Partly thanks to the work of various commenters on the previous thread, here’s some of the more interesting links on the climate change report:
Polybabble:
Blogosphere:
- Peter Martin has a good summary of the key points (hey, maybe professional journalists are useful after all) and is complimentary towards the basic approach.
- The good Professor Quiggin has some thoughts, arguing that it’s evidence the government should have acted ages ago, and furthermore that the McKibbin-Wilcoxen approach didn’t really get a look in. McKibbin himself pops up in comments to disagree, McKibbin’s take is here.
- conservative environmental economist Harry Clarke says reasonably nice things about the report, but notes that agriculture hasn’t been included. FWIW and as I understand it, as well as the political sensitivities there are real issues with measurement in this sector.
- Tim Blair is amused that the mainstream media is reporting that the price of energy will go up. Must…resist…temptation…to…link…to…dozens…of…articles…acknowledging…this…
- Wadard at Global Warming Watch is highly cynical about Howard’s motives.
- Ed at Nuclear Australia is pleased that nuclear is given matter-of-fact consideration as a largely non-emitting energy source, and argues that large reductions will be very hard without it.
Media:
- For your entertainment, Andrew Bolt clinging to the (probably correct) belief that Howard doesn’t really believe in this emissions trading twaddle, but is only doing it to win the election. Please, keep saying that, Bolty.
- In a massive surprise, The Australian thinks Howard closes gap on climate. Shorter Oz: Howard is a genius. Paul Kelly is also complimentary about the design of the scheme.
- The Age’s main report is the piece Tim Blair pillories, also noting the decade of delay. Graham Pearman also notes the lack of urgency in the report itself
- PM interviews a number of people. One interesting complaint is the exclusion of agriculture.
If anybody’s got more links, particularly from the blogosphere, let’s have ‘em!
More analysis from me later today.
Let’s start with definitions.
What is the difference between the terms
“climate change” and “global warming”?
Which is preferable and why?
Professor Ross Garnaut (the economist who has been tasked with writing an Australian version of the Stern review) is interviewed on the scheme on Radio National’s “The National Interest”.
Hannah, my recollection is that “climate change” is the term that US pollster Frank Luntz advised the Republicans use instead of the more straight-forward term “global warming”, in order to feed doubt and confusion about anthropogenic origins into the political debate, and postpone any need for action. Along the lines of: something is happening here, but we don’t know what it is, do we, Mr Jones.
hannah, the globe warms and as a consequence the climate changes. Both terms have their use. Grace, I think that’s right. ‘Climate change’ is a less threatening term and is easier to normalise.
Joshua Gans also has some comments (with a response from Warwick McKibbin).
Grace is right, the change in term largely comes from Frank Luntz writing a memo to Republicans. It’s not actually a bad term, in some ways, because the story is much more complicated than just getting a bit warmer.
Robert, I had a second go at the report here. In particular I made some notes on Chapter 7 which is where a lot of the action is.
One thing about excluding agriculture is that the positive contribution that agriculture can make to ‘offsets’ through its conservation practices are lost.
The report intends to cover 55% of Australian emissions. Include agriculture and the figure rises to 80%.
The report is a historic document and of great importance in terms of getting Australia to adjust to the realities of climate change. It is a step ahead of the state government ’subsidies for renewables’ schemes (which both you and I have criticised) and a more comprehensive plan than their proposed emission schemes.
By the way alone among the commentators I am given a political label. I don’t lose sleep over such things but is this intended to signal something? Perhaps that unlike all the other dispassionate commentators you mention that I have a political viewpoint? How does that affect the validity of my arguments – is it an instance of the motives fallacy?
Cheers
The Climate Institute’s critical response here.
Some links from Sunday:
PM defers setting carbon target (The Age)
Has the Government gone far enough with its plans for emissions trading? Age poll, vote now
2pm Sunday 3/6: Yes – 12% No – 88% Total Votes: 73
It looks like Howard’s emissions trading is being regarded as the flub it is:
Poor polls reignite leadership speculation The Age
Winners are grinners? This may be the beginning of the end for John Winston Howard, but he aint out until he’s out.
I’ve got a bucket load of links in my post Desperately seeking new economics, which includes quite a few links to things like the 2006 Living Planet Report and the UNDP HDR 2006 Report which concentrates on water.
Harry – that’s a fair point.
For what it’s worth, on many topics you’re very enlightening, and I’ve learned a good deal from reading your blog. As a partial justification/excuse for singling you out for mention of your political alignment, I assume most readers of LP are familiar with Quiggin and Blair’s (for instance) political views, but possibly not with yours.
I would argue that one way in which your political views influence your posts on this matter is that you’re not nearly as inclined to scream about the government’s previous inaction on the issue. By contrast, I (for instance) wouldn’t miss an opportunity to do so. There’s nothing wrong with that, by the way, but it does lead to different perspective where we are in reasonably broad agreement on the actual issue of the moment.
It would seem, from the answers above, that the preferred term should be “global warming”.
Doncha think?
Anyway I’m fairly all sort of warm and fuzzy about myself at the moment, albeit racked with self induced pain.
My wife and I, with help from the dog, have just finished planting 200 native trees, local to our area, on our degraded property.
Sore backs, blisters, aching muscles, prickles in hands, but the self righteous glow of a job well done.
Only 300 left.
I believe that Beattie and the Queensland Government have trumped Howard’s lunacy about not setting targets when they released ‘Climate Smart’ Queensland Climate Change Strategy 2007:a low – carbon future.
It sets a target of reducing greenhouse gases to 60per cent below 2000 levels by 2050.
Some of the main details are here. The report is here.
A post on Lounge of The Lab Lemming points out that electricity prices caused drought are likely to be much greater than those caused by an emissions trading scheme in the near fut.ure
Quiggin reviews Hamilton on the politics of climate change:
http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2007/06/03/scorcher/
If I must fly blind where others claim expertise,on this plateau where I live the season seems normal,but late,frosts last week,beany on head to bed…enjoy days as they unfold,and fly in blind rage at those who will risk,all this for the sake of just noting this.I range in my madness of both being a complete skeptic of global warming till shattered by it all..the blunders are not mine,Irefuse to accept the statistics of footprint of my personal damage to the environmrnt.Like the stuff about computer use and emissions..where if I sunk the computer in vegetable oil it seems my computer would be working better and perhaps safer in this house.Ah!Yes!A vegetable oil solution to global warming would be a good idea..and eat our fish,if that is what one does,and chips,at the power station.
Well done Hannah!
Hannah:
Global warming is the increase in the mean equilibrium temperature of the planet as a result of the change in atmospheric composition.
Climate change is how the new equilibrium temperature effects specific places on Earth.
Delayed frosts and drought are climate change, which is caused by global warming.
Howard’s latest scaremongering debunked by Peter Martin.
hannah, grace p, Brian, Robert M – my recollection is that the change in terminology came from the scientific community.
The motivation was to reflect the fact that anthropogenic activities have a multitude of effects on climate. Since some of these may cause net heating at global scales, and others may cause net global cooling, while either group of effects may manifest differently at regional or continental scales, the ‘global warming’ moniker lacked scientific precision.
Usage of the term goes back at least as far as the early 1990s eg [link]
I visited the Pro-nuke site above an to my horror saw Al Gore lose his popularity as even I know the Tennessee Valley Authority was the same organisation that supported his presidential attempt..blown apart now by the building of a $3 Billion nuke generator.And naturally he will do high five protests to stop it.Couldnt give a rats arse about him anyway.
Hi Hanna,
Use “global warming� when you are talking about the rising of the mean temperature as measured globally, and “climate change� when talking about the consequences of global warming.
Correct usage in context is most preferable, because the terms are not really interchangeable and there are those who would seek to muddy the waters.
Thanks for the link Robert.
My reading of Howard’s climate ‘policy’
a. In the main, a lame-arsed stunt demonstrating he’s lost his touch. What does he expect this to achieve other than reinforcing the view that he doesnt get it / wants to stymie action /isn’t up to the task?
b. On the edges, there is something of a nostalgic nod at the glory days of the Tas forest wedge, gone wrong. Talk up action and reports in the hope the ALP goes in too hard, preemptorily. Hasnt worked out. Now he just looks a bit clueless and out of his depth.
c. Key pitch seems to be fear wedge on power bills. Fear campaign supported, as always, by reassurance, in this case “and you can rely on me to pfaff around longer before acting, blabbing gravely and broadly about teh economy without ever spelling out exactly why better informed people like Stern have it all arse-about’.
How is “closes a gap” Kelly and his HFG pom-pom cheer squad will have to explain further.
Me, I predict a bounce for Rudd.
Lefty E, there was a fair bit of chat on The Insiders this morning that would support what you say.
There was also an interview with Turnbull where he said this:
My conclusion is that this guy is smart enough to know that the world is going to need more than 60% by 2050. He just can’t tell us yet and maintain the credibility of his party, and his boss.
Macfarlane said the other day that we need to develop the technology first, then we do the cuts. They are waiting for 3G nuclear and coal geosequestration.
Paul Kelly’s most notable contribution, I think, was to say that Howard is trying to frame climate change as an economic problem, which is what the electorate sees him as good at. That’s not new or original, but it’s nice to know that Kelly knows.
Thanks for mentioning my blog. There’s more to be seen there – important to me is what Bush is proposing. Maybe others would care to consider this post as well.
But I would encourage all to have a read of this post from NNadir, an articulate, well researched, left of centre thinking man who’s thoughts on the environment, nuclear power and fossil power are worth a read.
To see his whole diary click here.
The IPCC has been called the IP on Climate Change since 1988. So I really don’t think this is a nasty Republican plot.
The point of calling it climate change is that it’s more accurate than warming. To be more precise, you should call it anthropogenic climate change, or ACC if you need a TLA.
How does Howard’s refusing to set a target till after the election compare to his criticism of Rudd for not requesting the Garnaut review until next year? Rank hypocrisy alive and well…
The trading scheme that Howard sets up, if he gets the chance, will be a massive boondoggle that will keep vested interests happy without reducing our emissions more than trivially. Of course, I don’t anticipate much better from Rudd.
Well, Howard is proposing a plan to deal with CO2 emissions, with an intention to set targets that are appropriate to ensure that price signals will increase the long-term economic viability of low or zero-emision technologies, without simply exporting industry (and the emissions) overseas. That this model has been a pretty abject failure in Europe indicates that some prudence is appropriate in applying this.
Rudd pulled a number out of the air (or rather, out of the Stern report), but has not given any indication how he will achieve this (especially given that he has ruled out nuclear power), or how much it will cost. And no intention of telling the electorate until after the election.
Not quite the same thing there…
One point to make on that, SimonC, is that Howard has all the resources of government and the ability to commission economic modelling which Labor doesn’t – hence the Garnaut report. I don’t think it’s right to suggest, either, that he’s given no indication of how the target will be achieved – refer to his principles enunciated in a speech the night before Howard’s report was handed over.
The only thing Howard has been talking about since the report was released is the “Garrett recession we don’t have to have” and this quote from the emissions trading report:
Now logically you’d think if we took every vehicle off the road and replaced all our fossil-fired power stations with nukes our emissions would be pretty close to zero. But no. Through the magic of spin Howard and Shergold have fudged the numbers so they can make this outrageous claim. You see, 38 per cent of projected emissions in 2020 is roughly the same as emissions from all the fossil-fired power stations and road transport today.
Of course, Howard could have told a different more positive story. A 38 per cent reduction in projected emissions for 2020 could be achieved relatively easily through energy efficiency, replacing coal-fired power stations with gas, and more renewables, but Howard doesn’t want to tell that story. He wants to scare the bejesus out of us, so we imagine cars without roads and nukes in every suburb.
Welcome to the 2007 climate change election strategy. It makes me want to throw up.
The problem with ‘energy efficiency’ as a solution is that it will not necessarily reduce emissions. See Jevon’s paradox. As I understand it, the more efficient the use of a resource becomes, the more that resource is utilised.
The only foolproof way to reduce CO2 is to make emissions too expensive. In order for the price signals to work, this must impact on people directly, with electricity getting more expensive and with petrol getting more expensive, and it must be at a level which will alter behaviour (If it is too low, people will just consider it another tax, and not alter their behaviour. Consider that petrol has risen over 50% in the last 4 years, without any noticable change in driving behaviour. How much higher does that need to go, to significantly impact driving emissions?)
The offshoot of this is that the people who will be most affected by an aggressive approach to AGW will tend to be the poorer members of society. And the ones who traditionally vote for the ALP.
If Rudd goes into this election, and wins, on a “the ALP is fiscally conservative too!” platform, and then oversees changes that drive energy and petrol up (and employment down, if industry moves offshore), then we could see a very severe turnaround back to the Libs in 2010.
Rudd is too smart for that. So he will continue to make platitudes, and commit only to long term, pie-in-the-sky targets to make people feel good, without actually doing anything.
The Labor statement Mark refers to is here.
SimonC, Garrett referred to the 60% target the other day as the international consensus figure. This is true. It is almost certainly not enough, and I think Turnbull is smart enough to know that. Garrett typically say “at least 60%” so he’s probably knows better also.
Carbonsink is 100% correct about Shergold’s little story on the perils of 20% by 2020. Thankyou for saying what you said with such clarity. I had a bit to say at Quiggin’s where carbonsink commented also.
Peter Beattie has just announced a target of 34% reduction by 2020. (I think that’s from 2000 levels.) We should all be rooned, but in fact it looks unthreatening and doable. I’m not sure about this statement, but it’s a direct quote and certainly more cheerful than Shergold’s spin:
You can download the full QLD report here.
SimonC, you are right about Jevon’s paradox. There are two distinct concepts. ‘Energy efficiency’ as I understand it refers to the more efficient production of energy. ‘Energy savings’ refers to reduced consumption. In both you can get counter-intuitive outcomes.
Monbiot wrestles with this, and it is one reason he recommends carbon trading for private consumers. But even so the rich can buy permits from the poor and you get no reduction. By diverse means he thinks the energy savings in households in Britain can reach 25% but it is tough going. For the rest, you have to decarbonise the source (ie. mostly the grid).
Link fixed now.
SimonC,
A couple of weeks ago me and me housemate were in the backyard, talking over some of the proposed solutions to global warming such as geosequestration. Between us we came up with the absurd idea of using abandoned coal-mines and oil fields.
The coal mine idea was to grow lots of plantation trees, cut them down, pulp them, then pump the chips back underground. This would eventually reconstitute a coal supply for future generations. Silly idea, I know but …
… you could use it as the basis for calculating the cost of creating a fossil supply in the first place. Factor that into fossil fuel prices somehow and bingo – market based solution to global warming achieved!
Thanks for the links Brian.
I just went Googling and couldn’t find anything.
Gummo Trotsky wrote:
Pulp needs water Gummo. Iron filings in the ocean, harvesting the algae and converting it into biodiesel is probably more workable, but who knows the environmental consequences of massive scale harvesting – and nobody can tell us what the likely production costs of it are going to be.
The whole geo-sequestration thing is basically nuts – who can tell whether the underground containers have sprung a carbon dioxide leak? Who is going to monitor the pressure of these things and how are they going to do it? What happens if a leak occurs – what are likely useful penalties for being a carbon gross polluter because you forgot to stick a cork in the right spots?
We just ought to ban coal and suck up the consequences, as the alternative is too horrible to contemplate.
We just ought to ban coal and suck up the consequences, as the alternative is too horrible to contemplate.
On a completely unrelated note, is there any evidence of environmental groups/concerned bystanders buying out carbon credits in a Cap and Trade scheme (not to trade, simply to remove carbon from the atmosphere)?
Sounds like an interesting measure of people putting money where their mouths are.
Well, I did say it was an absurd idea, David. Had us laughing for a few minutes though.
The other alternative is to re-employ all the out-of-work coal-miners as wood buriers – I think you can see where this starts to head.
I think what got the whole thing started was that doco where someone proposed building giant artificial trees that would take CO2 out of the atmosphere and pump it underground for geosequestration. Out of 5 ideas presented, only one looked remotely sensible and feasible.
David Rubie, if you are pumping CO2 down abandoned gas wells, you have to consider that they have kept methane in them, under pressure, for millions of years.
Alternatively, there are plans to pump the co2 into briny groundwater, in which it should remain dissolved indefinitely.
Other geological disposal sites include locations where the CO2 will react with the rocks.
While security of storage is indeed a very important consideration, it’s not like they’re just proposing to put it in balloons and throw a few centimetres of dirt on top.
Gummo, a slightly more serious approach suggested was plant lots of trees, and when they’ve reached a suitable size chop them down, put them in barges, and weigh them down above river deltas such that they sink to the bottom and are quickly covered with silt.
Robert Merkel wrote:
Yes they have, unfortunately all the empty gas wells are an impossible distance from our coal power stations. So we end up back at unproven reservoirs that are feasible distances from the power stations. My guess (and I hope I’m wrong) is that there are exactly none of these. Worse than that, all those empty gas wells are typically half filled with water from dodgy practices to increase the yields when the reservoir gets empty. Worse than that, carbon dioxide LOVES to leak out of stuff – unlike natural gas, the molecules are very small and the same reservoir that held natural gas may not hold carbon dioxide. It won’t even stay in bicycle inner tubes very long compared to plain old air.
I think we need to look at carbonating the ocean and storing the fizzy water in discarded coke bottles in landfill. Much more sensible.
David, I’m not sure whether you’re joking, about carbonating the ocean, but deep ocean sequestration is actually being seriously considered.
And look as though they could be quite nasty, as per the second paragraph of the link.
David Rubie Says:
This sounds wrong to me. Methane, CH4, has a molecular weight of about 16. Carbon dioxide, CO2, has a molecular weight of about 44. Why would the heavier CO2 molecules be smaller?
Fascinating and risky business, this carbon capture and sequestration. When was the last time anybody saw some stable liquid CO2? Bubbles in soft drink and mineral water off gas fairly quickly, and take energy to put there. Dry ice turns back to gas as soon as it warms to ambient temperature.
It is hot down deep in the earth, so any reversion to gas chemistry will happen quicker.
Then there is the small point about the significant extra energy required (e.g. 40% more coal) to actually run the capture and sequestration processes, and shift the “liquid CO2″ (whatever that is) around.
Just imagine you want to do the right thing and lower carbon emissions for your backyard shed.
Option A is:
* get some coal
* burn it and use the heat to create steam using your local water supply
* pipe the steam to power a turbine which turns a generator to create electricity
* capture the CO2 from the chimney, turn it to liquid, then pump it under the ground
* cap the hole to make sure no CO2 comes out
Viola! What is all the fuss about?
Option B is:
* buy some solar panels and connect them to an inverter battery (available today)
What would you do?
Why is Howard fixated on Option A? Is it something to do with donations from coal industry companies to for an election campaign to buy enough advertising and PR to convince 51% of Australian voters that he is doing something about climate change and Rudd can’t manage his bank balance?
If he gets away with this it will cost us the world.
Experience with bike tyres is obviously wrong as SJ has pointed out (high school chemistry). I dunno why but a bike tyre filled up with C02 from a gas canister (used for quick inflation on the side of the road) always mean a flat tyre in the morning. Might be a temp. thing. It also turns out that there’s plenty of CO2 in natural gas according to Wikipedia. My bad, in theory I suppose it’ll work like the re-injection of liquified natural gas into empty oil fields. In practice, it’s an awfully long way to pump a not very dense gas – think expensive.
I still think they will find no appropriate, empty, gas impermeable shelves within cooee of a coal burning powerplant.
The coke bottle filled, carbonated sea water thing was meant to be a joke.
Sinking timber in lakes once it’s grown? There’s a company that has developed underwater robots to fell timber from man made lakes where forests have been submerged for decades – bringing it to the surface and drying it out (most of it perfectly preserved and ready to be used in the building industry). Can you sink timber faster than those guys bring it back up?
Georgian Bay Wet Wood
David, I think at Stanwell Power Station near Rockhampton they are looking to pipe the CO2 200 km west to Emerald and then sink it in saline aquifers.
Not sure it’s a good idea, but that’s what they are looking to do.
PeterC, I’m sure that Howard’s fixation on option A does indeed have something to do with donations from the coal industry. However, there are real problems with option B – namely, that it costs gargantuan amounts of money – far more than other renewables, even leaving geosequestered fossil fuels and nuclear out of the equation.
Have you priced a solar system for your own use? An off-grid system?
I’m not going nuts. CO2 does leak out of a bike tyre faster as the rubber is more permeable to CO2 than Nitrogen or Oxygen, apparently – go figure.
I can’t wait to see those bubbly saline aquifers out at Emerald turning into seltzer fountains at Charleville. The livestock will get quite a surprise.
Targets unatainable in Canada?
Quiggin on Bush’s isolation in the process:
http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2007/06/05/zugzwang/
Peter Martin:
http://petermartin.blogspot.com/2007/06/tuesday-column-theres-building-in-bruce.html
Robert,
We have a grid interactive solar array system installed on our house. It cost about 40K to install in 2002, but the system was more expensive than it needed to be as we have a 5kW inverter and batteries. We received about an 8K rebate for the panels.
With economies of scale, more manufacturing capacity (there is a worldwide shortage of panels) and new technology such as sliver cells (locally developed, but about to be manufactured in China, not here), rewewable energy is forecast to be priced equivalent to fossil fuel energy (with a carbon tax) by about 2020.
Yes, renewables are more expensive, but so is the real cost of carbon emissions in the Latrobe Valley and elsewhere. In Germany, there is legislation to mandate that all new houses must generate 20% of their power requirements – which also encourages focus on improved efficiency and good design. Contrast this with the situation in Victoria where most of the new homes currently being built are consuming 20% more power than similar homes 5 years ago.
Solar won’t solve all our energy requirements – but it will be an important contributor. A mix of wind, wave, geothermal, biomass (appropriate use) and solar combined with 30% efficiency improvements would go a long way to solving our energy requirements.
Nuclear and carbon capture would both arrive far too late (10-15 yrs from now), both are very expensive and neither are zero emissions or renewable.
Peter, if you’d saved your money and just bought green power you’d achieve essentially the same effect at far less cost. Heck, buy and retire carbon credits on the upcoming emissions trading market and achieve the same effect at far less cost.
As I’ve said many times, if renewables are really cheaper than nuclear or CCS even when you take the cost of energy storage into account, why spend so much energy fighting them, if you’ll pardon the pun?
Robert, you assume that carbon credits will reduce carbon emissions – there is no firm evidence that they will. Ditto for emissions trading – as the European experience has shown. Both may be OK for making us feel a little better, but they won’t stop global warming. Neither will CCS or nuclear – despite all the Government rhetoric and spin to the contrary. You can’t make a silk purse out of sow’s ear.
The answer is blowing in the wind and streaming in the sun, which is the only nuclear (fusion) reactor we really need.
It is a pity that the myth that we have to keep on growing and consuming is still being peddled, but underpinning our rampant use of fossil fuel – not because we need to but because we choose to – is the economic doctrine of infinite 4% growth being “good and healthy”.
No system is capable of infinite growth, but as have been wallowing in it, it feels pretty good. Peak oil will change things – and is already with increased oil and petrol prices.
The choice is very clear – we either really start addressing climate change by transitioning to zero emissions energy or we visit Dantes inferno.
Peter, in what way is nuclear not just as “zero emissions” as renewables?
Yes, nuclear plants need to be constructed, but so do wind turbines and solar panels. And aside from the screwball Storm van Leeuwin and Smith study, the net energy inputs of nuclear are about the same as wind and solar (probably a bit more than wind, but less than solar).
The Paul Kelly “blog” question this morning is a bit of a hoot:
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/paulkelly/index.php/theaustralian/comments/howards_policy_change_without_the_real_passion/
Robert,
Every part of the nuclear energy cycle consumes fossil fuel energy except for the actual fission reaction.
Large amounts of fossil fuel energy (coal & oil mostly) and huge amounts of money in the form of Government subsidies ($b) are required for:
* mining and processing of ore to create yellow cake
* shipping yellow cake considerable distances to refining plants
* refining yellow cake to uranium
* building the power station
* transporting waste from it after the reaction to a processing plant
* processing the waste for storage (e.g. burial)
* burying the waste
* decommissioning the power station after about 40-50 years of operation
In addition:
* uranium is not a renewable resource, it will effectively run out sometime before the end of this century, so it is not a long term option, only a possible transitional one
* large amounts of water are required to safely operate the plants – France halved its energy generation from nuclear last year due to water shortages.
* there would be significant transmission losses to get power through the grid to consumers – unless the nuclear power stations are very close to major areas of consumption such as Melbourne, Sydney and other capitals
* if we started building nuclear power stations now, they wouldn’t be ready within 10 years, so they won’t be available in time to realise immediate emission reductions, even if nuclear can actually deliver any net reductions
* renewables such as wind, solar and biomass will be economically competitive with nuclear and CCS (if a reasonable carbon tax exists) by about 2020, after which the cost of operating nuclear and CCS would rise, making them both more expensive and financially risky over the entire investment cycle (e.g. up to 2050/2060)
* there is also a link to the nuclear weapons proliferation – countries with the capacity to produce nuclear fuels also have the capacity to produce highly enriched uranium for weapons
* nuclear waste has not long tem safe solution – it imposes an unethical burden on future generations
* the risk is not acceptable – while probability of an accident might be low, the outcome could be catastrophic, particularly near major population centres.
In Europe, more nuclear is now not part of the debate for future energy supplies – the battle is between coal/gas and renewables. If they increase the MRET to 20%, which is under consideration, then renewables will be boosted further. In Australia, the Government has only set a measly 2% MRET by 2010, which has had some benefit, but should be 25% by 2020 (and 15% by 2012).
Renewables is a rapidly growing market in the EU with $38b invested in 2006 and $45b investment predicted for 2007. The renewable sector now employs about 500,000 people in the EU while the coal industry employs about 30,000. Coal mines and power plants don’t actually employ many people.
It is a pity that Australia is missing the boat on reshaping its economy to a renewable energy basis, and our political leaders are fixated on chasing and throwing huge amounts of money at nuclear and CCS.
The good news is I think the general public is seeing through their obfuscation and intransigence. Why else would Howard have (unconvincingly) shifted from climate change denial and skepticism to attempted greenwashing?
Regarding the payback for embodied energy (latency) for renewables is:
* Wind turbines – about 7 months of operation
* Solar panels – about 2.5 to 3 years in Europe and about 1.5 years in Australia (we have more sun)
Gittins is very critical of the PM’s plan:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/a-game-of-follow-the-leader/2007/06/05/1180809518057.html
Robert, I have heaps of respect for your technical knowledge, but I think this comment reveals a certain naivete:
The point is, there is tremendous inertia in the world of energy planning and in the way governments move on such issues. A huge, systemic failure of imagination, is how I characterise it. The evidence on costs of CCS and nukes vs renewables and efficiency is irrelevant if no key decision-maker is willing to even consider the latter options.
And that is how extreme the situation is. They are so deeply wedded to the idea that only coal or nukes can meet our energy demand that they simply don’t believe in the other options.
Take energy efficiency. I’m not telling _you_ anything new to say that efficiency is the obvious first place to start with greenhouse emissions reductions. It’s by far the cheapest way to get very substantial cuts, particularly in an economy as greenhouse intensive as ours. We know that across Australia we could get cuts of 30% in energy demand through simple, off-the-shelf technologies with a payback of 4 years.
It’s worth re-stating that. A return on investment of 4 years, achieving effectively 15% reductions in Australia’s greenhouse emissions. If you don’t believe me, google “Towards a National Framework on Energy Efficiency”
So why don’t people do it? Coz they don’t have the imagination adn they couldn’t be bothered. My firm belief is that, even if you whacked a bloody great cost signal on it, they still wouldn’t do it. That’s based on the simple fact that it makes 100% economic sense to do the damn thing right now. An extra cost wouldn’t create the stimulus. Only regulation to make it happen will drive it.
We have to put the effort in to promoting efficiency and renewables because there is such entrenched bias against them in the system.
PeterC: you need to assign numbers to those energy inputs. When you do, they end up looking about the same as solar and wind.
For instance, you quote the costs of transporting yellowcake. Annual uranium demand is roughly 63,000 tonnes. At a rough estimate, about 65% of the yellowcake is uranium. So we’re talking roughly 100,000 tonnes of material. Let’s assume we throw it on a truck and drive it 1000 km, then put it on a ship and transport it 20,000 km.
According to Queensland Rail it takes about 0.0224 litres of fuel to carry a tonne of freight a kilometre. So to carry 100,000 tonnes of material 1000 kilometres would require about 2.24 million litres of diesel.
Then, let’s throw it on a ship and cart it 20,000 kilometres. Getting fuel economy numbers for shipping is much harder than for trucks, and it varies a lot (really big bulk cargo ships are the most efficient), but this page says that it takes somewhere between 10 and 20% as much energy to ship long distances. We’ll take the high estimate and say 20%. That gives us about 9 million litres of diesel used, for a grand total of 11 million litres of diesel burned to ship the world’s entire yellowcake supply.
Now let’s compare to how much electricity is generated with that uranium. The world used 16.33 trillion kilowatt-hours of electricity last year, and nuclear energy supplied 16% of that. That’s roughly 2.5 trillion kilowatt hours, or 9 trillion megajoules. That is the energy equivalent of more than 20,000 times more diesel than was required to transport it round the world.
OK, that’s only one aspect of energy inputs for a nuclear power plant – the actual biggest energy input at the moment is actually the uranium enrichment process, but that’s mainly because obsolete technology is still being used in the USA and France (and will be replaced in the next few years). But it’s illustrates that you can’t just go throwing around claims in this area without some actual numbers to back them up.
tim, another way of stating this is that investment in energy savings typically yields a business an internal rate of return of 25%. Actually, from memory, the figure was 26% when I checked out that National Framework document when you mentioned it some time ago. That’s more than the many company’s make in their normal business.
Why don’t businesses do it? It seems they don’t think of it, or don’t realise what savings can be made, or they are too busy with their mainstream business and energy prices are not a big issue for them. It seems they typically need some expert consultancy work to see the need and design the savings strategy.
I believe there are consultancy businesses working in this area (one at least) but it cries out for government to give it a kick along. Some of Howard’s advertising budget, perhaps?
Brian, beyond even needing expert consultancy work to find the savings and design how to reach them, I believe they actually need to be told to implement them.
Just look at programs like the Greenhouse Challenge or the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Act, both of which do exactly what you’re talking about – bring in expert consultants to do energy audits for big corporations and show them how to make the savings. How many have actually signed up? Bugger all. How many of those who signed up have implemented the savings? Bugerr all of the bugger all.
I don’t understand why it is. Something about human nature that wiser heads than mine need to grapple with. But it shows me that simple price mechanisms will just not deliver the goods. The market response is not rational, so we can’t rely on it to achieve something as vital and urgent as emissions reductions.
Let’s get in there and mandate it. Roll out audits across the country and require them to be implemented for a certain payback period. 4 years, 6 years, 8 years for those who can afford it. Still a hugely good ROI.
Tim: as an alternative possibility might I suggest that the energy efficiency business might not have been particularly good at marketing itself.
I have a politically conservative friend who has become involved in a renewable energy related business in the past year or so. His strong belief was that there’s an expectation in the sector that the goverment will hand things to them on a plate.
In any case, you’re making the assumption that all these energy efficiency audits will result in less energy consumption over the entire economy. The businesses may well turn around and use the money saved to either a) expand their business, or b) distribute the profits which are then spent in energy-intensive ways, completely negating the savings.
Oh, I totally acknolwedge that the industry could have marketed itself far better. But it’s been clear for years now that the opportunities are there. If a market signal alone was all that was needed, it’s been in place for years on efficiency.
And, indeed, I acknowledge that there is an expectation in the industry that government should hand things to them on a platter. But I ask you and your conservative friend – why does the industry have that expectation? Because government has handed their competitors everything they wanted on silver platters for years. It sets up a paradigm in the energy industry that it very hard to break. Returning to my original point a few posts up – the paradigm is handouts to coal and uranium. It’s got to be broken down before there can be any suggestion of a level playing field.
Re the latter point – that’s why we need comprehensive policies. I’m not saying that rolling out energy efficiency is all that we need to do. I’m saying it’s a huge start that’s easy and cheap and we should do it. Alongside a price signal of some kind, a strong feed-in law, cradle to grave packaging legislation, etc, etc.
Most importantly, it should all be bound up in binding emissions limits. That’s where I think you get the best benefit from a cap and trade emissions trading scheme – you can effectively cap emissions and keep pulling them down over time. If a business wants to expand, let them go ahead and do it, so long as they can keep within well-defined emissions caps. It’s possible to do that, but you need regulation to ensure that it’ll happen.
What about subisidies (tax deductions, whatever) for energy efficiency audits?
It’d probably achieve a heck of a lot more than subsidising solar panels.
In both cases, I reckon it’d be best for government to go in and say “we’re going to do this now, we’ll pay the upfront costs and you’ll slowly repay us out of the balance of reduced energy bills”.
Yes, cost is a barrier, but apathy is by far bigger. I’ve done analysis of take-up of Greenpower, for example, which shows the cost barrier is tiny compared to the “do I realy care enough to pick up the phone and get it organised” barrier.
Only way to leap that one is to go in and do it for people.
Tim, you might be interested in the idea of “soft compulsion“. It’s mostly been talked about in the context of compulsory superannuation, but the idea is applicable elsewhere.
Interesting. So that’s effectively an opt out process? It’s organised for you, you don’t have to do anything, but you can opt out at any time?
Definitely worth thinking about. Gets over the hurdle of people getting narky about mandatory measures.
How would you see that working in energy efficiency? The govt organises consultants to go in, do an audit, present the options and then implement savings, with the householder / company able to tell them to stop at any point. Assuming that they wouldn’t opt out once they realised how beneficial it would be.
I like it.
Energy efficiency isn’t perhaps the simplest place to apply the idea.
An absolute no-brainer example would be that everybody gets offered, say, 20% accredited green power by default when they change their electricity supplier.
I’m sure the idea could be applied in the energy efficiency domain as well, but like you said, requires a bit of thought.
I have just analysed our electricity usage and generation figures to provide a summary. We are generating about 70% of the electricity we consume.
Taking into account electricity generated from the solar array, our house has:
* half the carbon emissions of a small holiday home with no fridge
* one sixth of the emissions of a normal Australian home
* saved 3.25 tonnes of CO2 emissions per year compared to a normal Australian home.
* saved over 13 tonnes of CO2 over a four year period from 2002 to 2007 compared to a normal Australian home.
For me, this is the payback. More information and a graph is available here.
Solar and wind are here and now – just look at Europe. Nuclear and CCS are not renewable and are 15 years out.
The average price of a house in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane has increased more in the last 5 years than what it would have cost to install a 2kw solar array. It is interesting how powerful government policy & legislation is in driving behaviour and outcomes. We could be investing in our future with renewable energy rather than speculating on housing and inflating prices so home buyers have increasing loans . . .
If we fit eight more panels, we become net generators and go into the electricity business. I am getting the panels priced.