Labor stood by its “longstanding principles” along with the Greens and refused to block the first of the supply bills in both the House of Representatives and the Senate last week.

Only Andrew Wilkie and Clive Palmer voted against these bills in the House of Representatives. There were no votes against the bills in the Senate.

Greens leader Christine Milne told the Senate: “The Greens are here as very strong and reliable people in this parliament … We are going to vote down every one of their cruel budget measures that come through this place, but we are not going to cause a constitutional crisis.”

Wilkie told an anti-budget rally in Hobart on June 25 that he had voted against the bills to “force the government back to the drawing board to prepare a fair budget.

“No government has any right, no right at all, to wage an ideological crusade against people on low incomes and other disadvantaged members of the community … That’s why I voted against the budget.”

Below is a statement Wilkie released on June 23.

***

The Independent Member for Denison, Andrew Wilkie, along with Clive Palmer, were the only members of the House of Representatives to vote against key Appropriation Bills No 1 and No 2 (Supply) when they came before parliament tonight.

“I had hoped that Labor and the Greens would do the same, rather than just waive the Appropriation Bills through,” Wilkie said.

“This budget is such a miserable piece of work that the convention of not opposing the Appropriation Bills should have been dispensed with. If my parliamentary colleagues, in particular in the Senate, listen to the people of Australia we could force the government back to the drawing board to prepare a fair budget.

“Remember Appropriation Bills No 1 and No 2 contain, among other things, the weakening of the indexation of government pensions, the cut to the ABC and SBS, and the axing of funding for legal aid services including the Women’s Legal Service Tasmania.

“There wouldn’t be a constitutional crisis and everyone would keep being paid if supply is blocked because pension payments are covered by Standing Appropriations, and Clive and I did not move to block the other Appropriation Bills.

“If the Senate blocks the key Appropriation Bills the government could give itself time to remedy the budget. Interim budgets were implemented in 1984, 1987 and 1996. And even if an election was triggered then so what?

“Labor and the Greens have been huffing and puffing against the budget but when it came to the crunch and an opportunity to put words into actions, they sided with the government.

“Australia is a rich and fortunate country. There is simply no good reason for the government to wage an ideological crusade against the poorest and most disadvantaged members of the community, and in particular against students, the unemployed, the poor, the sick and disabled, the aged and single parents.”

• Home
• News
• Latest Research
• Data »
• About
• Contact Us

New study shows drought, heat waves and cold spells linked to air flow changes. Month-long periods of extreme weather are associated with amplified atmospheric planetary waves – high-altitude winds that meander around the globe – occurring in the mid-latitudes, reports a study published online this week in Nature Climate Change.

Click to enlarge. The polar jet stream – a band of fast winds high in the atmosphere which marks the boundary between cold polar air and warmer air to the south. When large waves develop in the flow, cold Arctic air moves south (as seen here over eastern US) and warmer temperate air moves north (as seen here are central US). Such “wavy” conditions increase the chance of temperature and precipitation extremes. Courtesy: NASA

Variations in high-altitude wind patterns expose particular parts of Europe, Asia and the US to different extreme weather conditions, a new study has shown.

Changes to air flow patterns around the Northern Hemisphere are a major influence on prolonged bouts of unseasonal weather – whether it be hot, cold, wet or dry.

The high altitude winds normally blow from west to east around the planet, but do not follow a straight path. The flow meanders to the north and south, in a wave-like path.

These wave patterns are responsible for sucking either warm air from the tropics, or cold air from the Arctic, to Europe, Asia, or the US. They can also influence rainfall by steering rain-laden storms.

Pioneering new research, carried out by the University of Exeter and the University of Melbourne, has shown that the development of these wave patterns leaves certain Northern Hemisphere regions more susceptible to different types of prolonged, extreme weather.

Dr James Screen, a Mathematics Research Fellow at the University of Exeter and lead author of the study, said: “The impacts of large and slow moving atmospheric waves are different in different places. In some places amplified waves increase the chance of unusually hot conditions, and in others the risk of cold, wet or dry conditions”.

The study showed that larger waves can lead to droughts in central North America, Europe and central Asia, and western Asia exposed to prolonged wet spells. It also shows western North America and central Asia are more prone to heat waves, while eastern North America is more likely to experience prolonged outbreaks of cold.

The collaborative study used detailed land-based climate observations to identify episodes of abnormal temperature and rainfall from 1979-2012 and then examined the wave patterns during these events.

Co-author Professor Ian Simmonds, from the School of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne, said the weather extremes they examined were month-long heat waves, cold spells, droughts and prolonged wet periods, which occurred over large areas.

He said: “The study revealed that these types of events are strongly related to well-developed wave patterns, and that these patterns increase the chance of heat waves in western North America and central Asia, cold outbreaks in eastern North America, droughts in central North America, Europe and central Asia, and wet spells in western Asia.

“The findings are very important for decision makers in assessing the risk of, and planning for the impacts of, extreme weather events in the future.”

Abstract

There has been an ostensibly large number of extreme weather events in the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes during the past decade. An open question that is critically important for scientists and policy makers is whether any such increase in weather extremes is natural or anthropogenic in origin. One mechanism proposed to explain the increased frequency of extreme weather events is the amplification of mid-latitude atmospheric planetary waves. Disproportionately large warming in the northern polar regions compared with mid-latitudes—and associated weakening of the north–south temperature gradient—may favour larger amplitude planetary waves although observational evidence for this remains inconclusive. A better understanding of the role of planetary waves in causing mid-latitude weather extremes is essential for assessing the potential environmental and socio-economic impacts of future planetary wave changes. Here we show that months of extreme weather over mid-latitudes are commonly accompanied by significantly amplified quasi-stationary mid-tropospheric planetary waves. Conversely,months of near-average weather over mid-latitudes are often accompanied by significantly attenuated waves. Depending on geographical region, certain types of extreme weather (for example, hot, cold, wet, dry) are more strongly related to wave amplitude changes than others. The findings suggest that amplification of quasi-stationary waves preferentially increases the probabilities of heat waves in western North America and central Asia, cold outbreaks in eastern North America, droughts in central North America, Europe and central Asia, and wet spells in western Asia.

Citation

‘Amplified mid-latitude planetary waves favour particular regional weather extremes’, by Dr James Screen and Professor Ian Simmonds, published in Nature Climate Change online on Sunday, June 22. DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2271

Read the abstract and get the paper here.

The price of power

Image: Power lines leaving the Hazlewood power station in Victoria. (Hamish Blair/Getty Images)

With Australian electricity prices amongst the highest in the world, more and more households are going solar. The big power companies say the Renewable Energy Target is undermining their businesses and they want it wound back. The federal government agrees, so who is to blame for the high price of power? Jess Hill investigates.

Never has it been more expensive to turn on our appliances. In the last few years, our power bills have doubled, making Australia’s electricity prices some of the highest in the developed world.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott blames two things: the carbon tax and the renewable energy target. He says the government’s review of the target will look at its impact on bills, because ‘renewable energy targets are significantly driving up power prices right now’.

But Mr Abbott’s claim that the renewable energy target is expensive is not supported by the data. The Australian Energy Markets Commission says the renewable energy target adds four per cent to the average electricity bill. For an average household, that’s about a dollar a week.

‘For all of the attention that carbon price has got, from the increasing attention the renewable energy target’s got, the main reason that electricity has been getting dearer is the overinvestment in poles and wires, and the fundamental inefficiency in the way that the national electricity market’s working,’ says Richard Denniss, executive director of the Australia Institute.

Federal Treasury estimates that 51 per cent of an average household bill is spent on network costs. Most of that is going towards paying off the $45 billion network companies have spent on updating our poles and wires over the last five years.

This investment was justified by the network companies’ own data, which showed that Australia’s energy demand was going to increase dramatically. But in 2009, just as they were beginning to spend, something unprecedented happened. Energy demand in Australia didn’t go up—it went down. And it’s continued to go down every year since.

Despite the clear reality of falling demand, the network companies insisted that demand was rising, and they carried on investing billions of dollars into the grid. Every dollar of that investment is now being recovered from consumers, via our power bills. Every dollar, plus ten per cent—a guaranteed return granted to them by the regulator.

In 2012, three years after the spending began, the Senate held an inquiry into electricity prices. It was chaired by Labor MP, Matt Thistlethwaite.

‘What we found was those network businesses—that earned the most profits were the ones that invested the most,’ he says. ‘So there was a perverse incentive in the system for an overinvestment in the poles and wires, and that led to dramatic profits for those businesses, but of course it was the consumer that paid for that cost of that additional capital.’

Mr Thistlethwaite says that the inquiry was presented with many examples of infrastructure being built where it wasn’t needed. ‘We discovered a network business that had invested $30 million in a substation in Newcastle, and I actually visited the substation. It wasn’t connected to the grid. The reason why it wasn’t connected to the grid; when the decision was made a couple of years ago to invest in this particular piece of infrastructure, it was projected that the demand would be there. But the demand didn’t eventuate.’

Energy analyst Bruce Mountain from Carbon Market Economics says that although some old infrastructure needed updating, the amount of money wasted on the poles and wires was substantial. ‘I would estimate as an aggregate across the national electricity market, perhaps at least a half of that total spend was not actually necessary, but it does vary by state.’

The staggering rise in electricity prices brought on by this investment has had a rather unintended consequence. ‘Because the price got so high, it made solar even more competitive from the customer’s point of view,’ says David Leitch, a utilities analyst with UBS. ‘Because when you use the solar in your house, you don’t use the wires and poles in the system, so you’re eliminating half the final price.’

The fact that households with solar can save more than half on their power bills has made solar panels an economic choice, not just an ethical one. There are now 1.2 million households getting their daytime power from solar panels.

‘It’s essentially turning households into competitors of the electricity companies, because all of a sudden households are producing electricity, and they’re deciding what to do with it,’ says Mr Leitch. ‘As opposed to just having a choice of take it or leave it from your friendly electricity retailer.’

This article represents part of a larger Background Briefing investigation. Listen to Jess Hill’s full report on Sunday at 8.05 am or use the podcast links above after broadcast.

Solar rooftops are wreaking havoc on the traditional power industry, says Mr Denniss, because they produce the most amount of energy at the time of day when the power industry makes the most money.

‘Solar panels have got this great trick, they make lots of electricity when the sun is shining; that’s when we like to turn our air conditioners on,’ he says. ‘When everybody turns their electricity on at four o’clock on a hot Thursday afternoon, we have enormous demand for electricity for these short periods of peak demand. And that’s when solar panels are at their best.’

‘Solar panels are actually pumping quite a large amount of energy in during these periods of peak demand, and that’s pushing down the peak price. Now that’s great for everybody, except the so-called baseload power stations. Because the baseload power stations used to be able to sell their electricity for a much higher price at four o’clock on that hot Thursday afternoon. From the coal-fired power station point of view, you couldn’t have a worse competitor, because solar is at its best when the market is at its most profitable.’

What that means is that the big coal-fired power plants are earning less for the energy they produce. That’s because Australia has more electricity than it can use.

That’s a big problem, says the federal industry minister, Ian Macfarlane. ‘We’re facing an enormous challenge in terms of an excess generating capacity in electricity in Australia. To be adding large quantities of generation into that situation has to be questioned. The review process will go through those things.’

With energy demand going down, and renewable energy supply going up, Australia simply doesn’t need as much power from fossil fuels anymore. In the last few years, several large coal-fired power stations have been shut down or mothballed.

‘Australia doesn’t need more generation; if we have more wind at the moment, it will displace some other form of generation,’ says Mr Leitch. ‘So no-one wants to be displaced in this world, and we can all understand that.’

That’s one of the reasons why the conventional power industry is lobbying the government to wind back the renewable energy target—known as the RET. The Energy Supply Association of Australia, which speaks on behalf of the conventional power industry, says that now demand has gone down, 41,000 gigawatt hours will represent around 30 per cent of Australia’s energy supply, rather than 20 per cent.
‘The conditions under which the RET was designed no longer exist, and we think the RET is broken and can’t work in an oversupplied market,’ says Matthew Warren, the ESAA’s CEO.

But there has already been a review. At the end of 2012, the Climate Change Authority reviewed the target and recommended that it be maintained. Their review was supposed to provide certainty to the renewable energy industry.

The chair of the Climate Change Authority is Bernie Fraser, a former Reserve Bank governor. He says that just by holding another review, the government has ensured that the 41,000 gigawatt-target won’t be met. ‘Investment is actually being cut back and delayed, and I think because of that, I think it’s apparent now that the 41,000 gigawatts for large renewable energy power plants, is not going to happen. It’s going to be a lesser figure and I think that’s what the opponents, the critics of renewable energy want to see.’

‘Policymakers need to look beyond short-term economic considerations in the interests of some of the big companies to longer-term community interests. And that’s what governments are supposed to do, but unfortunately it’s not happening at the present time,’ he says.

So it’s a bit… well, it’s more than a bit, it’s very disappointing that we’re falling behind, and we are falling behind what many other countries are doing.

Daily News for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency, Wind, Wave, Solar & Biofuel

EcoCAR 2 ( Solar Thermal Magazine ) – For the last three years, teams from 15 colleges across North America have been putting the pedal to the metal designing, building and refining an energy-efficient, consumer-ready alternative fuel vehicle as part of the Energy Department’s EcoCAR 2 competition. Yesterday as the competition drew to a close, the Ohio State University was crowned the winner of EcoCAR 2: Plugging into the Future.

EcoCar 2, a collaboration between the Energy Department and General Motors, challenges collegiate teams to develop innovative ways to improve the fuel economy and reduce the environmental impact of a vehicle without compromising its performance, safety or consumer acceptance. Over the course of the competition, EcoCAR 2 put students’ skills to the test while providing them with hands-on, real-world experience to become clean energy leaders.

• 0
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4

To start, teams were challenged to incorporate advanced technology components — including electric drive powertrains (the part of the car that converts power from the fuel source into the mechanical power needed to drive the wheels) and battery systems — into an existing vehicle. After using software to model their proposed vehicle architecture, GM provided each team with a 2013 Chevrolet Malibu to transform into an advanced plug-in hybrid vehicle that can compete with the most fuel-efficient cars on the market. The teams then followed a real-world engineering process based on the same process GM uses for developing its own vehicles to re-engineer the vehicle with their advanced design.

During EcoCAR 2 Year 1, teams focused on designing their vehicles — including virtually testing their cars’ architectures and developing all the systems necessary to turn their vehicles into plug-in hybrids. In the second year, teams redesigned their physical vehicles using cutting-edge automotive engineering processes. Year 2 finals culminated with on-road vehicle testing at the same proving grounds course that GM uses to test its own vehicles.

As part of the last year of the competition, students have continued to improve their vehicles, refining them into near-production prototypes. They then traveled to Michigan and Washington, D.C., for a 12-day, two-part finale that included a 300-point safety inspection, a 100-mile emissions and energy consumption test to measure the vehicle’s fuel economy and an autocross event where professional drivers pushed the teams’ cars to the limits, zooming through a serpentine road course.

Throughout the entire competition, students were required to keep their vehicle’s viability and consumer appeal in mind, and judges graded the vehicles on their noise, vibration and overall finish.

Ohio State University’s vehicle came out on top after taking the lead in multiple categories, including best pre-competition safety & technical inspection, lowest criteria emissions and best communications plan. Last night, the team won 14 awards — and a total of 21 awards over the course of the Year 3 competition — for their plug-in hybrid electric vehicle that runs on electricity and E85. This setup gives the car about 40 miles of all-electric driving with an additional 150-250 miles of driving using the internal combustion engine.

Source: U.S. DOE

Photos courtesy of EcoCAR2  and Sarah Gerrity, Energy Department

Innovating Alternative and Renewable Energy Solutions

• A A A

• Corporate »
  • About
  • Our Team
• Technology »
• Media »
• Investors »
• Contact

New Energy Technologies is developing the first-of-its kind SolarWindow™ technology, which enables see-through windows to generate electricity by ‘spraying’ their glass surfaces with New Energy’s electricity-generating coatings – the subject of forty two (42) patent filings.

Watch our SolarWindow™ Introduction Sketch Video!

SolarWindow™ Topics

SolarWindow™ generates clean electricity on see-through glass windows, by making use of the energy of natural sunlight and artificial sources such as fluorescent and LED lighting typically installed in offices, schools, and commercial buildings.  Under an exclusive world-wide licensing agreement with the University of South Florida, together with a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy—National Renewable Energy Laboratory, covering forty two (42) patent applications, we currently have several product development goals for our SolarWindow™ technology:

• SolarWindow™- Commercial – A flat glass product for installation in new commercial towers under construction and replacement windows;
• SolarWindow™-Structural Glass – Structural glass walls and curtains for tall structures;
• SolarWindow™-Architectural Glass – Textured and decorative interior glass walls, room dividers, etc.
• SolarWindow™-Residential – A window glass for installation in new residential homes under construction and replacement windows;
• SolarWindow™-Flex – Flexible films which may be applied directly on to glass, similar to aftermarket window tint films, for retrofit to existing commercial towers, buildings, and residential homes; and
• SolarWindow™-BIPV – Building product components associated with building-integrated-photovoltaic (―BIPV‖) applications in homes, buildings, and office towers.
• SolarWindow™ coatings for commercial and military aircraft, and the safety and security of military pilots.

How do we generate electricity on see-through glass for commercial application in homes, offices, and commercial buildings?

New Energy’s solution is unique to our SolarWindow™ coatings, which:

• Make use of the world’s smallest functional organic solar cells, which measure less than ¼ the size of a grain of rice, and have been shown to successfully produce electricity in a published peer-reviewed study in the Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy of the American Institute of Physics;
• Are sprayed on to see-through glass using a novel, patent-pending process presented in AZoNano’s (peer-reviewed, Journal of Nanotechnology Online; Dec. 20, 2009), “Nanotechnology Thought Leaders” series;
• Do not require expensive high-temperature or high-vacuum production methods, but rather, can be sprayed on to glass at room temperature;
• Generate electricity from both natural and artificial light sources, outperforming today’s commercial solar and thin-film technologies by as much as 10-fold; and
• Measure less than 1/10th the thickness of ‘thin’ films (only 1/1000th the thickness of human hair).

Our SolarWindow™ technology — capable of generating electricity on see-through glass windows — is under development for potential application in the estimated 5 million commercial buildings in America (Energy Information Administration) and more than 80 million single detached homes.