Uravelling climate change politics: why nothing is happening now.

     

There are so many different views, each with a strong and valid message, that it becomes hard to understand what it is we need to do and how to do it.

Let’s have a look at the different camps, and the reason for the current state of paralysis will become clear.

• Climate change denialists – don’t want to change everything. Often highly sceptical of science and statistics. More likely to rely on rhetoric than numbers, and often ignorant of the scientific method. Their cause has received a lot more support since the revelation that there really hasn’t been much warming over the last 16 years; it was a really, really, really stupid tactic by the climate change science block to use smoke and mirrors to disguise this as the main outcome has been to give ammunition to the other side. Many of the supporters of this denialism and scepticism are conservative, which means don’t change it if it ain’t broke. They are denying that anything is broken. Some inroads at explaining the science to the masses are happening as we speak.
• The average person – tell me what it is we have to do, but don’t expect me to change my lifestyle or pay much more. The average person is indifferent to climate change (don’t berate me – go look at all those surveys on what people are most concerned about). The average person also doesn’t understand how the power industry works and will vote for a popular party with a position that will hurt their own wallets – then vote them out again later to save the pain on their wallets.
• Teenagers – understand that long term damage is being caused, and it will affect their future. However, teenagers don’t yet pay bills or have to work for a living (mostly anyway). Those from poorer families will have a stronger feeling for the cost of any measures that increase living costs. Many don’t and will happily push for costly measures because it feels right to them. The growing push by political parties to lower the voting age is an attempt to push their solutions on the average person by getting a majority vote through the use of teenagers who don’t yet understand the issues faced by the rest of society.
• The elderly – we don’t like the problems our generation caused, but please don’t increase the cost of living or ask me to buy new energy efficient appliances, we can’t afford them.
• Climate Change Scientists – there’s a problem, here’s the evidence, here’s the forecast, now change everything right now. Having convincingly shown there is a problem, they are now pushing for their own solutions, often in ignorance of how countries and economies work. They also need to get in the trenches and talk about the fundamentals of what is happening – however, unfortunately, a culture is in place whereby they are the font of all wisdom and we should do what they say. Climate change scientists should be talking to all sides.
• The solar industry – we have the answer, and anyone involved in fossil fuels is a satan worshipper who eats babies. The solar industry has a lot of sway as it has a solution that is implementable now. Yes, the prices are coming down, and yes, storage solutions are on the verge of being cost effective, however, there has almost never been a group of lobbyists as good at taking care of their own interests over that of society in the history of humanity. 
• The fossil fuel industry – ummmm….  We didn’t invent this stuff, and we aren’t forcing you to use our product. Find an alternative already and stop demonising us. Coal is used to make steel, electricity, plastic, fertiliser, food colouring and many other products. Oil and gas are used to run trucks, cars, planes, ships, etc. It is portable energy. It is also a major source of electricity. From one point of view, they are just providing what we all want and use. From the other end of the spectrum they are dirty drug dealer types forcing us all to be addicted to their product. 
• The developing world – we have pollution, poverty, health problems, lack of education, lack of industry and a small economy. Taking care of all those issues are our priority. There is a subset of the developing world who also vocally put it that the developed world created all these problems so they should be compensated.
• The developed world – whoops, we created this mess, but we don’t know how to get out of it. The pragmatic view is that we are here now, so where do we go in the future without having to give up our standard of living. The guilt ridden are willing to sacrifice the living standards of their own in order to repair the Earth and help the developing world. Since the global economy is slowing down, even the most ardent supporter of climate change action moderates their view when they actually get into government and realise they don't have enough money to support the changes they promised in the election campaign.
• Farmers – either we get too much rain or too little, help us out here. They are facing dramatic changes to their way of life. Some places will have a net benefit for a few decades, other places will lose out. People need to be more mobile, but that isn’t easy as they are tied (emotionally) to the land they already work.
• National politics – It is about doing something for the environment, but without penalising our country and slowing down economic growth. There is also a strong dose of nationalism when it comes to issues like water (as in, who takes what water from a river when it flows across borders). Remember, most wars are fought over access to resources (farmland, water and minerals), so we expect more of the same. The military in most countries are across this and influencing political agendas.
• Wildlife advocates – there are so many varieties here, ranging from those who wish to work with government and industry to those who would condemn humanity in the name of the environment, with a wonderful spectrum of views and coalitions in between. Many of these organisations ally themselves with the left side of politics and push agendas that involve everyone else putting up money for their solutions – this approach, while great for slogans, has mostly failed to change the indifference of the majority. 
• Business – just give us a set of rules and regulations to follow so we have some certainty on where to go. BUT, don’t go putting up our costs and making it harder to do business when our competitors in other countries or states don’t have those same costs. 
• Slacktivists – those who repost facebook pictures/slogans and emails to promote the cause. Studies have shown that those who do this feel they have done enough and in total do less for a cause than someone who actively tries to help. This is similar to the concept of conspicuous compassion – where people who wear badges for different causes have been shown to, on average, donate less than those who don’t. Unfortunately, these people can help provide the appearance of support for populist causes that are ineffective or costly.

I could go on, but let’s stop here and take stock.

If really pressed, most people would admit there is a problem, what we don’t know is how to fix it. There are so many genuine issues to be dealt with that we need genuine dialogue to come up with answers.

Within nations and internationally there is political disagreement on how to proceed, and I can’t help but feel that everyone is secretly hoping that there will be a technical answer to all their problems, but they don’t want to pay for it, or really even talk about it.

Note: I work as a project and energy economist with companies and governments on geosequestration,wind, geothermal, hydro, wave, transmission networks, coal seam gas, coal,and more. The views expressed in this blog are solely my own and do not represent the views of any organisation that I do work for.

Mythbusting the Pro-renewables Press

I am pro-renewables. I am pro-alternative energy. I enjoy helping commercialise alternative energy technologies. But, I am increasingly annoyed with and bored by the pro-renewables press.

I started the year with a resolve to be constructive, not critical, but I can’t bite my tongue any more.

Here are a few of my comments based on working in renewables for the last ten years (and in case you think I am siding with fossil fuels, don’t worry, I am an equal opportunity critic – I have plenty more for them too. Today it is your turn.)

Myth 1 – We can go 100% renewables today. Well, technically it might just be possible, but this fairy tale is about as sensible and feasible as giving all the unemployed a Ferrari each. Voters care about affordability even more than they do about doing the right thing. Mind you, I’d quit my day job for a Ferrari…. vroom, vroom.

Myth 2 – Time of day pricing is the answer. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit – I am calling you on this, it is simply a way of pumping up profits without changing the generation/transmission/distribution system.

A big part of the reason we have peak demand at the end of the day is that people come home from school and work, turn on the telly/computer etc., turn on the heater or air conditioner, start cooking dinner, etc.  In other words, all us naughty domestic consumers are ruining things by living our normal lives. But wait, instead of the government and the companies in the system changing what they do, let’s go and ask the consumer to completely change their habits. No problem, I’ll just eat dinner at 11 PM shall I? Tell the kids to do their homework at 4AM in the morning.  

And I really love commentators saying that pensioners should all go down to the local shops or library to enjoy air conditioning on hot days. You have to be effing kidding me.  Do you have any morals or sense of social justice at all? Fix the system – not the individuals.

Myth 3 – Hot rock geothermal is a valuable part of our future energy mix. Ummm…. No. Even conventional, shallow depth, plenty of water type geothermal isn’t working well globally. The economics of drilling wells 3 – 5 km deep using conventional oil and gas drilling technology are bad. Anecdotally, under the Howard Government regime South Australia wanted to be part of the renewables push so a few dollars were ponied up for geothermal, with the proviso that it is the mug punters who are paying up most of the money for the listed companies journey to discovering the obvious.

If you really want to impress in this space, please focus on reinventing drilling technology instead – that might actually lead to something other than emptying people’s wallets.

Myth 4 – Solar PV is the answer to everything. I used to love playing with solar cells when I was a small kid in the 70’s. I spent many an hour with a voltmeter and a solar cell working out how much I could get out of a cell and trying on different days at different times to achieve a new maximum. Nowadays I throw up in my mouth just a little every time I hear someone at a dinner party talking about what a great deal they got to install solar PV on their roof and how they get paid to generate electricity. Two things, it is everyone else paying you (you arsehole), and secondly, your system is helping stuff up the distribution system and, yes,  you should be charged more to connect to the network to export, you moral highgrounder you. You are generating electricity at a time when only your fridge is running, so you aren’t really saving the planet, and also the installation was probably so cheap that in about 7 years the whole lot will need replacing anyway.

I say no to more subsidies, yes to charging for energy export to cover changes to the network, and you won’t impress me as an industry until battery storage is cost effective and safe.

Myth 5 – Ocean power is the future. Actually, I genuinely believe it will be a big part of our future, but the current industry is not shaping up well. Here is a piece of advice, free of charge, to wave technology promoters. Please don’t try to build your wave energy farm where the waves are strongest. Yes, the elegant mathematics of your power generation equations show that you can maximise electricity production there, but what your elegant equations fail to show is the cost. High energy environments require formidably large, robust and expensive footings, your equipment won’t survive long and you will be very hard pressed to install your equipment in the week or two a year of calmer conditions.

A few other points. 

One, you are using ocean vessels and oil and gas ocean vessels to install and maintain your equipment: paying those bills will bankrupt you faster than any other service on the planet. This is also true for offshore wind.  The high cost is even worse in Australia than other countries and if you are looking for someone to blame please look to the Unions and their bloody minded idea of milking foreign oil and gas companies through high wages for offshore people. I am even thinking of taking up a job as a toilet cleaner on an offshore oil production platform just to enjoy the 6 figure salaries that have been negotiated.

Two, if it looks like a wind turbine then it is by definition a failed first generation technology: please go to an online course on fluid dynamics to bone up on why everyone else has moved past that.

Third, if you are trying to become a manufacturer of wave energy technology, please focus on that: some of you have been overtaken by construction types in order to suckle at the teat of government subsidies in the process of building a demonstration site – construction types hate R&D and hate manufacturing – it is in their DNA – you will not fare well.

Myth 6 – Conventional Power companies are run by satan worshipping capitalist running dogs. Nice try guys, but please come back to Earth. I have been working in conventional power companies for years and almost everyone is trying to do something in the renewable or sustainable space. Many of them have made more serious and noble efforts than your favourite plucky start ups. Overwhelmingly the attitude in conventional power is that the future is in other technologies, but they are constrained by voter attitudes, government oversight (both formal and in closed room shouting sessions), and electricity market pricing to stay with what they’ve got. So, instead of taking on the big boys, go cosy up to them instead. If you genuinely have the answer to the future energy needs of the planet, go sell it to the conventional power generators.

Myth 7 – Carbon pricing will fix everything. I have always considered this to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. We already have direct action in the form of a renewable energy target (RET) and subsidies for solar. It is the most fashionable form of carbon abatement – it is also hideously expensive. However, it works somewhat. I am not sure that the Coalition’s Direct Action plan is workable or sensible – I am not advocating that. For me a turning point in my attitude towards government was the Building the Education Revolution. If we had spent twenty something billion on renewable energy instead of overpriced school halls we’d be a very long way down the track of cleaning up our carbon emissions. Basically, the government knows you prefer to worry about education and health, so they put in a tokenistic carbon price that doesn’t support renewables, and bumps up the costs for everything else in a competitive international market. Does not make sense (yet)!

Myth 8 – Innovation will save us. Ummm….. I work in innovation and I don’t often see much of it. It is there, and it warms the cockles of my heart to see it, and I will go into bat for you guys anytime. What I am not enjoying is the mandate of government programs to encourage innovation. The mandate is simple, if someone is brave enough to put up a new project, raise some capital and be bound to milestones for funding then they’ll be funded. Everyone know that the project has about a snowballs chance in hell of getting up and absolutely zero chance of innovating anything.  And worst of all, it is the biggest projects that get all the attention. Governments love the attention of being at the ribbon cutting/sod turning ceremony. What you don’t hear is that projects usually fail to meet milestones because when they finally engage companies to do the detailed design and construction they discover they were missing the odd zero or two on the end of their estimates. Government then recaptures these unspent funds and recycles them into the next program.

What does impress me are companies doing small scale demonstrations on incremental improvements to technology.  There are also a few really amazing technologies coming out of private sector/university collaborations which I’d love to tell you about, but can’t due to confidentiality. I am excited.

And also to set the record straight, I have been up to my little neck in cadging taxpayer funds and big company funds for alternative energy tech for amounts well in excess of $100 million – so I know the game very well.

I will save more mythbusting for future episodes.

Needless to say, I am genuinely excited about the future of renewables and the future of energy technology. It is an amazing space, and as pointed out in other blogs, with the rising global population and growing energy usage by all people, we are in for an amazing ride.

If you are building a windfarm in Australia then there is a very high chance that you are using a financial model that I built 11 years ago, or a derivative of it. I really do like renewables.

The future will involve a bit of everything – solar, wind, nuclear, gas, cleaner coal, more efficient energy  usage, electric cars, biofuels, bioengineering, and more. I love the future… let’s please focus on that rather than being a fan boy for only one idea or technology as it has led us as a nation to lose a decade focussing on the wrong technologies and companies.

Note: I work as a project and energy economist with companies and governments on geosequestration,wind, geothermal, hydro, wave, transmission networks, coal seam gas, coal,and more. The views expressed in this blog are solely my own and do not represent the views of any organisation that I do work for.

Using FrankenPlants to Solve Global Warming

We know we need biofuels and biomass to replace fossil fuels in the long term, however, it has proved an uneconomic process except where food crops such as sugar cane and corn are used.

Basically, using food crops is a terrible idea because we are facing a massive increase in global  population over the next 35 years (over 2 billion more souls) and we are going to need all the arable farmland we have.

Consequently, there has been a growing effort to find plants or make plants that are more amenable to processing into biofuels. These non-food crop type biofuels are called second generation biofuels.

A recent study published in Science (see doi.org/r6s for  full transcript) has me smiling.

A group of researchers has found a way to modify lignin in poplar trees to make them less energy intensive to process into biofuel.  Lignin is the what makes wood strong, and the more lignin a plant has the more durable it is, also meaning it takes longer to breakdown or degrade. The problem with this in an industrial process is that it takes too much time and energy to break down the lignin, rendering many fast growing, high lignin content plants uneconomic for biofuels.

By adding an enzyme from another plant that has a lignin that is more digestible, this GM poplar should lower the costs of producing biofuels.

The researchers themselves admit that this isn’t economic yet, but this is a great step forward.

I am a huge fan of Genetic Modification and its potential role in our energy future. Bring on the FrankenPlants for a sustainable future.  

P.S. I’m still waiting to hear from anyone looking to make GM coral (as I mentioned in a prior blog). Accelerating the formation of limestone or even making our own concrete from GM Coral will help sequester CO2 – pretty close to permanently.

Note: I work as a project and energy economist with companies and governments on geosequestration,wind, geothermal, hydro, wave, transmission networks, coal seam gas, coal,and more. The views expressed in this blog are solely my own and do not represent the views of any organisation that I do work for.

Global electricity demand out to 2050

By 2050 we will have 9 billion people living on planet Earth - about a 30% increase.

By definition, this means a lot more electricity needs to be generated.

On top of the increase in population, as countries develop they will use more electricity per capita.

It's hard to find a graph showing this, so the below is my simple attempt to do this. (Many graphs I have seen assume that all fossil fuels will become illegal or peak oil will ruin us all, and present a doomsday scenario of the total energy available to mankind. In other words - complete and utter bollocks.)

Simply put, while the population growth is about 30% over the next 35 years, we will see electricity production increase 170% to 260% above today, from 21 TWh to 55 to 73 TWh.

This shows that developing countries need access to the cheapest power they can get.

Note: I work as a project and energy economist with companies and governments on geosequestration,wind, geothermal, hydro, wave, transmission networks, coal seam gas, coal,and more. The views expressed in this blog are solely my own and do not represent the views of any organisation that I do work for.

Clean Energy in Google Trends

For a bit of fun today I have been playing with Google Trends - the tool that allows you to see the occurrence of search terms as it changes over time.

Here are the key results for our favourite energy trends of the last decade.

All in
Renewable Energy Gas (fossil fuels) Transport uses of energy Nuclear power Clean Coal Climate Change
Note: I work as a project and energy economist with companies and governments on geosequestration,wind, geothermal, hydro, wave, transmission networks, coal seam gas, coal,and more. The views expressed in this blog are solely my own and do not represent the views of any organisation that I do work for.

Will we be able to afford to adapt to climate change?

According to the experts we have locked in irreversible climate change for the next 20 or so years, even if we switch off all our activities which produce carbon.  I’m worried that we won’t be able to afford the full costs of adapting to climate change.

The kinds the effects we are looking at include increased rainfall in some areas, decreased rainfall in others, stronger storms or cyclones, rising sea levels, increased temperatures, and so on.

From a practical point of view this means that we will do things like:

• Improve storm water drainage systems
• Put in sea walls where a lot of property could be affected by sea rise and tidal surges due to cyclones.
• Put in more dams to catch rain.
• Install seawater treatment plants to create freshwater for our cities and farms.
• Put in cheap air conditioning so people don’t get too distressed from the heat and can work productively. This is especially important for the elderly and the very young who can’t regulate their body temperature very well.
• Upgrade the electricity network to deal with the increased electrification of our lives (e.g. electric cars) as well as running the extra air conditioning.
• Move sewerage treatment sites to higher ground where sea level rises will be an issue.
• Move critical infrastructure to higher ground or build bunding where sea level rises will be an issue.
• And so on.

The thing all these actions have in common is that they involve a lot of energy usage. E.g. Cement, steel, fuel for equipment, etc. All these items are energy intensive and will be increasingly more expensive due to carbon taxes.

So, here is my question to you all – given that we have introduced a carbon tax to reduce carbon emissions, how can we sensibly adapt to climate change given that the carbon tax is increasing the costs to the inputs of adapting to climate change?

This is especially serious for Australia as we already have some of the most expensive construction costs in the world and we are deliberately going through a process of putting prices up.  Shouldn’t we consider affordability too? 

This is, after all, the other side of the equation.

Note: I work as a project and energy economist with companies and governments on geosequestration,wind, geothermal, hydro, wave, transmission networks, coal seam gas, coal,and more. The views expressed in this blog are solely my own and do not represent the views of any organisation that I do work for.

It’s all about the demographics

Almost 2 billion extra human beings will be on planet Earth in the next 35 years. Our global population has just passed 7 billion souls and will reach over 9 billion souls in 2050.

Much of the growth in population will occur in those developing countries that already represent most of the population.

What we do know is that people everywhere want a better standard of living. They want their kids to go to school, get an education and have a better life than they do. They want better health care, they want better infrastructure, they want better schools, they want better jobs, they want better government.

One thing most people agree on is that the luxury of the lifestyle those in developed countries will unlikely to be fully extended to developing countries. The planet simply doesn’t have the resources.

So we are facing monumental challenges.

We need a food revolution

There is only so much farmable land in the world. We need the most productive crops, we need intensive farming techniques, we need to reduce reliance on chemicals for farming, we need more crop cycles per year.  Better cropseed will be produced by genetic modification, epigenetic forcing and cross breeding.  We need all efforts to work.

We need fish farming on a mass scale. We cannot rely on the oceans, lakes and rivers to feed us all from wild stock. Fish farming was common hundreds of years ago, and we are rediscovering it now. It will go large scale and will require techniques that minimise the damage on the environment.

Don’t forget we need extra feed for the livestock that provide us with meat. That will take a lot of extra land too.

We need more fresh water

Access to water is a growing issue, especially for countries that rely on river systems flowing across multiple countries. Climate change could change the equation for water poor and water rich regions and countries. Where the uncertainties of climate are too much we need a much cheaper form of desalination than the current energy and capital cost intensive reverse osmosis plants.

We need an energy revolution

Coal remains the most efficient and compact way to harvest, transport and use energy. Demand for coal is going up for the near future. Demographics and industrialisation are driving this trend. However, the demand for coal will decrease sooner or later. Liquid and gas fossil fuels are following the same trend as coal.

Biomass is great in theory and while it is growing in use in Europe to meet carbon emissions targets, given the growing need for farmable land to be used for growing food crops and forestry plantation requirements, this is not sustainable.

Wind is good, solar is good, but on a large scale they fail the reliability requirements for most human endeavour at the current time. Cheap forms of electricity storage are required to solve this – whether it is batteries or something else like hydrogen. Efficiency also needs to improve as too much land area is required to provide large scale wind and solar power compared to other technologies. Available land will become scarcer in the future.

Nuclear power is going to be vital in the future. Whether Generation IV Uranium reactors or newer Thorium type reactors, it is going to be part of our future. However, in most countries there is a real wariness about it. We need to make nuclear safe and preferably find a way to make smaller reactors more cost effective. The good thing about smaller reactors is that they can be designed to be self-dampening, which means if something goes wrong the nuclear reaction slows down instead of speeding up. The roll out of nuclear is likely to be slow.

Fusion has been considered to be the way of the future for 50 years, it is still a way off commercial reality – perhaps by as much as 30-50 years. This area needs as much work done on it as possible, however, governments are reluctant to drop the billions of dollars needed on this now when their own economies are hurting.

We are facing a dilemma in energy right now. Nuclear is not palatable, coal demand is growing, gas demand is growing, renewables are expensive and fusion isn’t here yet. Hopefully someone will come up with a new solution in the next decade or so.

We need cheaper and more effective healthcare

Effective drugs cost a lot of money to develop and get approved. Companies that develop those drugs want to recover their costs through high prices, meaning that most in the developing world cannot afford newer and better drugs. Put that another way, the majority of humanity cannot afford the medicines they require.

Misuse of antibiotics is leading to drug resistance in bacteria and viruses, so its no good saying we can use cheap and proven medicines as they are no longer as effective. How do we provide new medicines cost effectively?

Healthcare professionals (doctors, nurses, laboratory technicians, x-ray technicians, etc.) are in short supply, and there is a known flight of trained professionals from the developing world to the developed world. More healthcare professionals need to be trained and incentivized stay in their own communities.

Medical diagnostic tools need to be made more portable and effective. What about suitcase sized MRI or catscan units.  How about handheld computers with laboratory diagnostic attachments. What about portable operating theatres to provide a sterile environment. All these and more are in the works and we need as much of this as we can get.

Given that many medical costs come at the end of life, with many countries having a population with a longer life expectancy and a rapidly growing aged population, healthcare costs are going to grow rapidly. We need to provide solutions effectively and cheaply.

We need to sustainably produce household goods

Wood, metal, earth, leather and plastic make up most of our household goods.

Tableware remains ceramic. We aren’t running out of the clay, silica or other components to make plates, cups, etc. in the near future. However, with growing demand driven both by population and fashion (i.e. changing your dining set every few years) we are going to make a bigger impact on the natural environment. Can we do something about this? Can we do something about the energy and water wasted to produce and clean our tableware? Some studies show that using disposable plastic plates and cups may in fact have a lower carbon emissions intensity than using traditional flatware, however, that comes with a considerable physical pollution problem.

Plastic is a major part of our lives and will increasingly be so. With the amazing advances in 3D printing it is easily foreseeable that plastic will be more common around our hoses. This will even have an impact on manufacturing and global transport as we can make what we want where we need it, buying a design from a company rather than the physical good.

Plastic needs to be biodegradable and it needs to be sourced from molecules other than fossil based hydrocarbons. We could get it from foodcrops as the easiest source of the right molecules however, given the food revolution required it is unlikely that this will be the major source. Some people are looking at large scale algal farms to produce synthetic hydrocarbons which is exciting for the future, but not yet commercially viable, and as some people point out, would require ridiculously large areas of the planet to be converted over to algae production. The challenges here are to produce highly productive algal species that can be compactly grown and harvested in advanced algal reactors.

Wood needs to come from fast growing and sustainable plantations. Speeding up the time to harvest is a key focus to enable better productivity from the same amount of land. A year or two shorter growing cycle to get a mature sized tree is key. And, don’t forget increased forest plantation requirements will be at loggerheads with demands for more land for farming food crops. Genetic modification of plants, epigenetic forcing of plants and breeding programs all play a big part of the future. Some people are even looking at synthetic woods constructed of other forms of plant lignins which may lead to 3D printable woods in the future.

The design life of furniture is also critical. Most furniture is designed to last 3 to 5 years and is made of chipboard or plywood of some sort. Cost effectively improving the useful life of furniture by another year or two will take the edge of wood demand. This increase in useful life also requires recognition of the need for longer lasting finishes, fabrics and foam.

Leather comes primarily from cattle, but some other sources. There is a minor crisis in the leather industry at the moment due to Chinese demand. Chinese like leather goods, but they don’t eat much beef. As leather is a byproduct of beef production the demand for leather is outstripping supply. While livestock numbers will increase with population growth the challenge is on to produce leather like synthetics that feel, endure and behave like leather. There have been a number of attempts over the years and many a good sofa uses Pleather in those areas such as the back and sides where there is not much wear and tear.

The above is a tour through the challenges we face and the amazing opportunities we have to make a difference in the next 35 years.

For those of you interested, I have included the UN Population Projection Data sets in the Excel Web App below. The data tells an interesting story.

Note: I work as a project and energy economist with companies and governments on geosequestration,wind, geothermal, hydro, wave, transmission networks, coal seam gas, coal,and more. The views expressed in this blog are solely my own and do not represent the views of any organisation that I do work for.

The AEMO 100% Renewable Study isn’t a green light to 100% Renewables

Reading some of the headlines about the viability of switching to 100% renewables in the 2030 to 2050 period, you could be forgiven for thinking that it is cost effective and imminent. That is not what the report says.

Reading the draft report issued to the Department of Climate Change (the client) on 28 March 2013 provides a different take.

In essence, they are saying that technically it is possible, but a lot of the costs were not included, they weren’t even sure about all the included costs, and they don’t even know if all the technology is viable.

The most interesting bits are the exclusions – in particular land acquisition costs (5000 km) and distribution system augmentation.

Land acquisition costs are important, but less of an issue than distribution system augmentation.

For example, the study assumes that a large amount of the power will come from rooftop solar PV. This is will require some seriously expensive distribution system augmentations, as well as spare capacity/back up, etc. Just think on how much our electricity bills are going up at the moment due to so called ‘gold plating’ of the distribution network. Multiply that by an order of magnitude or two and you get that these costs will be high.

To be fair to the AEMO team, it makes sense to exclude distribution as it would be exceedingly difficult to scope out, let alone estimate those costs. It is one of those how long is a piece of string exercises, probably years in the making.

However, for a real understanding of the transition we need to talk about the entire energy system, not an isolated part of it.

Such a comprehensive future study should take the transition path, transition costs, plus the opportunity costs of retiring old cost effective but polluting fleet compared to forecast carbon prices. Don’t forget storage costs for time shifting renewable generation to provide peak load either.

And, don’t forget global warming too. For example, as it gets hotter we will rely on air conditioning more and more, meaning that the peak load capacity of the transmission and distribution system may actually go up – even with all the demand side participation measures mentioned.

In other words, the study is saying, yes, it’s technically possible with a lot of caveats, but we really don’t know how much it will cost or if the technology is viable or how we could actually do it.

It is a good start, unfortunately, too many journalists and pro-renewable punters have been reading what they want into the headlines.

I work on renewable projects and will push the technology wherever I can. However, my fear is that with the misleading cheerleading surrounding reports such as these we end up avoiding the real and difficult conversations we need to have in order to go to a carbon reduced future by jumping on the bandwagon with every bit of good news for renewable.

Just to keep you happy, please find a few extracts from the Draft Executive Summary (dated 28 March 2013)

AEMO state the following in the introduction in the Executive Summary Document:

Given its exploratory nature, this study should be regarded as a further contribution to the broader understanding of renewable energy. The findings are tightly linked to the underlying assumptions   and the constraints within which the study was carried out. Any changes to the inputs, assumptions and underlying sensitivities would result in considerably different outcomes.\

1. The results indicate that a 100 per cent renewable system is likely to require much higher capacity reserves than a conventional power system. It is anticipated that generation with a nameplate capacity of over twice the maximum customer demand could be required. This results from the prevalence of intermittent technologies such as photovoltaic (PV), wind and wave, which operate at lower capacity factors than other technologies less dominant in the forecast generation mix.

2. The modelling suggests that considerable bioenergy could be required in all four cases modelled, however this may present some challenges. Much of the included biomass has competing uses, and this study assumes that this resource can be managed to provide the energy required. In addition, while CSIRO believe that biomass is a feasible renewable fuel , expert opinion on this issue is divided.

3. The costs presented are hypothetical; they are based on technology costs projected well into the future, and do not consider transitional factors to arrive at the anticipated cost reductions. Under the assumptions modelled, and recognising the limitations of the modelling, the hypothetical cost of a 100 per cent renewable power system is estimated to be at least $219 to $332 billion, depending on scenario. In practice, the final figure would be higher, as transition to a renewable power system would occur gradually, with the system being constructed progressively. It would not be entirely built using costs which assume the full learning technology curves, but at the costs applicable at the time.

It is important to note that the cost estimates provided in this study do not include any analysis of costs associated with the following:

1. Land acquisition requirements. The processes for the acquisition of up to 5,000 square kilometres of land could prove challenging and expensive.

2. Distribution network augmentation. The growth in rooftop PV and demand side participation (DSP) would require upgrades to the existing distribution networks.

3. Stranded assets. While this study has not considered the transition path, there are likely to be stranded assets both in generation and transmission as a result of the move to a 100 per cent renewable future.

Costs for each of these elements are likely to be significant.

This report is not to be considered as AEMO’s view of a likely future, nor does it express AEMO’s opinion of the viability of achieving 100 per cent renewable electricity supply.

Note: I work as a project and energy economist with companies and governments on geosequestration,wind, geothermal, hydro, wave, transmission networks, coal seam gas, coal,and more. The views expressed in this blog are solely my own and do not represent the views of any organisation that I do work for.

Another way of looking at CO2 Footprint

There are a number of ways at looking at the CO2 emissions of a country. One of the most commonly quoted is CO2 emissions per capita. This is a simple way of comparing individual’s usage of CO2. 

Another way to look at CO2 emissions is tonnes of CO2 emitted per square kilometre. The thinking behind this is to divide the world up by area rather than population. The idea here is to highlight those countries that have a disproportionate CO2 footprint based on their geographic footprint.

The following results certainly show things from a different perspective. (All data based on the CDIAC 2010 estimates for the top 19 CO2 producing countries. Non-CO2 Greenhouse gases are excluded.)

The one thing I can say definitively is that it has me thinking.

Note: I work as a project and energy economist with companies and governments on geosequestration,wind, geothermal, hydro, wave, transmission networks, coal seam gas, coal,and more. The views expressed in this blog are solely my own and do not represent the views of any organisation that I do work for.

Feed-in tariffs are divisive

The implementation of feed-in tariffs has helped boost the rapid adoption of solar power for residential users across the developed world. This seems like a good thing doesn’t it – so why then are feed-in tariff programs becoming more divisive. There are a few different ways of looking at the issue.

Achieving economies of scale

Governments recognised that one of the key ways to ensure that prices per installation of solar cells went down was to actually put up some incentives. In other words short term pain for a long term gain.

The idea is that it sponsors the development of a local installation and management industry, plus it gives manufacturers more incentives to increase the size of their factories to bring costs down, and it also boosts innovation as there is a route to commercialisation for innovators.

The target of all this is an industry that is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation as delivered to a private residence.

Limited bucket of funds

Keeping in mind the idea of boosting economies of scale, regulators and government realise that there can be too much of a good thing.

This is a very high price subsidy – an order of magnitude higher than the carbon tax. Depending on how the feed-in tariff is structured it is either taxpayers or other electricity network users who are paying.

There is a point at which the benefits become too costly. There is a direct cost in higher electricity prices for someone, and also an opportunity cost in that those funds could be used for other measures in the electricity sector that could have as much if not more of an impact on global warming than solar alone.

When the funds dry up and the subsidies are reduced, as has been seen globally, then a lot of the good work that has gone into building the industry evaporates. In other words there are good questions about how sustainable it is.

Intra-generational equity issues

Here in Australia we have a culture and set of values based on the idea of the fair go. That is treating everyone equally. On top of this in the last 30-40 years there has been a creeping movement towards helping those least able to help themselves.

Feed-in tariffs are the antithesis of commonly accepted values in society.

They favour the already well off. Even with the subsidy  to get a decent sized solar installation domestically means quite a few dollars. Subsidies for the rich generally don’t last too long in most countries.

 The poor are paying the subsidy for the rich. It doesn’t matter how you slice it and what sophistry you use, it is the rest of society that pays for the subsidy for the relatively well off.

To put that in political terms, if you are receiving a subsidy you will vote for it, if you are paying for a subsidy you will vote against it.

Wrong time of day

Affordable, easily maintainable batteries or other forms of storage are not yet readily available for domestic solar users.

So the majority of generation occurs at a base load time of day where it is probably not going to make a huge difference. Yes, there are some network benefits, but on the flipside there are issues with fossil fuel based generators operating below maximum efficiency meaning that emissions per unit of electricity are higher than optimal.

And, when it is cloudy we still need just as much electricity, which means that we need fossil fuel based power in reserve. Even if such power sources are held in reserve, we still need to pay for the capacity and availability of it in our power bills.

Sunnier is not always better

For silicon based solar cells higher temperatures are not a friend to electricity generation. The same way that the CPU in your computer needs to be cooled in order to operate effectively, if a solar cell gets too hot it generates less electricity. In other words, building large arrays of solar panels in the desert or up north is not as effective an outcome as people think.

Feed-in tariffs can work for other technologies too

One more recent view is that the network benefits (i.e. increases in efficiency in the distribution network that brings electricity to your home) should be taken into account in valuing the cost of solar.

To a point this is absolutely correct – by increasing distributed generation within the grid it may indeed help the network operate more efficiently with lower losses.

However, too much distributed generation can require network upgrades – a cost, which should also be counted.

And, don’t forget many attempts at distributed generation before solar have faltered at the inability to come to agreement with distribution network operators as to the price of that benefit. Strictly speaking I could whip off down to the local hardware store and buy a small petrol powered generator and put it into the distribution network at peak hours when solar isn’t making a contribution. Shouldn’t I too get a feed-in tariff for this?

From the distribution network company side of the fence actually pricing and measuring network benefits is a major nightmare which would cost a fortune to design, implement and operate.

So, claiming network benefits solely for solar is a bit of an overreach .

The solar cells may not last as long as we think

The aim of government was to bring prices down. Well, that has worked, but are we getting what we paid for?

Good manufacturers try to balance cost, efficiency and the length of service.

However, the average person is just going to look at price and go for the cheapest option.

Therefore, quite a lot of the solar capacity is not going to last as long as people think.  From a purely monetary point of view this is captured by less generation meaning less subsidy. However, it means a decreasing level of effectiveness for this as a climate change solution.

The sun gives us energy for free and we need to be doing what we can to harvest energy as efficiently and cost effectively as we can. However, the feed-in tariff mania is both helping and hindering the cause. We need a sustainable solar industry - not boom and bust.

Note: I work as a project and energy economist with companies and governments on geosequestration,wind, geothermal, hydro, wave, transmission networks, coal seam gas, coal,and more. The views expressed in this blog are solely my own and do not represent the views of any organisation that I do work for.