MIL-OSI Export

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rusty Langdon, Senior Research Consultant, Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney

More than 60% of battery system installation work inspected under a federal government green energy program is substandard and 1.2% unsafe, according to a recent report by the Clean Energy Regulator.

The Cheaper Home Batteries Program has proved hugely popular. More than a quarter of a million small-scale battery systems have now been installed under it. This equates to 7.7 gigawatt hours of installed storage capacity.

Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, says this “means less pressure at peak times, more reliability, and a cleaner, more affordable energy system”.

But the installation compliance and safety problems highlighted by the regulator’s report risk not only battery storage growth and the credibility of the scheme, but also public safety.

Substandard and unsafe installations

The Cheaper Home Batteries Program provides a discount of about 30% of the cost of an installed battery. The program is designed to accelerate the move away from fossil fuels, with energy storage critical for reducing reliance on fossil fuel generation during evening peaks.

Recent amendments to the scheme design will address issues that have blown out the cost from original estimates of A$2.3 billion to A$7.2 billion.

Between July 2025 and April 2026, the Clean Energy Regulator carried out 1,278 compliance inspections on battery systems installed under the program.

Some 60.8% of inspected system installations were found to be “substandard” and 1.2% of installs were found to be “unsafe”. The problems weren’t about the batteries themselves, but the way they had been installed.

The sample size in the regulator’s report is small – 0.5% of the total number of systems installed.

With such a small sample size, it is hard to extrapolate the level of installation non-compliance across all systems in Australia. But if similar trends continue in inspections over a larger sample size, there could be approximately 3,000 battery installs that are unsafe and a further 152,000 that are non-compliant.

From incorrect labelling to exposed wiring

Most non-compliance issues related to incorrect labelling.

Issues include missing or incorrect warning labels, unlabelled backup circuits, and missing or incorrectly positioned energy storage (ES) labels. These issues are comparatively low risk relative to issues such as loose wiring, exposed wiring, and substandard electrical work that could lead to overloading, poor battery performance or fires.

Wiring requirements for batteries are not all equal. Some battery systems come pre-assembled with all wiring and electronic equipment integrated into the battery enclosure. This reduces the electrical work required to install.

Other systems are not as integrated. They require additional wiring by the electrician to connect, and can be more challenging to install without experience. These were the systems where installations were deemed unsafe by the regulator, with reported issues such as loose connections and substandard wiring practices that pose an imminent risk.

Exposed wiring is also a common issue that needs to be addressed as a priority. If wiring is not enclosed, it can be damaged and increase the risk of a severe electric shock if touched. The independent solar energy website, SolarQuotes, highlights the exposed wiring issue well, showcasing several installations with non-compliant wiring.

For batteries, no amount of exposed cable is compliant. Cables need to be protected from mechanical damage for the full cable run, using electrical conduit or metal ducting.

Alarmingly, reports from experts in the field indicate that only 10% of installers are following these wiring practices correctly.

A quick scroll of social media groups that rate battery installation jobs visually confirms the issues. Posts of substandard installations show exposed cables, batteries placed in full sun, delicately anchored to a wall with standard masonry wall plugs or supported with loose bits of timber and pavers.

In February the Clean Energy Regulator said it was ramping up inspections of solar battery installations as part of the Cheaper Home Batteries Program.

“I’m putting installers on notice that unsafe and non-compliant work will be identified, and we won’t hesitate to use our compliance powers,” CER Executive General Manager, Carl Binning, said.

Battery installations are complex

Well-intentioned schemes have previously been compromised by bad actors – referred to as “rebate chasers”.

The regulator sets rules limiting the number of battery installations that can be completed in one day. This is aimed at reducing the likelihood of this type of accreditation misuse.

Battery installations are complex, so there are likely to be a range of reasons why non-compliance is emerging.

Conversations colleagues and I have had with electricians operating in the industry highlight just how stretched they are trying to keep up with demand. The shortage of electricians nationally is a well-known issue exacerbating the pressure placed on current trades trying to deal with the volume of work available.

The sheer scale of demand pushes skilled trades to work to their limits. This is bound to result in things falling through the cracks in some cases.

In instances of fraud, negligence or repeat non-compliance, the Clean Energy Regulator has indicated the use of strong enforcement action. This includes stripping accreditation where necessary.

In the case where repeat non-compliance highlights gaps in knowledge across the industry, the regulator has signalled an intention to fill knowledge gaps with mandatory training.

Finding accredited installers

There is a well-defined accreditation pathway for battery installers that should be reviewed by accrediting body Solar Accreditation Australia, considering the issues identified.

In the meantime, consumers can arm themselves with the knowledge to avoid being caught out. They can reduce the risk of a non-compliant or unsafe install by engaging an accredited installer that has been pre-vetted.

Ask quoting installers for images of previous installations. A neat and tidy installation, without exposed cabling, can be a good marker for compliant installation practices.

And if you have the time and technical aptitude, familiarise yourself with the Clean Energy Regulator’s Solar Battery Inspections Checklist.

– ref. More than 60% of home battery installations inspected in Australia are ‘substandard’ – https://theconversation.com/more-than-60-of-home-battery-installations-inspected-in-australia-are-substandard-280449

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/17/more-than-60-of-home-battery-installations-inspected-in-australia-are-substandard-280449/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marika Sosnowski, Senior research fellow, The University of Melbourne

After weeks of bombardments in southern Lebanon that have killed more than 2,000 people and displaced more than one million residents, Israel has announced a ten-day ceasefire with Lebanon.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, however, vowed to keep Israeli troops in southern Lebanon to create a ten-kilometre “security zone”, raising immediate questions about whether the ceasefire would actually stop Israeli attacks against Hezbollah.

After a previous ceasefire in late 2024 ended 13 months of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah, Israeli troops continued to launch airstrikes and carry out targeted killings of Hezbollah fighters.

People like to bound events such as wars with tidy dates and years. It makes them easier to understand and entertains the fantasy that historic events are neat, with understandable beginnings, middles and eventual ends.

But in reality, the messiness and complexities of war rarely hold to these manmade boundaries.

Instead, even after a ceasefire or a peace agreement is in place, many dynamics of war continue. This is the paradox of such agreements: they might end one phase of a conflict, but they inevitably usher in another.

The good and bad of ceasefires

Take Israel’s war in Gaza as an example.

The war came to an end after Israel and Hamas signed the Gaza Peace Plan, a 20-point deal brokered by the Trump administration, in October 2025.

The terms are relatively broad, vague and aspirational. But the deal has had many benefits. The ceasefire decreased Israel’s bombardments of Gaza. The remaining Israeli hostages captured on October 7 2023 were swapped with Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails. Somewhat more aid now enters the strip than during the war.

However, the agreement also created other negative dynamics and enabled many problems caused by the war to continue.

For example, after the deal was signed, the public and media attention shifted away from the violence continuing to be committed by Israel to other events. This has meant that in the wake of the peace deal, near-daily Israeli attacks have continued, but with much less scrutiny. Israeli-supported violence against Palestinians in the West Bank has also escalated.

Humanitarian aid entry into the Gaza Strip also remains vastly below the levels delineated by the peace agreement. And serious discussions about the future governance or development of Gaza – mandated under the peace plan in multiple points – remain uncertain amid the noise of other wars and global events.

We can see similar dynamics in Iran, barely a week after another vaguely worded ceasefire agreement was signed between the US and the Iranian regime.

It appears the regime has taken the opportunity provided by a two-week “peace” to crack down on internal dissent. And in what appears to be an attempt to enhance its negotiating position for future peace talks, the Trump administration has launched a naval blockade of Iranian ports.

The short-term truce between Lebanon and Israel might offer Lebanese civilians some level of reprieve. However, it may also provide Israel with a quiet week away from the media spotlight to reinforce its military occupation of southern Lebanon.

To create Israel’s security zone, Defence Minister Israel Katz said the military would demolish buildings in Lebanese towns near the border and prevent displaced Lebanese from returning to their homes. Netanyahu made clear Israeli troops would remain.

This can all be more easily accomplished with a ceasefire deal in place.

Short attention spans

Globally, dozens of countries are currently experiencing armed conflict. Many people scan the news regularly as a way of keeping informed and bearing witness to the dynamics of these wars, casualty figures and how they might potentially end.

This glorified horror plays into our current “headline culture”, which tends to encourage clickbait, sensationalised content and virality. It also means public attention on a particular conflict is not necessarily driven by the scale of suffering, but by media coverage. Because of digital media, we have now a proximate and persistent view of human suffering and death that does not always translate into ongoing attention and action.

Whether parties to a conflict will reach a ceasefire or peace agreement is certainly worthwhile and important news. However, once a deal is signed, media and public attention often shifts to other more “active” (and also worthy) conflicts. There is currently no shortage of wars to choose from.

Because we believe a conflict has “ended” with a deal, what comes after the ceasefire or peace agreement tends to remain obfuscated or under-reported.

The peace agreement paradox

Ceasefires and peace agreements are certainly not always a harbinger of peace or a neat full-stop to a war story.

Arguably, the parties to these deals are increasingly aware of the “peace” agreement paradox and are making their political and military calculations accordingly.

If we truly want to grapple with what war and peace directly entails for millions of people in an increasingly complex and volatile world, we need to broaden our understanding about what we mean by ceasefires and peace agreements – and keep up a level of scrutiny long after the deals are signed.

– ref. Israel and Lebanon have signed a ceasefire. But this isn’t a tidy end to a war and attention moves on quickly – https://theconversation.com/israel-and-lebanon-have-signed-a-ceasefire-but-this-isnt-a-tidy-end-to-a-war-and-attention-moves-on-quickly-280816

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/17/israel-and-lebanon-have-signed-a-ceasefire-but-this-isnt-a-tidy-end-to-a-war-and-attention-moves-on-quickly-280816/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marta Khomyn, Senior Lecturer, Finance and Data Analytics, Adelaide University

Elon Musk’s space exploration company SpaceX has filed confidential papers ahead of a planned public company listing on the US NASDAQ stock exchange.

The initial public offering (IPO) for the company controlled by the world’s richest man is targeting a total valuation of US$2 trillion. Musk plans to list only a small fraction of the company to raise US$75 billion from public investors, which would still make it the largest IPO in history.

So, why is SpaceX planning to go public? And what does the IPO mean for investors who might want a tiny slice of the action?

The backstory

SpaceX says it aims to “make humanity multiplanetary”. You would expect no less from Musk, who founded SpaceX in 2002.

His company’s breakthrough was to re-use as much of the rocket and launcher vehicle as possible. This slashed launch costs to as little as 5% of the costs in the early 2000s, and turned commercial space flight from science fiction into reality. The company says it has now completed about 600 successful rocket landings.

Yet, for all its space ambitions, SpaceX still derives 50–80% of its revenue from Starlink, a communications business, which provides satellite internet to over 10 million users around the world.

In February 2026, SpaceX merged with xAI, the loss-making AI company behind the Grok chatbot, in what was the largest private merger transaction on record. The deal valued xAI at US$250 billion and SpaceX at US$1 trillion, creating a combined entity worth US$1.25 trillion.

The merger has helped to set the stage for the SpaceX IPO.

Musk suggested the IPO proceeds will be used for launching up to one million data centre satellites into space. The idea is that space-based data centres would be powered by abundant solar energy, and therefore bypass the constraints of electricity and water usage on Earth.

Bending the rules for the IPO

SpaceX may be the first of three mega-IPOs this year, ahead of potential listings of AI companies Anthropic and OpenAI.

If it goes ahead with plans to raise US$75 billion, that would represent just 3.75% of the company’s total value. It means the vast majority of SpaceX would remain in private hands, owned by Musk himself and a handful of early private investors. In stock market terms, this is called a low “free float”.

Normally, companies that only list such a small percentage of their total value would not qualify for inclusion in major stock market indices like the S&P 500 or the NASDAQ 100.

The NASDAQ normally requires at least a 10% free float of shares in a given company. But to allow a potential listing of SpaceX to be included in the index, the exchange has introduced a special adjustment to the weighting of shares and removed the 10% minimum.

NASDAQ also reduced the normal “seasoning period” before a newly listed company can join the index from three months to just 15 trading days. Again, this is to accommodate the SpaceX listing.

For investors in passive funds, including exchange-trade funds (ETFs), this matters a lot. Currently, more than US$600 billion of investors’ money is with passive funds that track the NASDAQ 100 index. As soon as SpaceX joins the index, these investors will automatically be buying in. The concern is that allowing giant companies such as SpaceX to enter the index too quickly could lead to big price swings, which would expose millions of investors to high volatility.

SpaceX wants investors to value it at US$2 trillion, but it only earned US$15 billion in revenue last year. At that rate, it would take 133 years of revenue just to match its current asking price.

Tesla, one of the most expensive stocks in the world, would take just 13 years — making SpaceX’s price tag ten times higher.

Other leading market indices, such as S&P 500 and FTSE Russell, are also bending their rules to fast-track the inclusion of very large, newly listed companies.

Many more investors have their money in funds that track S&P indices compared to Nasdaq 100 – more than US$16 trillion in passive funds track the S&P. If the S&P 500 follows NASDAQ’s lead and changes its own rules to accommodate SpaceX, the wave of automatic buying would be even larger.

What does this mean for investors?

Musk’s companies have long been the darlings of non-professional, retail investors, and SpaceX would be no exception. In fact, the company said it aims to sell up to 30% of its shares to non-institutional, individual investors.

With SpaceX’s sky-high valuation, investors need to stop and think before buying in. But when powerful companies can rewrite the rules in their own favour, thinking carefully becomes a luxury. Markets only work when everyone plays by the same rules, and right now, not everyone is.

– ref. Musk’s SpaceX is shaping up as the biggest IPO on record. It’s also bending the rules to do so – https://theconversation.com/musks-spacex-is-shaping-up-as-the-biggest-ipo-on-record-its-also-bending-the-rules-to-do-so-280271

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/17/musks-spacex-is-shaping-up-as-the-biggest-ipo-on-record-its-also-bending-the-rules-to-do-so-280271/