Category — Australia

Pine Bluff is Trinity Grammar School’s outdoor education campus in NSW. It is situated on the Abercrombie River some 75kms from Crookwell. The outdoor campus consists of various freestanding buildings including a lodge, dormitory buildings, cottages, classrooms, a shed and a storeroom. In the summer groups of students attend the campus and participate in camping, bush walking and other similar activities.

Being in a remote environment a standalone power system is required.  Around 2001, the site had a remote hybrid system installed. That system included 12 kW of solar panels designed to supply power to the facility during the day. The system also utilized a 210kWh battery bank along with a 50kVA inverter system.

OPS carried out a site assessment and found that the battery bank had exceeded its useful lifetime. Also, a number of other maintenance tasks were needed to bring the system back to a satisfactory level of performance. OPS was employed to upgrade the existing system. This included a complete system upgrade of the original inverter to a new DSP controlled hybrid power conditioner including a SCADA remote monitoring package. The aging battery bank was completely replaced with 40 x 6V, 875 Ah batteries, and an MPPT solar regulator was integrated into the DSP control to ensure maximum yield of the solar energy.

The system upgrade was carried out in October and November 2009. It is now fully operational in its self-managed “automatic” mode and has been contributing significant amounts of solar energy to the peak summer load of the facility.  The system does this with the assistance of the 2 diesel generators on site and these are also controlled by the HPC unit.

Optimal Power Solutions is excited to announce its standard product line of DSP-based power inverters for 2010. Highly reputed for their reliability and efficiency, OPS inverters have been used extensively across a range of applications, from remote micro-grids to megawatt-scale solar farms.

The OPS Product Range 2010 Brochure, now available through our website, details standard inverter models in the following product lines:

· Hybrid Power Conditioners (HPC product line)

An integrated power conversion and management solution for off-grid applications. 7.5kW to 250kW.

· Grid Support Conditioners (GSC product line)

Designed as a distributed generation system for grid connected applications with unreliable utility supply. 7.5kW to 250kW.

· Grid Export Conditioners (GEC product line)

A unique grid connect inverter featuring fast and efficient MPPT. 7.5kW to 500kW.

The OPS Product Range 2010 Brochure is now available through the download section of our website. For sales enquiries, please contact your closest OPS office or email info@optimal-power-solutions.com

Click the above image to download The OPS Product Range 2010 Brochure

It is of interest to note that the new Western Australia Premier, Mr Colin Barnett has lifted bans on uranium mining in the state. Mr Barnett has been well known for declaring that WA’s competitive advantage lies in primary production, ie mining and agriculture. 

As an aside, most developing countries are often characterised in terms of their reliance on primary production, as being a major portion of GDP. The rich state of Western Australia itself has often been characterized as either a farm in a quarry or a quarry on a farm. 

Clearly Colin can see that uranium mining is regaining a shine after twenty years of some neglect. Interest is growing in its use for nuclear power, partly from security considerations, partly concern over oil price hikes and even perhaps as part of the world’s growing demand for forms of electricity generation that may address climate change. 

The president of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, Ziggy Switkowski, says there has already been a shift in perception on the issue of nuclear power, with about half of the Australian population now open to the idea. Dr Switkowski has told ABC2′s News Breakfast the WA Government’s decision to lift a ban on uranium mining is another step in the right direction.

Nuclear energy has also struggled under the shadow of other crucial issues such as the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons and the safe disposal of spent nuclear fuel. This quick overview puts these serious matters aside for the time being to focus on the actual energy potential of the resource

World Supplies of Uranium.

Mr Barnett is obviously attracted by the idea that Australia, with WA as an important mining state, holds a significant portion of the worlds naturally occurring and recoverable uranium. Towards five million tons are considered to constitute this resource. Australia has about one million tons (around 24 percent of the world’s known supply), Kazakhstan runs second, with over 800,000 tons. Canada’s supplies are less than 10 percent of the total, while the United States and South Africa trail that figure, something over 5% each.

The World Nuclear Association, an advocate for the industry states on its website;

“From time to time concerns are raised that the known resources might be insufficient when judged as a multiple of present rate of use. But this is the Limits to Growth fallacy, a major intellectual blunder recycled from the 1970s, which takes no account of the very limited nature of the knowledge we have at any time of what is actually in the Earth’s crust. Our knowledge of geology is such that we can be confident that identified resources of metal minerals are a small fraction of what is there.”

Energy Watch Group, a German energy analyst / think tank logically comments that the grade of uranium ore is more important than the quantity of the resource. Obviously less pure resources will dictate a higher processing cost. Canada has about 20% of its ore above 1 percent. Australia’s resource has a grade of less than 0.06 percent for over 90% of the total. Much of Kazakhstan’s ore is less than 0.1 percent. 

Current World Demand

The World Nuclear Association has reported that demand has remained relatively steady for the last decade, mostly due to process efficiency improvements in reactor operation and demand is projected to grow “slightly” through and past 2010. Currently nuclear power meets about 6% of the world’s power generation needs hence any major inroad into the amount supplied by coal requires about an order of magnitude step up by the nuclear industry. 

New yet still theoretical designs of reactors could increase the utilization dramatically but such technologies face enormous R&D investments, trials and proving up before any commercial application would be possible. For example expert reports suggest that spent fuel can certainly be reprocessed for use in reactors but this is currently “much more costly” than just procuring new fuel.

Around a thousand reactors are now operating worldwide. These are about half constituted by utility power plants with others being research reactors, and military marine vessels. The world currently uses 65,000 to 70,000 tons of uranium a year. About 100 or so new reactors are in the pipeline, with about 25 being built and another seventy in design and planning. 

At current usage rates, this is equal to about sixty five years of supply. If nations around the world accelerate the use of nuclear power using existing technologies and no new cost effective sources become available then this timeframe will shrink rapidly. The world would run out of uranium very fast.

Unusual Markets

The uranium market underwent major changes from the 1980’s. As the cold war gave way enriched uranium was also transformed in a surprising manner. Some 15,000 warheads were scrapped. 500 tons of weapons grade uranium from the old USSR was diluted via blending processes and sold to the USA for power generation purposes. Under this “Megatons to Megawatts” project about 15,000 tons of power station fuel would be delivered to the USA. By 2006 some 50% of the material had been converted and shipped. This supply chain has some way to run yet but when complete the demand will turn to the mining sector.

According to the World Nuclear Association, these ex military materials supply about 50 percent of the USA’s reactor fuel needs or 13 percent of the world’s requirements. “The United States is dependent on Russia for about half of its nuclear energy. I don’t think a lot of Americans know that,” said Robert E. Ebel, a nuclear analyst at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies. To date the USA has paid Russia about $5 billion for this fuel.

But the Russians are not all that happy either. The United States then imposed a 116 percent “anti-dumping” duty on Russian exports of enriched uranium outside the Megatons to Megawatts program. In September 2007, a U.S. trade court ruled that Russian enrichment was a service, not a good, and sent the Russian case back to the U.S. Commerce Department for further review.

New Discoveries

According to the Brinkley Miners report (2004), the uranium mining industry had, by 2000, made no significant uranium discoveries in over a decade. Furthermore a series of events, including a fire at Australia’s Olympic Dam mine, major flooding in Canada’s Cigar Lake mine, gradual reductions in the availability of weapons-grade uranium and the need for further fuel contracts at power plants that had licenses extended were the main factors behind increases in global uranium prices. 

However, some reports and analysts suggest the uranium market is awkward to predict because many opaque deals are conducted by Governments. Also some experts worry that the lagging uranium industry, is in great need of more manpower and infrastructure upgrade causing endemic delays in any expansion of nuclear power. 

Thomas Neff, a nuclear energy expert at MIT’s Centre for International Studies said; 

“Just as large numbers of new reactors are being considered, we are only just realizing the degree of underinvestment in the nuclear industry capacity”.

The question is where will this investment come from? Most worldwide power utilities have been privatized and investors are reluctant to back long term high capital value projects with many political and social risk elements. 

By example, India – critically short of electric power and currently out of the world uranium market (due to its nuclear weapons program) – has shut down six of its seventeen reactors due to a shortage of nuclear fuel. The nuclear deal with the United States, that G W Bush tried to push through Congress would have helped India obtain more nuclear fuel, but this policy remains imperiled by domestic opposition in India.

Current Uranium Mining

Over half the world’s uranium-mining production comes from Australia, Kazakhstan, and Canada. Some commentators suggest that Kazakhstan is on track to becoming the largest producer of uranium in the world. This is mostly due to Russia taking a strategic sovereign state investment role in the sector. Although Australia has the largest supply by volume, a 1982 law limits uranium mining in the country under a restricted license arrangement. Recent increases in uranium prices have sparked debate in Australia, including a national review instigated by John Howard, headed by Mr Ziggy Switkowski, thus pitting the mining and pro nuclear advocates against environmentalists and indigenous activists.  Impediments in Australia, like elsewhere, include the need for specific industry infrastructure, vast capital and a lack of experienced workers.  

Because of the recent spike in uranium prices, some regions are seeing a boom in mining interest. Back in WA Colin Barnett is obviously following the trends and smells money. The US has also undergone a jump in site claims even though almost all of the nation’s identified reserves is of a lower quality with higher processing costs. It is reasonable to expect more global exploration as long as market prices remain high. 

Some U.S. miners have expressed concern about how the market might be affected by uranium released from enriched stockpiles held in various forms by the U.S. Energy Department. But Energy department officials under G W Bush have assured that the agency would “act responsibly” and not be a source of market price fluctuation.

Summary

With massive industry investment and higher prices given momentum by political  events and oil cost hikes, uranium mining will be a boon for a State like Western Australia, already one of the richest per capita states in the Western world. 

The worlds population is expected to peak around 10 billion by 2050. These people will want if not demand, a minimum amount of electricity each day. But in the absence of major technology breakthroughs in nuclear reactor design the current supply will all be over in about thirty to forty years.  (In one line, returning to one of the vexed issues of waste storage there is going to be a large quantity of highly toxic waster to be dealt with.)

But underneath it all, the total contribution to the worlds total and growing energy needs would most likely be around or less than today’s meagre contribution of about 5%. 

So much for a sustainable future.

With the recent international emphasis on the credit crisis and related issues such as slowing economic growth, interest rates, inflation and stock market routs it is not surprising that attention has turned away from climate change and sustainability.

However it also seems that Governments worldwide are turning to the same remedies for problems that may have significantly contributed to our current global woes. The USA experience of offering incentives and low cost finance for low income earners to own their own home is one such key driver.

So what is Australia doing . . .

On October the 14th 2008 Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, in a joint media release with Treasurer Wayne Swan and the Minister for Housing Jenny Macklin, announced a boost to the First Home Owner Grant program. The specifics of the release include:

First home buyers who purchase established homes will have their grant doubled from $7,000 to $14,000

First home buyers who purchase a newly constructed home will receive an extra $14,000 to take their grant to $21,000.

This boost is a component of a $10.4 billion (AUD) strategy to “strengthen the Australian economy during the global financial crisis.”

The press release points out that all newly-built homes will need to meet “relevant State and Territory energy efficiency and sustainability standards”, and that this strategy builds upon a previously announced $2.2 billion (AUD) of housing initiatives, which includes the building of 50,000 new and affordable rental properties.

So, what’s the problem here?

The issues with housing availability and affordability are indeed significant problems across Australia, and particularly in the coastal metropolitan areas. As an economic stimulus and measure to encourage real estate investment, this plan has some level of merit. Indeed, some political capital may also be derived from increasing a grant which in essence targets the young, the middle and lower classes, and ‘Howard’s battlers’. 

However, the implementation of this plan also seems to contradict the primary thrust of Rudd’s purported agenda of addressing climate change and sustainability as the primary issues facing Australia (and the world) today. Indeed, aspects of this boost seems to be absolutely contrary to a sensible approach to sustainability. Let’s unpack the issues arising from this plan in some degree of detail.

Sustainability and Suburbia

 Let’s start with some simple assumptions about patterns which might arise from such a policy.

• Those with a suitable income and cash flow, if possible, may attempt to purchase in inner city areas where housing and services are already established. No real issues here.
• Those with lesser incomes and cash flow, seeking to maximise the benefits of this grant boost, will look towards the outer suburban areas where 1) land is cheaper, and 2) houses may be built allowing access to the highest grant amount available ($21,000 AUD). 

It is this second assumption in particular which runs contrary to a fundamental understanding of sustainable development in modern cities. Let’s break this down further.

Suburbia is underpinned by cheap fossil fuels

The Government of Western Australia’s State of the Environment Report 2007, Human Settlements – Transport section, points out that in terms of Vehicle kilometres travelled per capita inner city residents travel about 25-27km per day while residents in outer areas such as Joondalup or Armadale travel an average distance of 36-37km per day [Indicator HS10]. In other words, residents in outer suburbia travel approximately 40% greater distances by car daily. It should also be taken into account that many households will include more than one vehicle traveller per household. 

This trend is correlated in other Australian cities. Western Sydney data is more extreme, where residents can travel 60% to 70% greater distances than inner city dwellers.

As services such as shops, educational facilities, and community facilities tend to be more widely distributed in outer suburban areas, it is no surprise that residents in inner city areas commute over much smaller distances (as services may be closer and within walking distance, and public transport infrastructure more mature). 

It seems nonsensical, considering the economic climate and future costs of fossil fuels such as petrol, that government policy encourages the poorest prospective home buyers to buy land and build homes in outer suburban areas where they will be most exposed to inevitably rising fuel and transportation costs.

Clearly the increase / decrease in CO2 emissions from all these extra “vehicle kilometres” needs to be incorporated into the inputs / outputs of such policy decisions taken by national Governments.

Further, the SOE 2007 Report referenced above outlines the following objective for reducing environmental impacts of transport

Reducing total vehicle kilometres travelled

and goes on to state that 

Expansion of the existing road network will further impact native vegetation, wetlands and contribute to isolation of many ecological communities and wildlife. 

The Federal Government’s plan to offer the maximum grant to home builders is contradictory to these aims, and will only exacerbate the environmental and economic issues arising from outer suburban vehicle travellers.

Services in Outer Suburbs

As mentioned above, it is almost always the case that services in outer suburbs are both less mature and more widely distributed than in inner city areas. Costs relating to basic infrastructure and energy distribution increase with distance, and emerging areas of habitation often require significant investment in such services, public transportation, and critical enabling services and technologies such as high speed broadband. The question must be asked: how much will it cost to provide new, basic services to the areas where land is cheap enough for the ‘battlers’ to build? 

Looking towards a better solution

We would suggest that a better solution for sustainable housing development would encourage an appropriate increase in inner city and inner suburban housing density. With pre-existing services, the costs of development in such areas would be significantly lower than outer suburban development.

Quarter-acre blocks in inner city areas may be rezoned and redeveloped, within reason, to allow an increase in density of up to 50% without affecting living standards or environmental quality. Less kilometres would need to be travelled, less services built, and existing services improved; councils would see an increase in ratepayers which would then be translated into even better community services. A greater sense of community should also develop out of such an approach to housing, resulting in benefits not only in terms of sustainable eco-friendly development but also in quality of living and service costs. As the ‘crunch’ of climate change becomes more severe, the implementation of newer, greener technologies in energy and transportation will become both cheaper and more easily implemented. 

The Australian Federal Government should adjust their policies to encourage current inner-city landowners to subdivide or redevelop in ways that will provide affordable (read: not luxury) housing, instead of a simplistic approach to encouraging home ownership. Policies such as this home owner grant boost take away from Australians, with one hand, what is offered with the other: a sustainable, green, and high living standard future.