1. tripling our energy costs
2. not making meaningful cuts in emissions
3. nukes

2. is not an actual option.

So your choice is between cheap nuclear and expensive renewables.

I don’t buy the premise that geothermal, wind, passive solar, PV solar etc etc are more expensive than nuclear. But even if they were – and always remained more expensive – we’d still pay for it.

We pay a lot of money for our petrol already. We’d pay a lot more than we do now for our electricity. We don’t notice our electricity bills. They are in the salad roll and milkshake territory. We don’t economise. We run ridiculous levels of air-conditioning; we don’t turn off endless gadgets in the home and workplace; we light our bldgs all night long; we flood our environment with unnecessary lighting; we heat outdoor dining tables; we run huge mostly empty coke dispensing fridges; plasma screens in every public space we can find; we ain’t begun to even look at our excessive consumption.

CSIRO do research into computer modelling of “granular media” with the aim of improving the efficiency of mining and other industrial processes. Obviously with the current Australian mining boom, a lot of ore is being crushed into small pieces. According to a recent CSIRO talk I attended, rock crushers operate at about 1% efficiency, and a large rock crusher (e.g. at Olympic dam) consumes the same amount of electricity as a large regional centre (e.g. Ballarat). Yet the detailed mathematics/physics of rock crushing is poorly understood.

CSIRO Particulate Dynamics

I’m yet to be convinced that people’s ickiness about nuclear power extends to being are willing to pay in the order of 40 cents a kilowatt hour for the alternative. And, unless energy storage starts improving, that’s what we might end up paying. And even if householders are, I very much doubt industry will wear it when there is a cheaper alternative.

Nuclear will not fly in this country. So put that out of your head. And move on.

The trouble with most renewables is that the technology for storing energy and releasing when we need it (demand management can help to some extent, but it’s not a panacea) is way, way, way behind the renewables tech; and even ignoring that renewables are in my view currently a lot dearer than the alternatives. Geosequestration is unproven and the costs are highly uncertain. That’s why I think that ruling out nuclear is unrealistic. Yes, I’ve thought a lot about the downsides as well; I don’t have the time or space to go into details here, but my conclusion is that some of them are flat-out wrong, some are highly exaggerated, and what’s left is acceptable when you look at other things we live with without any great concern.

I would still argue that PV does not yet encapsulate the full benefits because most retailers do not buy your PV power at peak rates where appropriate (often just providing a flat rate) – peak wholesale power rates can be significantly higher because that’s when your gas turbines/peaking plants need to kick in. Yet we continue to compare PV prices to essentially baseload power rates.

Nor do they take into account the fact that you just saved the elec company the cost of upgrading/maintaining transmission lines from latrobe valley (say) to Melb and having to add capacity to existing peaking plants.

I do take your point though that the hype of PV has tended to mask the much cheaper and easier gains to be had through energy efficiency.

After energy efficiency – what do you see as the next best/most sensible way of reducing emissions? (Please just point me to another thread if you’ve covered it there…)

m

It’s not about doing the stitching and sewing here, it’s about design, brand development, product development within the brand and management setting up the supply and distribution networks etc. – mainly brain work.

In industry development policy we need to look at how we can set the right environment so that Australia is the best place in the world to do the brain work for clusters of industries and then manage the commercialisation. What this means in renewable energy is for people smarter than I am to work out.

And the “full benefits” of solar are fully encapsulated by the fact they’re competing against retail electricity, not wholesale. They’re still multiple times dearer than power off the grid. Maybe this will change over the next few years. Maybe not. We’ve been promised cost reductions for years, but they’re not happening.

I don’t have anything against solar panels, per se. I just want to see us put our efforts into reducing emissions as much as possible, as cheaply as possible. And solar panels, for the medium term at least, will only be able to deliver minimal emissions reductions at a very high price. What really shits me, however, is the fact that relentless campaigning by various environmental organizations has left the general public with the mistaken belief that solar panels are a sensible short-term solution to the problem.

As part of my reform of the tax system I’d love to see some ultra generous tax concessions for any R&D done in the clean tech area.

And yet you’re happy to let what was Australia’s burgeoning solar industry head to germany and japan? (we used to be top 3, now struggling to stay top 10)

Plus until the full benefits of solar are incorporated into their costs, I think its unfair to dismiss them as simply too expensive. Peak-power generation, on-site, reduced loss from transmission etc.

I’m certainly not advocating that PV is the answer to ALL our problems, I’m just surprised that you seem so ready to dismiss them, when they have a distinct role to play in the mix. While will be even more possible with a little investment now.

Is it simply the cost per CO2 tonne reduction that you’re against?

(I should reveal that I do like shiny silicon wafers so perhaps I’m biased. =) )

I agree that (gasp!) the market may not work perfectly in all situations, and insulating rental properties is one such case, but we should be plugging those holes after the broad-based market approach is in place, rather than implementing a complex collection of loans, rebates, and subsidies first.

Of course the reason why we’ve ended up with this dog’s breakfast is political inertia, and worse denial from Howard and co. Witness the state-based emissions-trading schemes and MRET targets, which never would have happened if Howard wasn’t in full denial mode for the past decade.

Its so much easier to put solar panels on schools than make the hard policy decisions.

You know I agree with you on the broad thrust of price signals rather than specific fiddles, but often there is inertia to be overcome that stops otherwise sensible changes being made. Insulation in rental properties, for instance, seems a clear case of where the outcome is decidedly non-optimal if just left to the market.

Something that is often overlooked when discussing solar hot water, better insulation, solar PV etc (all laudable initiatives) is that domestic emissions in Australia are relatively small (20% of total emissions is the number I have in my head but I don’t have time to confirm this now). Why is there is so much focus on domestic emissions and so little on industry?

This is why I advocate an across-the-board carbon tax rather than loans and rebates for solar hot water, solar PV, better insulation and the like. IMO we should be getting rid of all these fiddles and simplify the tax system so the burden is shifted away to income and onto carbon emissions.

As to shutting down coal exports, of course its politically impossible and would cause considerable economic disruption, but if the world’s largest coal exporter suddenly dropped out of the market it would take many years for the world to make up that coal production capacity and the inevitable result would be much higher coal prices and slower growth in coal consumption.

It’s the same as shutting down coal exports – sounds great, until you realize that Australia is not the only place from which the carbon-intensive good can be purchased.

Closing six aluminium smelters would make more difference than replacing every electric hot water system and insulating every house, and could be achieved with much less inconvenience for voters. Who cares if Alcoa makes a few billion less next quarter? I don’t.

According to Guy Pearse:

Six aluminium smelters consume close to 1/5 of Eastern Australia’s electricity. They also generate close to six per cent of Australia’s greenhouse emissions.

Not I don’t like the green loans policy, but FCS, this is the future of the planet we’re talking about! Lets tax carbon (hard) and hand back the proceeds as income tax cuts at the bottom end and increased welfare payments.

They’re actually doing it in British Columbia:

But in British Columbia, Finance Minister Carole Taylor is merrily pursuing a carbon tax, eyeing a plan that could see the province levy substantial fees on economic choices that spew greenhouse gases, but that would slash other kinds of taxes, including income taxes.

The Green Loan thing sounds good.

We’ve just had a waterwise audit for which we paid $20. A plumber gave us the once over, installed a free new shower rose, fixed the washers in our taps and installed those flow lmiters in the bathroom and kitchen. Not sure who was actually paying him – probably the State government, but might have been the city council.

From a pragmatic perspective, let the Germans fund the R&D if they’re silly enough to try to get a significant fraction of their power from PV panels.