senior government figures Rudd has allowed himself to get close to, the other two being Anthony Albanese and Mark Arbib.

    So the plan of action between now and polling day is for Labor to stay united and ensure Rudd wins a second term.

    From that point, however, all bets will be off. Expect a less disciplined Labor government in its second term.

    Let’s look at the numbers in the event of a leadership showdown. (I can assure you, as unlikely as a challenge is, senior Labor powerbrokers are doing the same thing.)

    The Labor Left in Victoria is split. Most of them back Gillard; however, those close to Tanner probably wouldn’t, and they constitute a sizeable number of MPs. While Gillard is supported by some NSW left-wingers such as Laurie Ferguson, whose preselection she saved, one of the leaders of the Left in NSW, Albanese, would back Rudd strongly.

    Across the rest of the nation the Left, by and large, would back Gillard. On the Right, the NSW faction is known for its motto, “It doesn’t matter who you support as long as they win.” For that reason, Arbib and his lieutenants would wait and see how any Gillard push was shaping up before declaring their hand.

    The difficulty with assessing numbers in the NSW Right is that since 1996 it has had a tendency to split. What makes it likely that, by and large, they would go with the challenger is if the Right in Victoria and Queensland backed Gillard, which would happen.

    Victoria’s right faction overwhelmingly supports a Shorten play on the leadership one day. Given that he has been shut out by Rudd, and his best chance of promotion would come with a change of leader and a hurrying up of contenders such as Gillard getting their chance, Victoria’s Right would favour a change of leadership. So would most of the Queensland Right.

    Queensland may be Rudd’s home state, but there is little love for him there. (Don’t forget most of Queensland Labor backed Kim Beazley over Rudd when Bill Ludwig directed them to do so.)

    The only complication would be if Swan threw his hat into the contest, splitting the right faction, thereby costing Gillard the important perception of a high first-round vote (knowing that incumbents invariably hold on to some MPs who always vote for the leader).

    Always important to the NSW Right is its proximity to power. Arbib’s closeness to Rudd is considered valuable by the faction. But he is also Gillard’s junior minister and therefore is close to her as well.

    Once upon a time the NSW Right wouldn’t have been prepared to back a leftie into the leadership, even if opposition caused it to fall foul of its motto. But when Arbib and his faction (albeit with splintering) supported Nathan Rees replacing Morris Iemma for the premiership in NSW, it was a sign Gillard wouldn’t even need to start formally caucusing with the Right to win its support in a challenge.

    Someone such as Immigration Minister Chris Bowen would be uncomfortable with knifing Rudd but would ultimately fall into the factional line, if for no other reason than to keep his own ambitions fertile.

    Someone such as Burke would know a change of leader moves him one step closer to becoming a candidate in the future, assuming he can repair some damage done to his union support in recent times.

    A celebrity candidate such as Maxine McKew would stay loyal to the leader who enticed her into politics in the first place. Another, such as Peter Garrett, would be less inclined to back Rudd because of the way he ultimately used him as a scapegoat in the botched home roof insulation scheme.

    The union movement is always important to Labor leadership challenges.

    While Gillard has put some unions off side with aspects of her Fair Work Act, for the most part she is a more appealing figure in the top job than Rudd. She has always been careful to maintain good cross-factional links, knowing that her left-wing positioning would one day be a barrier to the leadership she would have to overcome.

    So, in the event of a challenge, Rudd would rely on ad hoc support from non-aligned MPs, newcomers who have only seen him as the authority figure a PM always is and sections of the Left, mostly from Victoria, partly from NSW.

    Despite being a left-winger, Gillard would win the support of most of the Right nationally as well as much of the Victorian Left. There would also be a quotient of women who would give her a solid personal following. The swinging numbers would be the NSW Right, just the way they like it, but they would vote for Gillard, knowing she was likely to win and because Arbib’s closeness to Gillard would transfer his influence to the new prime minister.

    That Gillard in all probability has the numbers to roll Rudd even now explains why the Prime Minister is so weak when his personal satisfaction ratings for much of his first term in power should have made him strong.

    Rudd doesn’t have a factional support base like Gillard or Swan. He relies on MPs and ministers sticking by him in the belief he is the best chance of ensuring Labor stays in power: marginal seat MPs don’t lose, ministers keep their portfolios and the patronage of government continues. And a first strike against a prime minister is very dangerous.

    But when support wanes, a celebrity PM (think Kevin07) always looks cheap.

    Gillard’s only concern needs to be avoiding contagion by an increasingly unpopular Rudd.

    Watch closely because, for Gillard, this election campaign will be as much about positioning herself for a future promotion as it is about positioning Labor for a victory on polling day, even if she hopes the coup of the future turns out to be bloodless.

  • Fears grow of Labor election loss

     

    Related Coverage

    The proposed resource super-profits tax thrust on to unsuspecting miners has united these normally warring barons in an unprecedented fashion.

    At the same time, the government appears uncertain how to approach the miners and manage the inevitable compromise in a policy and political sense.

    One day the government rounds on the lying and ignorant industry leaders, as Wayne Swan called them, and on the next Kevin Rudd is talking about consultation with the industry.

    Some within the government are suggesting there will be a quick offer and settlement of the dispute to get it out of the way, while others warn not to expect an early resolution and relish a fight with the foreign-owned mining companies that don’t pay their “fair share”.

    BHP Billiton’s chief executive Marius Kloppers told his 16,000 employees yesterday the government’s claims were incorrect about the amount of tax miners pay and that the process of consultation and negotiation was at a stalemate. The clear view from the mining companies is that the consultation panel set up to negotiate “transitional arrangements” has a limited remit and cannot discuss the real concerns the miners have about the new tax. Given the panel seems to be moving beyond its own terms of reference in its interim report, to be put to the government today, and backing big concessions on the tax, including lifting the threshold rate when the tax begins from 6 per cent of profits to 12 per cent, it would seem the panel members agree.

    The government continues to insist the consultation process is going swimmingly and is appealing for the industry to continue to talk to the panel. But, given the panel can’t make final decisions on issues the miners want addressed and the mining chiefs and government leaders continue to “negotiate” through headlines and parliamentary insults, there appears the need for something to break the deadlock and bring the debate back under control.

    Given the government points to the Hawke government’s success in introducing the petroleum resource rent tax, perhaps the Prime Minister could convene a 1980s summit, where chief executives and cabinet ministers meet face to face and under pressure to find middle ground.

    Given that Rudd decided last night not to attend and address the Minerals Council of Australia’s annual dinner after deciding instead to attend the celebration for the 100th anniversary of the election of the Andrew Fisher government, a Hawke-style summit is unlikely.

    What’s more, the 1987 tax followed more than two years of consultation, including a white paper and a green paper, to work out the best way to introduce the tax and not damage the oil and gas sector. It seems too late for such a process now, given that the tax was sprung on the resources sector, fully formed, on May 2.

    Some MPs, and indeed some ALP candidates who are attending today’s campaign briefings, are furious with the way the tax was introduced and are uncertain as to how to react to mooted changes and avowed declarations of war. There are miners and MPs who are convinced the government was intent on such a war from the beginning.

    Labor claims that part of its polling slump and the Prime Minister’s polling slide are a result of the “tough actions” the government took on tax reform. But the slump began well before the RSPT was unveiled and the miners unleashed their public campaign.

    Indeed, the miners were slow to react publicly to signs they were about to be subjected to a regime they could not bear because they had worked more quietly with the government over the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

    But Rudd appears to have caught slump disease from British Conservative leader David Cameron, who managed to blow an unbeatable lead in the polls months from an election and only scraped into government, long before the miners became active.

    Rudd has gone from being the most popular leader in modern times to having some of the lowest levels of personal support, and the ALP has gone from having an unassailable lead in the polls to being behind or at best level-pegging. This is just three full months from an election campaign.

    There has been a mountain of explanations as to why Labor finds itself in this position: a loss of faith and credibility for Rudd; broken promises; botched programs such as the $2.45 billion roofing insulation scheme and waste on the school buildings program; interest rate rises; cost of living rises; the abandonment of the emissions trading scheme to combat greenhouse gas emissions; a reversal on asylum-seekers’ treatment; and, latterly, the new $12bn tax on miners’ profits.

    The question for those Labor MPs who fear losing the election is no longer how they got to where they are but how they get away from where they are.

    Certainly, as Labor MPs and candidates gather in Canberra today for a briefing and instructions on how to campaign and sell the government’s achievements, the way ahead is the key issue.

    The latest Newspoll has Labor’s primary vote at 37 per cent, a level that Labor must improve on if it is to win the next election. There is no doubt the polls will narrow as the election nears and Labor has the advantage that voters are not switching in sufficient numbers to Tony Abbott from Rudd as the preferred prime minister.

    How and when to deal with the mining profits tax compromise is crucial to these calculations as the Liberal leader continues to oppose the “great big new tax”.

    93 comments on this story

  • Debate hots up on pulp mill future

    Debate hots up on pulp mill future

    Updated 1 hour 29 minutes ago

    Forestry industry talks and the resignation of Gunns’ chairman have restarted the debate over a proposed pulp mill in Tasmania’s north.

    John Gay was with the company for 37 years and was a major driver of the proposed $2 billion Tamar Valley pulp mill.

    Former premier Paul Lennon has told ABC Local Radio the current industry crisis talks and a downturn in international wood chip markets had vindicated Mr Gay’s determination.

    “A mill must be built in Tasmania. If it’s not, then the forest industry will wither on the vine,” Mr Lennon said.

    Australian Greens leader Bob Brown believes the mill project is still alive.

    Senator Brown says Mr Gay’s departure opens the way for alternative pulp mill proposals.

    “The pulp mill as conceived by John Gay is dead in the water with its chlorine with its destruction of native forests and wildlife and pollution but it doesn’t say that it’s off the drawing board,” he said.

    Mr Gay’s resignation coincides with the formation of a new anti-mill group.

    The Friends of the Tamar Valley’s Judith King says Mr Gay stepping down should deliver a clear signal to government that the mill is finished.

    “But we also wants Gunns to deliver that signal, to say that the mill is finished.”

    She says her group will work with others to stop the mill being built.

    Tags: company-news, forests, timber, tas, hobart-7000, launceston-7250

    First posted 1 hour 33 minutes ago

  • Overseas student numbers plummet

    Overseas student numbers plummet

    INTERNATIONAL student enrolments could drop by as much as 20 per cent next year, costing the economy up to $2 billion, as a consequence of the Rudd government’s “abrupt” tightening of immigration requirements and rising competition from North America and Britain for the lucrative student trade.

    Australia’s largest international student recruiter, IDP chief executive Tony Pollock, warned that changes to visa rules and priority skills were being made without giving the industry time to adjust. As a result, student demand had plummeted and the sector’s market standing was at risk.

    Mr Pollock said international placements into Australia across IDP’s network were down 37 per cent in April compared with a year ago, with current Indian demand almost wiped out. He said the Australian High Commissioner in India had told his staff there that the number of student visa applications it had on hand had crashed to just 200, compared with 8600 a year ago.

    The Australian was unable to verify these numbers with the commission. According to the Department of Immigration, its latest application figures for the nine months to the end of March 31 show that applications from Indian nationals are down 47 per cent at 23,601.

    Related Coverage

    Mr Pollock said further negative fallout was expected as more students were stranded by private college collapses caused by the downturn, and frustration grew among the thousands of students already enrolled in courses that have been culled from the Skilled Occupations List that provides a pathway for permanent residency. “My concern is that the numbers for the next 12 months are going to be severely impacted,” he said.

    Immigration Minister Chris Evans has tightened visa requirements and refocused on a narrower range of skills to clamp down on rorts and student exploitation.

    These included “visa factories” or dodgy courses in areas like hairdressing, cookery and community welfare that were focused solely on permanent residency.

    International education is Australia’s third-largest export earner behind coal and iron ore at about $17 billion a year. International student fees have become a key revenue source for universities following declines in government funding, accounting for more than 15 per cent of revenue.

    “The government’s desire to clean up the industry is entirely admirable, but they have made the changes so abrupt that there is little time for the kind of structural adjustment that is necessary in any big change of this nature, both for the students and the institutions,” Mr Pollock said.

    A spokesman for the Department of Immigration said the changes to a more “demand-driven” immigration program had been signalled as far back as early 2008.

    “The recently announced changes to skilled migration remove incentives for students to seek permanent residence through low-quality education courses, a practice that damaged the integrity of both the migration program and the education industry,” the spokesman said.

    A spokeswoman for Education Minister Julia Gillard said the sector was well placed to weather the changes.

    “The introduction of the new Skilled Occupations List will require a refocusing for some education and training providers, but we believe the market is well placed to continue as a world leader in international education services,” she said.

    International students are set to protest against changes to the skills list at a demonstration in Sydney on June 3. So far this year, 15 private colleges have already closed, affecting 3713 students, of which only 57 per cent have been placed at other providers or given refunds.

    The latest government figures show international student commencements rose by just 0.3 per cent in the nine months to March, compared with average growth rate over the past eight years of 8.6 per cent. While commencements at universities were up 11.8 per cent, they were down in the vocational and English language sectors that are key feeders for universities.

    32 comments on this story

  • Leak finally plugged but Obama faces his own Gulf crisis

     

    “We will lose more coastline from this catastrophe than from all four hurricanes – Katrina, Rita, Gustav and Ike,” Mr Nungesser said.

    A Democrat senator, Bill Nelson, whose home state of Florida could yet be hit by the  slick, said if BP’s latest attempt to plug the leak failed, Mr Obama would need to seize personal control of the effort immediately.

    A Louisiana resident, James Carville, appealed to the President. ‘‘Man, you got to get down here and take control of this, put someone in charge of this thing and get this thing moving. We’re about to die down here.”

    The White House insists the administration has been doing all it can, having dispatched more than 20,000 personnel to help with containment, while drafting 1300 vessels to assist with dredging and skimming.

    Mr Obama, who will visit the Gulf for a second time today, has made great play in demanding that BP put things right and compensate all those hit by the spill, while foreshadowing  tough new drilling regulations.

    But some political strategists believe that the Deepwater Horizon blowout looms as Mr Obama’s “Katrina”, a reference to how an inadequate response to the 2005 hurricane tainted the administration of George Bush.

    The administration  backed the so-called ‘‘top kill’’ procedure in which underwater robots have been forcing a mix of drilling mud and cement deep into the well, more than 1.6 kilometres below the surface. Several hours after the effort began  on Wednesday afternoon, BP officials said the signs were hopeful.

    “What you’ve been observing coming out of the top of that riser is most likely mud,” BP’s chief operating officer, Doug Suttles, told reporters in Houston.

    “The way we know we’ve been successful is it stops flowing.”

    Documents have revealed that the volume of leaking oil was likely to have been far greater than the company’s public estimate of 5000 barrels a day.

    BP’s own documents put an upper estimate of more than 14,000 barrels a day.