Posts

Renewable Energy: Land Use and Cost Concerns

,

Coal-fired power stations and nuclear power stations each have about 40 hectares of footprint, with a very narrow target transmission lines straight to the cities. In contrast, solar and wind installations are scattered and located away from the main cities, taking up enormous amounts of space. Their energy density is very low, requiring a vast amount of land to produce the same power, and they aren’t on consistently. This increases transmission costs and the amount of land that regions must devote to solar, wind, and now batteries, causing significant angst.

Around the world, every country that has increased the proportion of solar and wind has also increased the cost of electricity for consumers and destroyed their manufacturing base. For example, look at Germany.

A surface coalmine must pay a bond for every hectare uncovered each year, and if it is rehabilitated properly to a superior standard than it was originally, they get their money back. However, there is no such bond for solar and wind companies to set aside funds for decommissioning their complexes at the end of their life. This needs to change!

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. Your predecessor said, ‘Australia’s random renewable energy push needs to be overhauled and a nationwide stocktake is required to determine what should be built and where it should go.’ Are you committed to that overall overhaul?

Mr Sheldon: That is an observation or recommendation made by Mr Dyer, and I think that’s been built into the review that Mr Duggan has just been talking about. So all those action plans and so on are designed to
ensure—

Senator ROBERTS: When’s that coming out? I’m sorry, I missed it.

Mr Duggan: The action plan has been agreed by the Energy and Climate Change Ministerial Council, so that’s now a public document. So we’re in the process now of implementing. The full response to the review was
published on 19 July.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. So that’s been included in their recommendations?

Mr Duggan: Yes, that’s right.

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Dyer also said, ‘The sort of granular planning required for a once in a generation transformation to secure the nation’s energy supply still had not happened.’ Is that now in the report as well—
granular planning?

Mr Duggan: Yes, this was a recommendation to governments. As you would know, a lot of the detail, the specific planning around land use and specific locations of related transmission, sits with the state governments
and involves a very big input from the local governments. So a lot of the argumentation around that recommendation was to point to some of the best practice that already exists and to encourage that to be taken up
by the other states and territories.

Senator ROBERTS: There’s a lot of pain in the regions now, because they’re bearing the brunt of solar and wind disturbances.

Mr Duggan: What the report highlighted was that, certainly where best practice is not happening, there was an opportunity to improve the way projects are being delivered to the betterment of communities. That’s
absolutely correct.

Senator ROBERTS: It seems like it’s hell for leather, just do whatever you want. And there’s a lot of cash flying around, which is inducing councils to bypass some of their own ordinances, as we understand it.

Senator Ayres: Senator Roberts, the government inherited the last government’s framework and commissioned Mr Dyer to do this report because it’s in the interests of rural and regional communities and of an
effective rollout of generation and transmission capability that we improve the governance and consultation processes and all of the things that are included in Mr Dyer’s report. That’s what’s motivated the government to commission this report. On those nine recommendations, I think Mr Duggan said three of them are directed towards the Commonwealth, because there are multiple participants in this process, but they have, essentially, all been adopted. It’s our job now to operationalise that effectively in a way that addresses, I think, many of the issues that you raise.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that, Minister. Are you aware that a coal-fired power station and a nuclear power station have about 40 hectares of footprint, and that’s it, and a very narrow target transmission
corridor straight to the main users, which are the cities and the provincial cities? Solar and wind are scattered and away from the main cities and they take up enormous room. Their energy density is very low, which means that you need an enormous amount of land to produce the same power. And even then you can’t produce it regularly. So that increases transmission costs, and the amount of land the regions are devoting to solar, wind and transmission, and also now to batteries. It’s causing a lot of angst. Are you aware of that?

Senator Ayres: I’m certainly aware, on one hand, that, with the processes for approval and consultation with these projects, we were operating with the last government’s processes, and we are working to improve those. I’m also aware that you’re trying to make a broader point, I guess, about the merit or otherwise of the approach that is being taken by the government and the states and Commonwealth in terms of building an energy system for the future. I appreciate that you’re not one of the coalition MPs here, but I think it’s hard to make an argument about community consultation on one hand, and then do a press release that says: ‘We’re going to turn up with seven nuclear reactors in your neighbourhood, whether you like it or not. We’re not going to tell you how much they cost, or how many of them we’re going to build—but, Muswellbrook, here you go, whether you like it or not, a nuclear reactor’—

Senator ROBERTS: I agree with you. A coal-fired power station would be fine—

Senator Ayres: That will be very expensive. What we know, and I think the evidence that you’ve heard today shows—and I understand you don’t agree with it; I think you’ve demonstrated over time that you are impervious to the facts and evidence that are provided by the agencies—

Senator ROBERTS: I do the contrary, Minister. I love evidence.

Senator Ayres: That’s your right, I understand that. But the shift to the cheapest form of energy is what the government is interested in here. Claims are made—some of them very wild claims, and some of them
somewhere between misinformation and disinformation—about the scale of land that is required for these projects. I understand that people make those claims and some people retweet them and repost them—pretty
irresponsible in my view. But we have commissioned the Dyer report for a reason; that is, to improve the processes. The minister believes, and the government believes, that adopting those, together with the appointment of Mr Mahar and other steps that the government is undertaking, will improve the effectiveness of the consultation process as we get on with one of the most important nation building things that government can do, and that is to deliver the lowest cost, most reliable energy system as we upgrade our energy system so that we can have manufacturing jobs and low cost, reliable, renewable energy and storage for households and business into the future. It’s a decades-long pathway and we’re determined to do it in the most efficient way possible for the Australian people.

Senator ROBERTS: There are two things I would remind you of, Minister. One is that the energy density drives the cost, and physics does not change the very low energy density of solar and wind, whereas coal and
especially nuclear are very high energy density. The second thing is that, everywhere around the world, every country that has increased the proportion of solar wind, has increased the cost of electricity for consumers and destroyed their manufacturing base. Have a look at Germany. Something that Mr Dyer was very passionate about was rehabilitation bonds, so that these wind and solar companies have put money away for decommissioning the complexes at the end of life. A surface coalmine has to pay a bond for every hectare uncovered each year, and then, at the end of the life of the mine, if it’s rehabilitated properly, to a superior standard than it was originally, they get their money back. There is no bond for solar and wind. What work have you done on putting reforms to government that would ensure there is money put away to clean up the environment, not just leave a toxic wasteland? Specifically, what have you done with the government?

Mr Sheldon: Can I just clarify that question? Is it: what work has the AEIC done to raise that issue with government?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.

Mr Sheldon: I think Mr Dyer raised that. It was in his annual report in 2022 that he raised this issue about performance bonds in relation to wind farms in particular.

Senator ROBERTS: And what work has been done in following up?

Mr Sheldon: It’s certainly one of those issues that does get raised with us. It’s not in the top 10 or so issues that are raised with us in the complaints that we receive. We’re like a small ombudsman. We receive complaints. It’s an issue that does get raised. During the time that I’ve been in the role, from 2 April this year, it has been raised a few times, but it’s certainly not the top issue. In terms of what is happening, I think since 2022, when Mr Dyer raised the issue, what I’ve observed in the time that I’ve been in the role is that, in different jurisdictions, there’s certainly work done to increase transparency. One of our roles, I guess, in the AEIC is to promote more transparency around these projects.

Senator ROBERTS: What, specifically, have you done?

Mr Sheldon: It’s not our role to implement policy. We’ve identified issues and we certainly monitor them. New South Wales, for example, has recently worked on its renewable energy plan, which includes standard
clauses and so on around the landholders in relation to this sort of issue. We’re monitoring that, but we don’t have responsibility for implementing it, as a complaint handling body. If we identify good examples, we’ll identify them as part of our role.

Senator ROBERTS: So what are you doing, specifically, to make sure that the bonds come into place?

Mr Sheldon: We don’t have a role to implement putting that in place. It’s certainly something we can raise as an issue. We have a range of mechanisms to do that. One of them is the annual report, which, obviously, comes out every year, on a calendar year basis. And part of what’s always been appended to that annual report is a series of observations that have really been built on the observations of the commissioner over many years—which is where the observation was made in 2022. That’s a place where we can raise that with officials that do have policy responsibility for these sorts of matters. That’s generally how we do it. We also have a website where we would raise things. We have reporting obligations to the minister. So, if we identify an issue, we obviously include that in our observations or reports.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, can I ask if you have much more to go? We’re running terribly behind.

Senator ROBERTS: I just want to make a comment to the minister. Minister, this is a comment, but there’s no reflection on the people at the table with you right now, because they’re interim—well, you’re not in interim,
but Mr Dyer was a thorough professional—

Senator Ayres: We’re all interim in one sense or another, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Dyer was a thorough professional, who did his job extremely well. We happily endorsed him in Senate estimates. He was effectively an ombudsman, and a very good one.

/0 Comments/by

Clean Energy Regulation: Questions on Costs and Market Impact

,

The Clean Energy Regulator is a $115 million dollar agency dedicated to implementing the UN’s Net Zero plans on Australia. I pressed for transparency regarding executive salaries and the total cost to taxpayers, expressing surprise at the reluctance to readily provide this information.

I also challenged the effectiveness and necessity of the carbon market, describing it as a concocted market driven by regulations rather than genuine demand. It’s essentially a made up cost inflicted on Australia. These are the kind of agencies we could simply get rid of and Australian’s lives would get better.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. A similar question to the others in the alphabet soup of climate change and energy agencies: as simply and specifically as possible, what does the Clean Energy Regulator do? Could you tell me the basic accountabilities and the uniqueness of those accountabilities?

Mr Binning: As I stated previously, we’re an economic regulator for the purpose of accelerating carbon abatement for Australia. We do this by administering a range of schemes on behalf of the Australian government.

Senator ROBERTS: Did you say you were an accelerator or a regulator?

Mr Binning: A regulator. We have two outcomes currently within our corporate objectives. The first is to contribute to a reduction in Australia’s net greenhouse gas emissions, including through the administration of market based mechanisms that incentivise reduction in emissions and the promotion of additional renewable electricity generation. The second is to contribute to the sustainable management of Australia’s biodiversity through the administration of market based mechanisms.

Senator ROBERTS: Is your uniqueness the latter?

Mr Binning: Our uniqueness is that we manage or administer the various government schemes, particularly where they involve the formation of a market.

Senator ROBERTS: The carbon dioxide market or carbon market?

Mr Binning: Yes, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: How many employees do you have?

Mr Binning: We have around 400.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you tell me the breakdown of permanent and employees and contractors?

CHAIR: Are we going to the annual report again?

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t know. We’ll find out.

Mr Binning: A lot of that information will be contained in our annual report. Our chief operating officer will just come up. Perhaps if we move to the next question, then she can follow up.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total wage bill for all employees, including casuals and contractors?

Mr Binning: Ms Pegorer will be able to help you out with that detail.

Ms Pegorer: Can I just confirm your question was with regard to the number or the breakdown of our staff?

Senator ROBERTS: Permanent, casual and contractors, please.

Ms Pegorer: I don’t have that level of detail with me, unfortunately. I do have the number of contracting staff that we’ve had from January this year until October and the number of FTE, but I don’t have the number of casuals or non-ongoing.

Senator ROBERTS: Can we get them on notice, please?

Mr Binning: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total wage bill for all of those people: permanents, casuals and contractors?

Mr Binning: Again, we don’t carry that data in that form with us, so it’s best we take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total budget for the Clean Energy Regulator, including any grants or programs you administer?

Mr Binning: Our departmental funding is around $115 million. Our administered revenue associated with the programs that we run is in the order of $37 million. However, I would just note for the record that where we have our greatest impact is actually in the issuance of certificates that then carry value in a marketplace, so both with renewable energy and with the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme we issue certificates that are of material value and which are then financial instruments managed through our registries.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s fair to say, isn’t it, that this is not a market meeting people’s needs; this is a market to meet regulations and global regulations as well—concocted needs, if you like. I’m not diminishing your work.

Mr Binning: No, I probably wouldn’t quite characterise it in that way. We administer schemes that are made by government, so if you take, for example, the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme acting in conjunction with the safeguard mechanism, it then forms both the supply and demand side. Safeguard mechanisms are required through the regulations to manage their emissions within their baseline or source unit certificates. Then the ACCU generates a supply of Australian carbon credit units, and they facilitate trade in order to meet their obligations.

Senator ROBERTS: There’s no open market as such. There’s no clamouring of citizens for carbon dioxide credits. They’re a concoction of Malcolm Turnbull and Greg Hunt in 2015, just before Christmas, and bolstered by Chris Bowen in September of 2022 with the extension of the safeguard mechanism.

Senator Ayres: I think you are asking the official for, at best, an opinion.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s your opinion?

Senator Ayres: The truth is that these schemes are administered by this agency in the best interests of keeping costs down for Australian electricity consumers and efficiently managing the process of reducing emissions across sectors, and it’s judged by successive governments that, to be in the interests of doing that in the most efficient way possible, that kind of capability is retained in the agency who’s in front of you today.

Senator ROBERTS: Let me understand that. We’ve got a scheme that’s been concocted that’ll add more cost to energy—

Senator Ayres: It wasn’t concocted.

Senator ROBERTS: Hang on. It’ll add more cost, and now we’ve got a market in place due to regulations to try to bring it down.

Senator Ayres: No, I don’t agree with that.

Senator ROBERTS: Last question, then. No-one can identify a fundamental need of people. There’s no market other than the concocted market, the fabricated market.

Mr Binning: The only thing I would note in addition to the requirement for people to comply with the various government regulatory structures is that there has over recent years been a reasonably strong emergence of a voluntary market both for Australian carbon credit units and for renewable energy certificates. On the Australian carbon credit side we see in the order of a million units surrendered per annum, and on the electricity side we see very significant surrenders of certificates in the order of 10 million over and above the 33 million that is the regulated target. A lot of what has driven that are the various objectives, particularly across corporate Australia, for voluntary emissions reduction and meeting their own targets and the desire to source credible renewable energy of high integrity to do that, so the market is both performing its regulatory functions and facilitating voluntary participation.

Senator ROBERTS: I notice peppered through your statement there—and I thank you for the statement—are the words ‘regulated’, ‘comply’ and ‘carbon credits’—I call them ‘carbon dioxide credits’. These are all to make the best of a concocted market that’s only there because of regulations. It’s only there because nowhere in the world, as I understand it, has carbon dioxide been designated a pollutant. I just make that point. Final question: what is the total salary package of everyone here at the desk, particularly executive level—what band?

Mr Binning: As I think other agencies have done, our executive remuneration is in our annual report.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that the complete cost including on-costs?

Mr Binning: That’s the salaries associated with those. If you are seeking other information related to our salaries, we will take it on notice and come back to you.

Senator ROBERTS: I want the total cost that the taxpayer pays for you, for example, not just what you get in the hand but everything as part of the package.

CHAIR: Again, I would suggest that you have a look at the annual report and, if it doesn’t give you sufficient detail, that you then place a question on notice for further detail from the officials.

Senator ROBERTS: Just one final question, building on the last one: why is there so much reluctance to share the salaries? Surely you would know what you cost.

Mr Binning: We report executive remuneration as part of our annual reporting cycle. That’s the data that I bring to these committee meetings. If there is other information that you’re seeking and it’s information that’s
generally publicly available, we would be delighted to supply it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: But you would know your total costs to the taxpayers?

Senator Ayres: Senator Roberts, it’s a pretty unfair line of questioning. The official has said—

Senator ROBERTS: What’s unfair about it?

Senator Ayres: The official has said the remuneration details. It’s pretty unfair to characterise it as the official not answering your question, is what I mean.

Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t characterise it that way. You’re fabricating now, Senator Ayres.

Senator Ayres: What he has said is that information is now publicly available in their report, which you could have read on the way here. In addition to that, if there is more information that he can provide, he will provide it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

Senator Ayres: You can’t ask for more than that.

Senator ROBERTS: No, and I made the observation that I’m surprised that people don’t know this or can’t readily divulge it. That’s all. Thank you, Chair.

/0 Comments/by

Matt Barrie’s Keynote Speech at the Northern Beaches Liberal Party Event

While I’ve covered much of this material in my Senate speeches, Matt masterfully brings it all together in just 1 hour and 18 minutes. He also makes a powerful point about NSW Labor’s attempts to alter voting patterns to entrench their hold on power. Sly move!

/0 Comments/by

Alphabet Soup Agencies: Are Taxpayers Getting Value for Money?

,

The climate division at the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) is just another part of the alphabet soup of agencies that are dedicated to bringing in net zero goals.

Although no one at the desk wanted to tell me their salaries, the fewer than ten senior executives in the department rake in $4.5 million a year. Secretary David Fredericks, who responded to my question, is on a total package of $907,000 a year. 

Are you getting value for money?

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: As simply as possible and as specifically as possible, what do the people responsible for outcome 1 at the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water do? What is your basic
accountability, especially in regard to energy?

Mr Fredericks: In many ways, I can’t do any better than our corporate documents.

Senator ROBERTS: How long is that?

Mr Fredericks: Very short. It’s the outcome that we are held to account for by the parliament and ultimately by the ANAO, which is to support the transition of Australia’s economy to net zero emissions by 2050; transition energy to support net zero while maintaining security, reliability and affordability; support actions to promote adaptation and strengthen resilience of Australia’s economy, society and environment; and take a leadership role internationally in responding to climate change.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. That’s exactly what I was after. What is the total salary package of everyone at the executive?

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, the corporate questions were at 9 o’clock this morning. We’ve released the corporate people.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll put these on notice.

/0 Comments/by

Snowy Hydro: A Wasteful Project

,

According to information from the crew working on Snowy Hydro, the reason the Florence tunnel boring machine became jammed while drilling a bend is because it was used for too long between scheduled maintenance. This practice reduces production costs and increases boring rates, however as the cutting wheels wear down, the tunnel is cut to a narrower width. In this case, the machine jammed on a bend where the full width was needed for clearance.

I asked about this at the last Estimates and received a partial admission that the jam was due to worn cutting wheels, but that it was a one-time occurrence. I have requested the maintenance logs for Florence to determine if this was indeed an isolated incident or part of a wider problem.

One Nation believes the Snowy Hydro project is a fool’s errand. While the sunk cost (money spent so far) is around $4 billion, completing the project will cost an additional $20 billion. This does not include the drilling region, which is full of asbestos – a can of worms yet to be addressed.

Another problem is that the electricity from Snowy 2.0 is being sent to Victoria and South Australia via Hume Link, which began construction this week. Hume Link involves putting two high-voltage power lines (two towers) across 360 km of bushland, which will require clearing, as well as farmland and forcibly reclaimed private property. This will cost another $5 billion.

All this expense just to provide firming of unreliable wind and solar power, when a zero emission coal plant could do the same thing for a few billion.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t know if this was asked before, but is Florence moving?

Mr Barnes: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: How long has she been moving?

Mr Barnes: She has been moving in a more predictable fashion since July and a total length of 1.6 metres and we are now achieving—kilometres. That was true a year ago. We’re now achieving the rates we need to achieve the target date of December ’28.

Senator ROBERTS: How far has it drilled since July?

Mr Barnes: I would have to come back to you on that specific.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Can I ask about maintenance on the tunnel boring machines. I understand a cutting head inspection must be performed every mere six to eight metres, stopping every two metres for concrete
behind. Is that a fair statement of the normal operation of a TBM?

Mr Barnes: The way the TBM advances is that it excavates a two-metre length, and the concrete segments that form the tunnel lining are then placed into the—the circumference of the tunnel. And that takes about 40
minutes, typically. So in that 40-minute period someone will inspect the cutter head to make sure that they can then do the next two metres. Periodically, we stop it for longer and do maintenance and replace some parts.

Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, weekends are normally used for the inspections on the cutter head.

Mr Barnes: Snowy 2.0 is a 24/7 operation, so it happens as it occurs. So if it was a Wednesday evening when we have to do some maintenance, that’s when we would do it.

Senator ROBERTS: How long has it been 24 hours?

Mr Barnes: Since the start of the construction.

Senator ROBERTS: Since the start. Okay. Thank you. Is it true that the cutting wheels were not replaced at the correct time sometime in the last few months and that the tunnel is, as a result, being built to 11.4 metre
width?

Mr Barnes: The tunnel—

Senator ROBERTS: I think the specification is 11.5.

Mr Barnes: I can’t remember the exact figures, but the tunnel boring machine does construct a circumference which is over 11 metres and then there is ground and a concrete segment that brings the interior of the tunnel to just under 10 metres.

Senator ROBERTS: What are the specifications on the drill before you put the lining? Is it 11.5 or 11.4?

Mr Barnes: It’s just over 11, I think is the number.

Senator ROBERTS: Just over 11?

Mr Barnes: We can come back on notice but it is over 11 and then the internal circumference is under 10 because—

Senator ROBERTS: I would have thought they would be very important specs.

Mr Barnes: Well, they are very important specs but I don’t keep every number in my head.

Senator ROBERTS: No, I understand that, but that would be fundamental to the project, wouldn’t it?

Mr Barnes: Yes, they are fundamental and we have an international design joint venture of Tractebel and Lombardi who have signed off on these as specifications that will last 150 years.

Senator ROBERTS: Is there anyone in the room who knows what the designed cutting diameter is? 11.5, 11.4?

Mr Barnes: No.

Senator ROBERTS: No one?

Mr Barnes: No, but we can provide you that information on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: So, as I understand it, the cutting width spec is 11.5 and that because the cutting wheels were not replaced at the correct time, the tunnel as a result is 11.4, which caused Florence to get wedged on a
bend. Is that correct?

Mr Barnes: That’s not because of the design characteristics. There was a period in May when we hit very hard rock as we were going around a bend, and that hard rock wore down the edge cutters quite dramatically. I think that happened—I will get these dates wrong, but it happened on a Thursday. We were public on the Friday with that information, and on the Monday we had a specialist crew on site who used high-spec water blasting to relieve that pressure. Florence has now moved forward and is on the straight so doesn’t have any corners to deal with.

Senator ROBERTS: So for clarity, you are saying that Florence never cut a width of less than 11.5. I just said that the spec was 11.5 and the reason it became stuck on a bend was not because the tunnel was being cut to a lesser width, 11.5, as a result of overextending the life of the cutting wheels to speed up excavation?

Mr Barnes: No.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Could you please provide the maintenance log on notice of inspections and replacement of the cutting wheels on Florence for the last two years?

Mr Barnes: Probably. I’m not sure what that would help the minister with—

Senator Ayres: We will take that on notice, if we can, and see whether that is something that we can sensibly provide.

Senator ROBERTS: Swinging quickly to Kurri. What is the completion date of the Kurri gas pipeline? I understand the power station will have to burn diesel until the gas pipeline is connected. Is that correct?

Mr Barnes: The current schedule is for the gas infrastructure to be completed by 10 March.

Senator ROBERTS: 10 March next year. Where is the gas coming from and how secure is your supply over the timeframes of 10 years and 25 years?

Mr Barnes: So we rely on a gas portfolio drawing on the national gas grid. We have a range of contracts. Sometimes we access the wholesale market on the day. We announced earlier this year that we had entered into a gas storage arrangement in western Victoria. So I think the simple answer is that it’s a portfolio approach.

Senator ROBERTS: Who owns the storage facility in Victoria?

Mr Barnes: It is owned by a company called Lochard Energy.

Senator ROBERTS: Above ground energy?

Mr Barnes: It’s underground storage. The Iona Gas Storage Facility, I think is the name of the facility.

Senator ROBERTS: So it’s rock. It is not lined?

Mr Barnes: No, it’s an old geological storage cavern.

Senator ROBERTS: The Newcastle Herald reported on the Albanese government commitment of $7 million on top of the current $950 million construction cost to allow the plant to run on a blend of hydrogen and gas. How far advanced is the hydrogen component at Kurri?

Mr Barnes: We have now had confirmation of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries that with some notification, we can run at 30 per cent hydrogen.

Senator ROBERTS: How far advanced is the hydrogen component of the Kurri plant?

Mr Barnes: We have proven technically with our equipment provider and with some modification, which we have not yet committed to, that would enable us to run 30 per cent hydrogen.

Senator ROBERTS: Any idea of the completion date?

Mr Barnes: We are not currently executing that project.

Senator ROBERTS: So where is the—you are not executing the project on hydrogen?

Mr Barnes: No. We know it is technically capable.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s the end of it for now.

Mr Barnes: For now, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Where would the gas come from? Mitsubishi?

Mr Barnes: Mitsubishi are the turbine manufacturer. The question of hydrogen supply we haven’t assessed.

Senator ROBERTS: Any idea at all? Because hydrogen is very expensive to produce, as I understand it.

Mr Barnes: Yes. We haven’t assessed that.

Senator ROBERTS: You haven’t assessed the cost?

Mr Barnes: No.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you so much, Chair.

/0 Comments/by

Australia’s $8 Billion Climate Commitment

,

COP29 has recently concluded. As part of the agreement, Australia has committed $8 billion towards “climate change” measures in developing countries, including India. I asked the Minister, after 29 years of action to “fight climate change,” how much world temperatures had dropped. The answer was predictable waffle. The truth is, “climate change measures” are not designed to succeed; they can’t—humans can’t control the climate. These measures are designed to transfer wealth from everyday citizens to the predatory billionaires behind this scam.

Watch as the Minister waffles on, unable to answer my simple questions about this appalling waste of taxpayers’ money.

Transcripts

Question Time

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator McAllister, and is regarding the United Nations Conference of the Parties, COP29. Minister, COP29 marks 29 years of climate action. After 29 years, it must be starting to work. As a result of the measures implemented via COP agreements, how much have world temperatures been reduced? 

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Minister for Emergency Management and Minister for Cities) (14:28): We should acknowledge that, in asking this question, Senator Roberts of course starts from the premise that climate change is not real, is not caused by humans and is not a problem that requires us to deal with it in any way. These are the positions he has put repeatedly— 

The PRESIDENT: Minister McAllister, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts, please go ahead. 

Senator Roberts: I don’t need a dissertation on myself; I’m asking about temperatures. 

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Roberts. I’ll listen to the minister’s answers, but she has been answering your question. 

Senator McALLISTER: As I was saying, the starting point for Senator Roberts’s question, as he has made very clear over his long period in this place, is that he does not believe in the science of climate change, he does not believe that that science has been demonstrated and he does not believe that there needs to be— 

The PRESIDENT: Minister McAllister, please resume your seat. Senator Hanson. 

Senator Hanson: I question Senator McAllister’s response— 

The PRESIDENT: Is it a point of order? 

Senator Hanson: Yes, it is a point of order. She’s repudiating Senator Roberts’s character in her response— 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson, that is a debating point. Please resume your seat. 

Senator McALLISTER: It’s passing strange to be asked about the effectiveness of climate action because I don’t believe that Senator Roberts actually wishes it to be successful. 

However, I will say this. At COP28, the information that delegates received was that the projections had been for a four-degree increase in temperature and that that had been reduced to three degrees based on the actions that had been taken by states to date. Three-degree average global warming is actually a very troubling number. It offers very disturbing consequences for many Australians, including Australians in your home state, Senator Roberts. There is a heatwave warning in place today for the peninsula region of Queensland, and there are flooding warnings in Queensland. All of the advice before us suggests that the extreme weather events that Queenslanders are exposed to are only going to increase as a consequence of a warming climate. 

It is in Australia’s interests for there to be effective global action to contain warming. That’s why we are— (Time expired) 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 

The minister seems unaware that Queensland had bigger floods in the 19th century. How many people did the Australian government send to UN’s COP29? For clarity—just those your government paid for and the cost of that all up, please, including travel, accommodation, wages and expenses. 

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Minister for Emergency Management and Minister for Cities) (14:31): As I think the senator will know from when previous questions of this kind have been asked at estimates, the complete costs associated with travel to events such as these, multilateral forums, generally are not available until sometime after the travel has been completed. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

The communique from COP29, released overnight, announced that developed nations will ramp up annual payments to be paying $300 billion annually by 2035, supposedly to meet the costs of transitioning developing nations, including India, with payment being a combination of public and private money, loans and grants. Media reports suggest Australia’s share is $8 billion. I don’t see a government statement to that effect. Minister, how much taxpayer money will be sent overseas as grants to discharge our obligation under the agreement made at COP29? 

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Minister for Emergency Management and Minister for Cities) (14:32): Australia does welcome the outcome at COP29, in Baku, to agree a new finance goal to support developing countries. This goal was incredibly hard fought. It is not everything that everyone wanted. In fact, people wanted a range of outcomes, and there was, as there always is in such forums, a compromise. But it is an important step to support emissions reduction and development goals around the world. 

We are proud be to be back as a constructive actor on the world stage. It safeguards our national security. Our goal is to accelerate our transformation— 

Honourable senators interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Order! Minister McAllister, please resume your seat. Order! Order! 

Senator Canavan interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Canavan, I’ve called order three times. I’ve called you to order, and you’ve completely ignored me. Your interjections have completely drowned out the minister. Listen in silence, or I invite you to leave the chamber. Minister McAllister, please continue. 

Senator McALLISTER: As I’ve frequently said to Senator Roberts and others in this chamber, it is in our interests as a nation for there to be effective action to limit global warming. I will say we are now cleaning up the mess left that was left by 10 years of the Liberals and Nationals making a mockery of our— (Time expired) 

Take Note

I move: 

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy (Senator McAllister) to a question without notice I asked today relating to COP29. 

Three-nil! I asked three questions and got nil specific answers. For 29 years, the United Nations has convened a conference of parties on climate change to counter the manufactured threat of global warming, climate change, climate disruption, global boiling, net zero and many other rebrandings. For 29 years, taxpayers’ money has been wasted on this pointless to solve a fake problem and failed to change world temperatures. Many in this chamber think that giving money to the United Nations will enable us to affect world temperatures, yet we can’t because temperatures are the result of factors not in our control. 

COP29 focused heavily on finance. Rich countries, which are overwhelmingly blamed for natural climate variation, agreed in 2009 to ramp up annual payments to provide $100 billion a year in 2020 to developing countries. That pledge was met in 2022—two years past the deadline. At Baku, the United Nations came up with a new number, meaning more Australian taxpayer money would be spent overseas to fight this concocted problem. The new deal agreed on yesterday requires wealthy countries, including the US, European nations and Australia, to ramp up payments to $300 billion annually in 2035. So I asked the minister: what’s Australia’s share? The minister didn’t know. If we paid based on the UN formula, Australia would be paying $6 billion every year—money sent overseas and never seen again, reducing Australia’s gross domestic product and with that the standard of living for all Australians. Worse, the agreement refers to a wider ambition to increase payments to developing nations up to $1.3 trillion—annually, I believe. Developing nations include China, India, Egypt—all modern, vibrant economies. Worse, these nations have no formal obligation to cut their output of carbon dioxide gas or to provide financial help to poorer countries. One Nation will withdraw from the UN climate agencies and UN imposts that are really income redistribution, communism disguised as climatism. One Nation will stop the UN theft. 

Question agreed to. 

/7 Comments/by

Net Zero Hypocrisy: Nullarbor’s Fragile Ecosystem at Risk

,

Net zero is vandalising our natural environment. The latest proposal will cover two million hectares of fragile ecosystem along the Nullarbor Plain with industrial wind and solar. There was a time when environmentalists would have thrown themselves in front of the bulldozers; now they are driving the bulldozers!  Australia has had enough of this hypocrisy and obscene, dishonest devastation.

Industrial solar and wind subsidies will be redirected to fund the removal and remediation of wind, solar, and transmission lines, which is inevitable once the climate profiteers realise the jig is up and shoot through, leaving their rusting industrial waste to dump toxic chemicals into the landscape.

A One Nation government will cancel the net zero transition and withdraw from the Paris Agreement. If people in cities want solar and wind, let them have it. We would retrofit coal-fired power stations with capture and conversion devices, turning nature’s trace gas—essential to all life, carbon dioxide—into fertiliser, ethanol, and AdBlue, products that will grow Australia.

Climate carpetbaggers are ripping Australia off, and it has to stop.

Transcript

The net zero transition is not driven in accordance with science and commonsense nor is it the truth. Its ideologically driven and uses cherry-picked numbers. It cancels academics who disagree with it, enabling a parasitic and a dishonest solar and wind lobby to transfer hundreds of billion dollars from everyday Australians into the lobbyists” pockets. Meanwhile, communist China pretends it is inviting net zero while expanding coal-fired power plants, growing wealth on the back of cheap power. This is taking investment, investment and wealth from everyday Australians. Net zero will cost Australia to 2050 around $1.5 trillion, after which the parasites will continue the process of replacing short-lived weather-dependent generation. 

Net zero is vandalising our natural environment. The latest proposal will cover two million hectares of fragile ecosystem along the Nullarbor Plain with industrial wind and solar. There was a time when environmentalists would have thrown themselves in front of the bulldozers; now they are driving the bulldozers! Australia has had enough of this hypocrisy and obscene, dishonest devastation. A One Nation government will cancel the net zero transition and withdraw from the Paris Agreement. If people in cities want solar and wind, let them have it. We would retrofit coal-fired power stations with capture and conversion devices, turning nature’s trace gas—essential to all life, carbon dioxide—into fertiliser, ethanol and AdBlue, products that will grow Australia. 

Industrial solar and wind subsidies will be redirected to fund the removal and remediation of wind, solar and transmission lines, which is inevitable once the climate profiteers realise the jig is up and shoot through, leaving their broken monstrosities behind. One Nation will close down the department of climate change and the related web of agencies that funnel taxpayer money into a web of foreign corporations, parasitic Australian billionaires, compliant academia, government departments and agencies—dishonest government departments. One Nation offers Australia a clear choice: vote for the Liberal-Labor-Greens-Teals uniparty and continue our descent into poverty, or vote One Nation and restore the economic powerhouse that Australia once was.  

/4 Comments/by

Defending Agriculture Against Net Zero’s Harmful Agenda

,

The UK recently completed a trial of a carbon credit system that sets a daily allowance for each person—in effect, a limit on your ability to purchase food, clothing, goods, and travel as you have always done. The limit has been set at 20kg of carbon emissions per day, with food restricted to 2600g. Food manufacturers are cooperating by adding a carbon statement on their packaging to inform consumers how much of their allowance each product consumes. For example, a packet of cheese accounts for 1100g—almost half of your daily carbon allowance. Different foods have varying carbon rates. Root vegetables like potatoes and carrots are relatively low, while red meat incurs the highest charge – so high, in fact, that if you were to spend your entire daily food carbon allowance on red meat, it would buy you 30g of steak—just one mouthful.

You may recall I mentioned this in a speech some time ago and was fact-checked. Well, fact-check this! Net zero is supported by the Liberal Party, the Labor Party, and the Nationals. Only One Nation stands firm in defending our agricultural sector from this insane push to control the food supply and hollow out the bush.

Transcript

The UK has just concluded a trial of a personal carbon dioxide allowance which, as the name implies, calculates how much carbon dioxide is produced annually in the UK, then divides that per person per day and then works out by how much that figure needs to fall in order to meet net zero goals. We have the white paper in my office that informed the trial. The whole concept of a daily carbon dioxide allowance is now out there for all to see—conspiracy theory no more; I bloody told you so!

To anyone who is advised by data and empirical evidence, not mass formation psychosis, carbon dioxide is the gas of life, necessary for all life on earth. It’s plant food. The more CO2 produced, the more food, plants and trees the earth is blessed with. The climate change scam is not founded on science; it’s founded on feelings. It has become a religion for those who consider themselves above religion, and increasingly amongst those who could do with having some religion in their lives.

Australia’s agricultural sector and rural communities, and $100 billion of agricultural production and hundreds of thousands of jobs, are about to be sacrificed on the altar of climate fraud. It is driven by globalist politicians and directed by parasitic billionaires who will benefit from this criminal enterprise—including Coca-Cola, who sponsored the trial. Coca-Cola is the world’s largest producer of plastic, with 120 billion single-use plastic bottles each year holding their toxic sludge and producing 15 million tonnes of carbon dioxide—so their support for this white paper and trial is nothing short of greenwashing. Coca-Cola’s leading shareholders are Warren Buffett, of Berkshire Hathaway, as well as BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street. These wealth funds invest on behalf of the world’s predatory billionaires who will profit from a carbon dioxide allowance. This is in the open following the admission last week by British Prime Minister Starmer that farmland being stolen from British farmers via taxation extortion will be purchased by corporate partners, including BlackRock. I wonder if this is what Prime Minister Albanese spoke about in his recent meeting with BlackRock CEO Larry Fink.

What is the future for Australian food producers under this crony capitalist dystopian agenda headed our way? Red meat is top of the hit list. The methane cycle means cows do not produce methane in a way that remains in the atmosphere; I’ll return to that point in a minute. Nonetheless, this trial used the figure for red meat carbon dioxide production of 100 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent, which equals 100 grams of carbon dioxide for every one gram of meat. Quick maths means your daily food allowance of 2,600 grams of carbon dioxide will be enough to buy 26 grams of red meat—one mouthful—and then you eat nothing else that day.

I raised this years ago in this chamber when the World Economic Forum first called for a limit on red meat of 30 grams a day—another conspiracy theory that’s come true! A cooked breakfast will have to be half the size to squeeze into your daily allowance—again, with nothing left over for food for the rest of the day. Your daily allowance will cover two plant based meals a day because predatory billionaires like BlackRock and Bill Gates are buying up farmland to grow the cereals and soy needed for plant based meals. Not surprisingly, the whole thing is rigged towards the products they can exploit for their own financial gain—including plant based fake meat, which contains 20 chemical ingredients; most are shared with pet food. The nutrition profile is not even close to the nutrition profile of natural foods like red meat and dairy. Speaking of dairy: don’t wash your yummy plant burger down with a glass of milk, because you can’t. One glass of milk is your entire food budget for the day, with just enough left over for the coffee to go in it.

The hypocrisy here was on display to everyone at last week’s COP 29 meeting for the UN, in Baku, where the area dedicated to meat based foods was packed and the one dedicated to plant based foods was empty. The World Economic Forum at Davos has hosted speakers calling for this system to include carbon dioxide credit trading so rich people can live their lives exactly as they do right now and poor people can skimp on food, clothing, travel, electricity and entertainment and sell their excess credits to rich people. The rules never apply to the people who make them. The war on livestock is a war on good nutrition and is based on a lie which is designed to enrich billionaires. Over 150 nations signed the Global Methane Pledge without even bothering to check if the methane was man made. Methane from fossil fuels has a higher carbon-13 isotope ratio, and, even though hydrocarbon fuel use is rising, the carbon-13 levels of atmospheric methane are falling. Between 2020 and 2022, microbes in the environment drove methane emissions more than hydrocarbon fuels did. That’s a pretty big deal.

Methane has supposedly caused 30 per cent of our current temperature rise—say the broken climate models. Yet 90 per cent of that recent rise was nature’s microbes, not cattle. The Big Brother in every aspect of our lives is based on fake science of carbon dioxide and methane.

Personal Carbon Allowances White Paper – REPORTDownload
/3 Comments/by

The Climate Alphabet Soup

,

There are numerous government organisations dedicated to implementing United Nations climate policies, making life increasingly harder for Australians. It’s hard to keep track of them all. One such organisation is the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC). It incurs $537 million in annual expenses and has $7.3 billion of taxpayers money tied up in assets. The wage bill for their top 15 employees is $7.4 million a year.

Ian Learmonth, featured in this video and head of the CEFC, received a $614,000 bonus last year, taking his total remuneration for the year to $1 million dollars or 1.7 times the salary of the Prime Minister.

It’s no surprise he didn’t want to disclose this when I asked.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: There’s an alphabet soup of agencies and government departments involved in the energy transition. As simply and as specifically as possible, what do you do at the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, what are your basic accountabilities and what are the unique qualities you bring?

Mr Learmonth: The object of the CEFC, as per the act, is to facilitate the flows of capital funds into the clean energy sector and to deliver on the government’s climate targets. We’re using a significant amount of capital deployed out there in the Australian economy, effectively, to decarbonise Australia. That’s really what we’re doing. We have 165 people, most of whom are very skilled at going out into the marketplace and finding places that we can use this catalytic capital to drive emissions reduction.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the total wage bill for all employees? Do you have any casuals and contractors or are they all full-time permanents?

Mr Learmonth: We just tabled our annual report that has all that information in there. If you’d like any further details that aren’t obvious or available in the annual report, I’m very happy to take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: There have been no changes since the annual report was released?

Mr Learmonth: No.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the total budget for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, including any grants or programs you administer?

Mr Learmonth: Do you mean over the forward estimates? What time period?

Senator ROBERTS: This current financial year and if you want to bring it into the forward estimates, that would be handy, too.

Mr Learmonth: Once again, I will take that on notice. It’s probably best that we do it that way. My CFO might be able to dig that number up for you. We’ve certainly got what’s in the budget papers.

Senator ROBERTS: Just getting in the chairperson’s good books, last question: what is the total salary package of everyone at the desk here who is attending right now?

Mr Learmonth: Once again, it is in the annual report. Certainly, Andrew and I are explicitly there on page 215 of the annual report. If you’d like any further information about that, we can follow up.

Senator ROBERTS: Why the reluctance not to share it?

Mr Learmonth: It’s there and there’s a whole raft of different short-term incentives.

Senator ROBERTS: If it doesn’t meet our needs, we can send a letter to you and get the details? Is that right?

Mr Learmonth: I would be positioning it the other way. If there’s anything that’s not in that public document around the remuneration of the CFO and myself, we could provide it to you on notice.

2023-24 Annual ReportDownload

/2 Comments/by

Public Service Not Impartial on Net-Zero Policies

,

The Australian Public Service Commissioner (APSC) is tasked with ensuring our bureaucrats are kept in line and are living up to the standards expected by the Australian public.  One of those standards is impartiality.

I raised the issue that government organisations appear to be offering support or endorsement of net-zero policies, rather than simply providing comments on what would be required to implement them.

The APSC doesn’t appear to view this as a problem, based on their responses.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. I’ve only got two short questions. There seems to still be an abundance of public servants, agencies and departments making submissions outlining explicit support for net zero policies. We visited this before, but I’m still unclear about how that meets the Public Service standard of impartiality. Shouldn’t those submissions not endorse government policy and only talk about the mechanics of implementing it?

Dr de Brouwer: I think it’s also the obligation of public servants to implement government policy, and I’d be reading from what you’re saying around that characterisation that the public servants are implementing government policy, and they’re talking about how to go about that implementation.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s my point there. They’re endorsing policies. I can accept that they can discuss the mechanics of implementation, as I said, but not the endorsement of policy.

Dr de Brouwer: I would have to see the material to make any comment on that. Essentially, it is their responsibility to explain that.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll go to the second question. I’m interested in when a submission might specifically say, for example, ‘This department supports the implementation of net zero.’ Net zero is a government policy, so I’m still struggling to understand how supporting or opposing a particular government policy meets the standards of impartiality.

Dr de Brouwer: I think you really need to ask that to them, Senator. With my familiarity with cabinet documents, I’ll say that it may be that they’re talking about a particular implementation pathway, and they can see that implementation path as being feasible and practical, and they’re saying, ‘Yes, we can do that.’ The term that officials may use in that is to say, ‘I support that,’ because they can do that, rather than they necessarily agree—

Senator ROBERTS: I can see some merit in what you’re saying, but, as I said, I’m interested in when a submission might specifically say, ‘This department supports the implementation of net zero.’ They’re basically saying the whole department supports net zero.

Dr Bacon: It’s hard to tell in the abstract without seeing the context of what you’re quoting from, but I do wonder if they meant ‘support’ in the sense of deploying resources, expertise, personnel to implement the government of the day’s policy. When we talk about implementation, as Dr de Brouwer said, sometimes we, in a public service setting, use the word ‘support’ to talk about the deployment of personnel, expertise and resources.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, but do you still agree that public servants should not express their opinion about a policy, just the implementation of it?

Dr Bacon: The job of public servants is to implement the policies of the government of the day, and also we have a role in explaining the policies of the government of the day as well. The Australian Public Service Commission has guidance that we issue that steps out how those judgements ought to be made about when it is appropriate for public servants to comment, how public servants might comment and how the code of conduct and the values that are set out in the Public Service Act apply in different circumstances. It is something that is difficult to comment on in the abstract, because it’s a judgement on a case-by-case basis—that’s what our guidance says—taking into account a range of factors that we recommend people apply. That draws on High Court case law, for example.

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t intend to take it to High Court.

Dr Bacon: Sure. These principles have been considered, and we’ve incorporated that into our guidance.

/2 Comments/by