Comments on: Climate change items in the 2009 Federal Budget

By: The Clean Energy in Australia « LitFuse

The Clean Energy in Australia « LitFuse — Sun, 24 May 2009 03:11:43 +0000

[...] does this leave Australia? Weak and vulnerable in my view. The recent Federal Budget was analysed by Professor Barry Brook from the Environment Institute at the University of Adelaide. There is little cheer in the budget [...]

By: John D Morgan

John D Morgan — Wed, 20 May 2009 08:00:36 +0000

Sounds interesting. Got a link?

By: Renfrey Clarke

Renfrey Clarke — Wed, 20 May 2009 07:12:57 +0000

Are people aware of the ammonia-carbon dioxide forward osmosis desalination technology being developed at Yale University? This has the advantage of requiring only low-grade heat (58C), and has potential for being done on a large scale using straightforward solar heat collectors and some mechanism for heat storage. The technology is at the scale-up stage and is claimed to be dramatically cheaper than reverse osmosis, perhaps cheap enough for use with high-value horticulture. Combined with salt disposal via evaporation ponds, it would seem to fit well with South Australia. The SA Water RO plant, meanwhile, has serious likely problems of brine disposal in a shallow, confined gulf.

By: John Newlands

John Newlands — Fri, 15 May 2009 07:22:50 +0000

To get onto the NEM I think you need to bid megawatts in 15 minute blocks. I think that cuts out entitlement to FiT. Also the EVs would be scooters not cars.

By: Andrew B

Andrew B — Fri, 15 May 2009 06:07:06 +0000

Not sure if you heard about the National Energy Efficiency Initiative – http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/garrett/2009/budmr20090512h.html – announced in the budget.

At $100m its still in the demo size scale of things.

It picks one regional town/centre and brings together utilities, gov & business to basically do a smart grid prototype with ‘intelligent’ appliances, sending price data, etc.

I’m hoping they’ll choose Ballarat, where I am. Then I can justify buying an electric car, recharge the battery overnight from the flotilla of wind turbines surrounding the city and feedback into the grid during the day. I’m particularly looking forward to the middle of the January heatwaves when my PVs are pumping and the tariff will be sky-high. I wonder if they’ll manage to incentivise micro-generators like me by passing on the real spot price?

By: John Mashey

John Mashey — Thu, 14 May 2009 07:03:33 +0000

If I had to pick the best *single* thing that can be done quickly, decoupling is #1, as described by Peter Darbee, CEO of Pacific Gas & Electric last year at UN. Among other things, it aligns utilities with efficiency, rather than FF vendors. Darbee says (to state PUCs): don't expect anything much to happen until you do this. PG&E says this and they mean it.

By: Barry Brook

Barry Brook — Thu, 14 May 2009 06:23:06 +0000

From my understanding, rainwater tanks work out to be considerably more expensive than desal — but are less energy intensive, of course. Grey water re-use for gardens, flushing toilets etc. is a ‘no brainer’.

By: Barry Brook

Barry Brook — Thu, 14 May 2009 06:21:15 +0000

Not that I’m aware of John, but I’m happy to stand corrected.

By: John Newlands

John Newlands — Thu, 14 May 2009 05:12:01 +0000

Mostly I think the utilities just greenwash with energy saving tips. I’ve heard of two power companies that want to get into aggressive demand management via remote radio or internet switching of air conditioners. Presumably blackouts or brownouts mean some big customers have to be compensated. This is fear of penalties, not really decoupling of profit from energy units sold.

By: John Mashey

John Mashey — Thu, 14 May 2009 02:25:39 +0000

I couldn’t tell from this, but does Australia do utility rate decoupling, i.e., incenting utilities directy for efficiency, rather than GWatts?

By: James Haughton

James Haughton — Thu, 14 May 2009 01:28:44 +0000

I’d always heard that equipping houses with rainwater and grey-water systems was far more cost effective than desal plants.

By: John Newlands

John Newlands — Wed, 13 May 2009 16:48:35 +0000

I agree the Pt Augusta brown coal stations (540 and 240 MWe) should go but any new thermal plant should be on open coastline. The top of Spencer Gulf has elevated salinity and poor currents. Swimmers notice they float higher in the water then feel scalded after emerging. Both the proposed Pt Patterson solar desal plant and the Pt Lowly x-powered desal to serve Olympic Dam are in the wrong stretch of water. In fact Roxby Downs, Whyalla and Pt Augusta now probably need more water than originally planned. If PA and W disconnect from the River Murray pipeline it will free up water for downstream users like Adelaide.

The problem will be getting 24/7 energy to run these big desals and pump the fresh water hundreds of kilometres.

By: Barry Brook

Barry Brook — Wed, 13 May 2009 16:23:49 +0000

Robert Merkel has more on the green aspects of the budget here:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/05/13/how-green-was-my-budget/

By: Barry Brook

Barry Brook — Wed, 13 May 2009 14:41:09 +0000

Yes, okay, I buy that argument that the MRET will not be an effective driver of R&D in new renewables like CSP or geothermal — it will have more impact on roll out of mature renewables like wind. Point well made.

By: Brett Robertson

Brett Robertson — Wed, 13 May 2009 14:26:55 +0000

Barry, I've done what I hope is a fairly comprehensive summary of the climate-relevant parts of the budget (comments welcome). I found $6.9 billion committed to RD&D spending (in programs ranging from 3 to 10 years), $3.4 billion of which had been previously announced. In the area of energy efficiency, I found $5 billion (in programs ranging from 1 to 5 years), $4 billion of which had been previously announced. The biggest areas of new spending are, as you mention, carbon capture and storage, up from $400 million to $3.4 billion over 9 years, and large scale solar, up from $135 million to $1.5 billion over 6 years. Importantly, the technology-neutral Renewables Australia fund gets only $465 million, up from $365 million of existing funding. This is a government that is clearly not afraid to "pick winners" when it comes to green (or at least, greener) technology. I strongly disagree with your comments about the MRET making R&D funding redundant. The MRET alone will lead to a deployment of existing technologies in their current state. It will not stimulate the R&D investment required to substantially lower the cost of these technologies, or bring newer, less mature technologies into the mix. The same can be said of market based measures like cap-and-trade or a carbon tax - market forces alone are not enough to stimulate innovation on the scale required. The Stern Review Chapter 16 and Garnaut Review Chapter 18 both do a good job of summarising research in this area.

By: Bill

Bill — Wed, 13 May 2009 11:24:38 +0000

Barry,
you make a good point with reference to the use of biomass for energy generation and the possible negation of carbon dioxide that could come from this being combined with CCS. I recently attended a talk on CCS at the Climate Futures talks at Adelaide University and chatting with the speakers after the talk none were aware of how current legislation would treat this scenario. Its something I’d considered throughout my work in wastewater treatment emissions but I’ve so far not been able to find any information on how it would be treated in a carbon trading scheme – ideally I figured it should be no different to planting trees. Obviously in the case of wastewater and a municipal landfill the scale would make the costs of CCS unviable but if they were in some way sharing a gas/coal/biomass power stations infrastructure it may well work (well into the future…)

By: Neil Howes

Neil Howes — Wed, 13 May 2009 10:08:19 +0000

Barry,
It seems that 1.15billion of the 1.5B for 4 solar energy demonstration projects is new money. This should provide 150-200MW of average power but more like 300-600MW of peak afternoon power in summer. If SA manages to get a good slice of this they will be getting >25% electricity from renewables.
What an opportunity to get BHP to match some of the solar investment and have a combined solar power and desalination plant on the coast, and close down Pt Augusta’s brown coal plant. Power in the day from solar,with enough left over to help with A/C in summer, power at night from wind when less demand from Adelaide.

This would be the perfect location for the first nuclear reactor sharing the same molten salt heat storage and steam turbines.

By: Barry Brook

Barry Brook — Wed, 13 May 2009 07:47:16 +0000

That’s a good point — the MRET is indeed likely to capture mostly wind and some PV, as well as soaking up all the solar hot water RECs.

By: Simon

Simon — Wed, 13 May 2009 07:29:06 +0000

The mandatory renewable energy target (MRET), in the early years, will mostly drive wind farm construction. This direct subsidy for solar will almost certainly go into solar thermal power, hopefully with storage for 24 hour generation. As such, its the sort of direct targeted technology support that helps ensure the development of multiple options that address climate change. Direct technology subsidy is one of the policy initiatives that Nicholas Stern highlights in his UK government Climate Change review. Stern argues that support of this nature is necessary in addition to a price on carbon (effectively an MRET is a mix of a direct intervention and a carbon price). Some comparative cost numbers for solar thermal are here...

By: John Newlands

John Newlands — Wed, 13 May 2009 07:13:17 +0000

It’s disappointing that a federal government elected on a climate agenda can stoop to the copout of ‘cleaner coal’. However the 20% MRET by 2020 could be more powerful than a weak carbon cap. For example the push to gas fired generation could meet a mild carbon target but gas is not strictly renewable. Nor is nuclear. Maybe some new form of Orwellian doublespeak will be used get around that difficulty.

The big question with desal is should those parched cities with over a million people disperse to smaller communities? At say $1 per kL the water is too expensive to grow food. Recycled effluent can grow a few tomatoes but big cities need a natural food bowl nearby. One advantage of desal is that warmed water that passes through the primary cooling system of thermal plant may need less energy for subsequent reverse osmosis or flash distillation. However the good people of Port Stanvac, Kurnell, Kwinana or Wonthaggi clearly don’t want any new power station next to their desal. It will be interesting to see just how much of the power needs can be truly accounted by renewables.