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.

Should we put warning labels on government policy?

• Smoking is harmful to your health
• Alcohol is harmful to your health
• Every K over is a killer.
• Wear your seatbelt or say goodbye to your loved ones.

Let me start by saying that I do believe there is a role for government in helping people understand the long term consequences of their actions - as long as it doesn't become a nanny state.

I would like to start a counter-revolution by suggesting that we need to put a warning label on government policies and projects. These could be put in bold letters at the top of memos and policy documents.

Graphic pictures could be good too. How about a derelict factory overgrown with weeds for every policy that harms business.

Here are some initial ideas.

1. For every $10,000 in bonds issued all sitting MPs and their unelected advisors should receive a written warning along the lines of, "Excessive debt is harmful to the future economy of the State".
2. For every clean energy scheme we could have, "Diversion of excessive funds into feel-good high-cost schemes may help your popularity polls but is committing the country to years of funding white elephants. Think about your children. Even better, ask your elderly parents if they can afford the increase in electricity price on their pension."
3. For every national park created we could have, "Just because our ancestors thought this land was worthless doesn't mean that it won't have value for the future, please allow a reasonable means for the local community, business or agriculture to claim usage in the future"
4. For every statement about moving to a sustainable basis we could have, "The consequences of sustainability in practice is the death of hope and the throttling back of ambition. Do you want to live in that future?"
5. For every proposed tax increase we could have, "Spending other people's money without asking them first really pisses them off. Think about what you are really trying to do, and think about shrinking the public service a bit first."
6. For every new Act or Regulation we could have, "Ignorance is not a defence under the law. Given that it is not possible for any citizen to read let alone memorize the half a million or more pages of legislation in this country, just what are you trying to achieve by enacting hundreds of more pages of legislation?"

I am one of those evil people who quantifies and models everything I can. However, I find it utterly weird that I am the only one in the room who asks about consequences and indirect financial costs.

For example, high prices for public transport penalises precisely those people who can afford it the least - those who live on the margins of the city but commute to the centre.

Toll roads may be a great way to fund infrastructure, but the whole economy benefits from better infrastructure (within reason) - so why focus on user pays. I have this same thought on a lot of issues which now follow the user pays fad. If it is a public good then it should be publicly funded.

Sure we might want to increase the use of bicycles and public transport by deliberately underfunding roads and the traffic light system, but have you thought about the massive cost to society caused by traffic jams. People are late to work, they get high blood pressure sitting in the traffic, deliveries cost more, pollution is worse, more carbon dioxide is released per person kilometre, more time commuting means less time with your families, etc.  Bring on the highways I say.

To any government readers I would say that it is time we brought back meaningful cost-benefit analysis for government policy in order to determine and rank the level of public good that will come from policies and then communicate that to the public.


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.

Current technology is not the future

One thing that we can say for sure is that the current generation of clean energy technology is not the answer for the future.

Coal is the cheapest but is on the nose with the general public. Clean coal isn’t making it yet.

Gas, coal seam gas and shale gas are abundant energy sources and may be more efficient sources of energy in that less CO2 is emitted for each unit of electricity than coal. But it is still doesn’t provide a major reduction in CO2 given that the population is growing to 9 billion over the next 30-40 years.

Wind is reasonably cost effective, but it has limited application and is facing growing resistance.

Hydroelectric power could provide baseload power generation but is limited to suitable locations and depends on long term rain patterns. Many groups are opposed to new dams so it is hard to expand this to the scale required.

Solar holds a lot of promise and technology is improving. It is still not suitable to mass baseload power and won’t be until the costs drop dramatically, including the costs of augmenting the distribution network and storage.  Also, ideas  of connecting up countries on an east west alignment with a supergrid are destined to stay in the realm of science fiction due to the costs of building a transmission grid.

Nuclear power is a possibility for a transition – but it’s going to be very hard to get public acceptance and political buy in after Fukushima.

Cost effective geothermal remains a dream. Technology may solve some of the problems, but the technology is a ways off yet.

Wave and tidal power are on their way – but aren’t getting the funding they need to go the next step.

Fusion isn’t here yet, and may be a generation or two away.

So here we are in 2011 putting in carbon pricing in the hope that it will lead to a great future.  The idea seems good, but it won’t even support wind – which is the largest scale renewable energy source.

In other words, the answer hasn’t been invented yet. It may be a laboratory somewhere, it may be a result of 20 years of future effort, but it isn’t here.

Given some of the technologies I am seeing in the startup space I have no doubt that we will get there ( I just can’t tell you about them for legal reasons – but I am excited).

The only problem for all these new technologies is that private sector funds have all but disappeared, venture capitalists and angel investors are focussed on 5 year returns, large companies know that carbon pricing won’t support new technology costs and governments spend more time and effort worrying about education and then will only back commercial scale demonstrations of technologies which are by definition not the answer.

Hey government, what about dropping a few billion on fundamental research at universities and at government agencies. How about you create some excitement with invention and manufacturing of new technologies. How about you provide seed funding for all sorts of loopy ideas that could end up being the answer.

If this is the challenge of the generation start acting like 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.

Governments are bad at picking winners, losers are great at picking government

This is a great saying doing the rounds about some clean energy technologies – and unfortunately there is more than a grain of truth in it.

The fact is that for every success story in technology commercialisation there are hundreds of good ideas that have failed to make it to market. The two main reasons for failure are lack of good leadership and lack of cash.

We all know that we need to do something to clean up our energy supply and energy usage. Even if you don’t believe in climate change I’ll bet you want to do things more efficiently in you work and your daily life. We are all heading to the same destination.

Government realises that in the case of market failure that they need to step in and provide support to private sector efforts to produce the new technology we need. This seems sensible. However, in reality it mostly supports the incumbents (e.g. wind) and the celebrity technologies (i.e. solar PV – the Paris Hilton of the renewable world – looks good in any article).

What it doesn’t do is provide support for genuine breakthroughs or genuine innovation.

Where Government does actually provide major funding it is for commercial scale implementation of technologies which are basically uneconomic or technologically redundant at the time of construction. Even worse, a lot of taxpayer funding is used to replicate technology and research already completed in other countries.

I have a lot of respect for any entrepreneur that gets a new technology up. During the early stages, at least, the intent is about the new technology.  Later on organisations seem to reorganise themselves around getting money from government. And hey, a confession here, I am in the top 5 on the honour roll for people to get big dollars out of government and the private sector for new energy technologies.

What I am talking about here is a difference of intent. Sooner or later an organisation comes to exist solely to support itself and not the technology.

The private sector can’t provide all the answers, in a time of change such as this we need a genuine and sustained national effort. Carbon taxes and tokenistic clean energy funds won’t achieve much and policymakers know it.

There is an out.  I believe in providing solutions as well as pointing out the problems.

Yes, there is market failure and a carbon price will not support commercialisation for a long time to come. Yes, we need to do something sooner rather than later.

So how about really leveraging taxpayer’s funds instead of throwing it away. I am not talking about matching funding on a dollar for dollar basis. How about 5 cents for every dollar spent by the private sector?

For example, how about setting up prizes for technologies that meet certain criteria. You could have prizes for low temperature high output LED lights, cheap to install and easy to maintain tidal generation, more efficient batteries, more efficient electric motors, etc.

That way, you can get many people working on the same problem, all with private backing with an eye on a prize big enough to pay off initial investors and also provide enough cash to fund the next stage of commercialisation.

Another example would be to mandate that government owned power facilities be used to test new technologies such as carbon capture. Sure there are a lot of issues about operations, but if you provide permanent test facilities set up to allow technology vendors and universities to test their technology then you may advance the cause.

I meet with a lot of blank looks when I talk about these kind of things, and I think it comes down to the lack of business and commercial experience of people in government. Too many of them think that money to back ventures somehow magically appears.

Ancient farmers grew a whole field of grain and picked the best to continue the next year. In the same way Government needs to set up to maximise the amount of effort put into innovation and stop throwing money at large scale demonstrations, stop using the word commercial projects and put a limit on the funds that go into Solar PV and its variants.

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.

What about my grandmother?

Society is complex.

One of the calls to action on climate change is the emotive statement ,“But what about my grandchildren’s future?”

Fair point and I don’t argue that at all. We should be acting today to help  leave the world better for our grandkids.

But when it comes to the design of mitigation I think it is only fair to ask, “but what about my grandmother.”

Society’s ability to pay for solutions varies.

• Parents pay for their children until they have an income.
• Young adults generally speaking have more disposable income than couples with children.
• Younger people have an ability to earn more in the future to cover any losses.
• Older people have little if no ability to earn more money – so any loss is permanent.
• Better off people can afford to pay for more expensive solutions such as solar, and in industry this is referred to as being an analogue to the model for organic food. I.e. those who can afford it and care can take that option.

And so on. It is complex.

A carbon tax is elegantly simple in theory, but the real world issues will be complex as not everyone has the ability to adjust.

To bring our grandmothers back into the picture we need to think about what will happen after 2 or three years into the carbon tax regime when carbon credits will be bought on the open market and prices could conceivably go up, with less tax coming to the government to be able to subsidise our elderly.

We can’t model this right now, and the government of the day has put in a lot of wriggle room for their future actions.

My former elderly neighbours are my inspiration. They saved and scrimped their whole lives for their retirement. Inflation ran away in the 2000’s and their cost of living went up – and they suffered with stoic dignity. They had an air conditioner but could only afford to put it on for an hour or two on the very hottest days in Summer (remember that the elderly are more likely to die in a heat wave than other parts of society.) They couldn’t afford to buy a more energy efficient air conditioner, or even a more energy efficient fridge.

So, think about your grandparents as well as your grandkids when you come up with solutions.

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.

Let’s make nuclear power safe

Enough already with the problems with nuclear power.

Yes, we know there can be accidents. We know that humans will always be humans and that we have to monitor behaviours, etc. We also know that companies don’t like to make losses, so will delay on decisions.

Are we really saying that these aren’t solvable? Aren’t we really just using the ‘known’ problems with nuclear power as an excuse not to do it.

How about we flip the question on its head and ask how we can make it safe?

• How do we ensure containment in case of accident?
• How do we minimise the chance of a runaway reaction (i.e. make systems self-damping)?
• How do we deal with radioactive materials to minimise the chance of it falling into the wrong hands?
• How do we control nuclear proliferation?
• How do we dispose of, or store nuclear waste?

If we are serious about climate change and recognise the need to provide lower carbon energy to the world’s rapidly developing and growing population then we need to focus on solutions. Nuclear power is a solution - so let’s make it happen.

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 next 30 years will be amazing

If you look at history humanity it is only in the last 150 years that we have really improved our lives and society beyond the ancient Roman or Chinese Empires.

One of the key changes was the industrial revolution, which basically involved tapping into coal, and then oil as an energy source. And what a difference fossil fuels have made to everything. No longer bound by the amount of energy we and our animals could produce we as a species have taken off.

Earlier than that, agriculture taught us to build irrigation systems and dams in order to allow for climate changes.

Now that there are so many of us we have realised that we are making an impact on the global ecosystem in which we live in and we need to do something about it. This is what is so exciting.

Given that there will be 9 billion of us by 2050 we need to radically improve how we harvest and use energy. 

We aren’t going to take a step backwards in terms of living standards and expectations, but we can do the same things with a lower impact.

• Look at all the work being done on hydrogen as a substitute for fossil fuels.
• Look at all the improvements in renewable energy.
• Look at all the efforts going into high efficiency cars and other transport.
• Look at all the amazing news coming out of genetics. Maybe in a decade or so we will be able to tailor living organisms like they do in Sci Fi novels. Think about being able to plant a seed and watch your house grow.
• Manufacture on demand technology can not only make 3D objects on the spot, but is now being extended to ideas such as concrete printers that can actually build a house. Unbelievable.
• Modular or kit homes are a similar innovation that has major implications for cost, quality and timeliness of housing supply.
• Advances in medicine are incredible, and there seems to be a growing response to basic needs for the developing world at an affordable price too.
• China is poised to take over as the leading economy.
• India is industrialising – in fits and starts, but it is getting there.
• Africa is going through growing pains as it tries to introduce industrial thinking, but it will get there and will be a much bigger part of all our lives in the future.
• Technology in general is changing so rapidly it is always tempting to keep putting off new purchases as you know the next leap in technology is just 6 months away.
• Biotechnology, nanotechnology, material sciences, compound materials, communication technology, etc. They are all revolutionising our lives.

All in all, there has never been a more interesting time in human history and seeing the ingenuity of humanity keeps astounding. I can’t wait.

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.