Publications

Friends of the Earth Adelaide > Publications

Morrison backs fossil fuels over farmers

November 19, 2021

The Morrison government’s modelling of its emissions reduction “plan” reveals how the government has chosen fossil fuels over farmers, how it plans to grow – not shrink – Australia’s fossil gas industry and how it fails to deliver on a claimed commitment to reaching zero net emissions by 2050.

[…]

The government’s chosen path does not spell out how Australia would get to net zero emissions in 2050. Instead, a so-called “Plan” maps a path for Australia to cut domestic emissions by around 60 per cent, a further 25 per cent of Australia’s emissions being offset with credits purchased from overseas.

[…]

The modelling highlights how the government is counting on a substantial and ongoing role for Australia’s fossil fuel industries – with the gas industry expected to grow by 13 per cent out to 2050.
While the coal sector is projected to decline in coming decades, it will still be operating at around 50 per cent of its current capacity in 2050, with Australia maintaining its position as a major global exporter of both coal and gas.

[…] the Morrison government considered an alternate scenario, which evaluated the potential outcomes of Australia achieving the complete 100 per cent reduction in net emissions by 2050.

This scenario would see Australia increase its investment in domestic carbon sequestration, achieved primarily through increased re-vegetation of Australian land (and not the government’s favoured carbon capture and storage technology).

The modelling found that setting a more ambitious target – one that gets Australia all the way to full net zero by 2050 – would have a negligible impact on the Australian economy, amounting to just a 0.01 per cent change in GDP by 2050, which is meaningless for a projection three decades into the future.

The more ambitious scenario, as one might expect, has a more detrimental impact on the coal and gas sectors, with the modelling estimating that a complete net zero pathway would “have adverse impacts on fossil fuel based sectors, with $4.9 billion lower output value from coal and gas in 2050 relative to the Plan.”

… Read more >>

Climate, Old_Notes

Victoria joins NSW in saying no to “Coalkeeper”

September 23, 2021

Federal energy minister Angus Taylor’s plans to introduce a new capacity market mechanism that would favour legacy coal generators appears in tatters after Victoria joined New South Wales in rejecting the idea dubbed “Coalkeeper.”

The opposition from the two key states – and the two biggest state grids in the country – comes ahead of a key meeting of federal and state energy ministers next Friday, and leaves the market unsure what, if any, new rules will be agreed in the Post2025 design being co-ordinated by the Energy Security Board.

The proposals for the “physical retail reliability option” have been described as “technology neutral” by Taylor and the ESB, but the market is convinced that they would effectively pay coal and gas generators paid to remain open, and Victorian energy minister Lily D’Ambrosio said she would have none of that.

“Victoria wants to reassure investors in wind and solar farms and storage such as giant batteries that it will not adopt any mechanism within the NEM that undermines the state’s ambition to cut carbon emissions,” D’Ambrosio said in a statement.
— Michael Mazengarb & Giles Parkinson, reneweconomy, Sept 17th for the full story

Clean Futures, Old_Notes, Renewables

Morrison says sub deal won’t lead to nuclear power push in Australia. Don’t believe him

September 20, 2021

Prime minister Scott Morrison insisted on Thursday morning that the landmark nuclear submarine deal struck with US president Joe Biden and UK prime minister Boris Johnson won’t translate into a push for nuclear power plants in Australia.
“Let me be clear: Australia is not seeking to establish nuclear weapons or establish a civil nuclear capability. And we will continue to meet all of our nuclear non-proliferation obligations,” Morrison said.
On the issue of nuclear power plants, don’t believe him. Morrison could hardly have said anything else. It’s one thing to announce a switch to nuclear powered submarines without any broad social discussion, but quite another to commit the country to nuclear power.
But the pro-nuclear lobby – both within and without the federal Coalition government – won’t be able to help themselves, even if the reality is that the sub construction won’t likely even start for the best part of a decade, and be complete for at least another 10 years after that, such is the complexity of the technology.
The nuclear lobby will say it is bizarre that Australia could be the only country in the world planning to sustain a nuclear powered submarine fleet without a civil nuclear industry. Even the retired Admiral Chris Barry noted that the absence of a civil nuclear industry left a “big gap” for Australia to manage a submerged nuclear fleet.

Giles Parkinson, Reneweconomy

Nuclear, Old_Notes

Nuclear Submarines: answers to common questions

September 20, 2021

Following secret deliberations, this week, the Morrison government has announced that Australia will acquire nuclear-powered submarines. Anti-nuclear movement stalwart, and Friends of the Earth National Nuclear campaigner, Dr. Jim Green, had these comments to common questions about the decision.

Shrugging person over a submarine - Text in box: Nuclear Submarines: Answers to common questions - Friends of the Earth logo and anti nuclear logo

Are there alternatives?

Apart from the French built, fossil fuel diesel options already on the table,  because the process has been entirely secret, we have no way of knowing whether alternative options have been properly considered. These include the options of building fewer submarines (or none at all), and advanced lithium-ion battery technology to power submarines (South Korea’s choice after 30 months of comprehensive evaluation).

What about nuclear weapons and security?

Nuclear powered submarines typically use highly-enriched uranium (HEU) fuel. This would undermine global efforts to phase out the use of HEU because of WMD proliferation and security concerns.

The Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons notes: “Military nuclear reactors in Australia would present a clear nuclear weapons proliferation risk and become potential sites for nuclear accidents and radiological contamination long into the future.”

Sign our petition to say no to nuclear subs

Take Action

The government wants to build nuclear submarines in suburban Adelaide. Does that put a target on our back? Is it prudent to build nuclear submarines in a city of 1.3 million people? What alternative locations have been considered, if any?

Does the government secretly want to bring Australia closer to a nuclear weapons capability with a nuclear submarine program? Do such deliberations explain why the Morrison government refuses to sign the UN’s Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and has actively undermined the Treaty at every step? (In the late 1960s, John Gorton’s government actively pursued a nuclear power program and Gorton later acknowledged a hidden weapons agenda. Gorton actively opposed Australia signing the UN’s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.) … Read more >>

Nuclear, Old_Notes