Open Thread 17

@ Peter Lang

Your points are wrong and don’t follow. They are based on your moral beliefs, not on a rational argument.

Do you believe this is also true for all the other economists in Australia? Are they all in a economic conspiracy to impose a carbon tax? If so – why?
Apparently Tony Abbott can’t get any economists to back his plan:

But high-profile economist Saul Eslake has hit back, saying Mr Abbott’s problem is that he cannot find an Australian economist who will support his “direct action” policy.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/07/01/3258962.htm?site=news
I am sure Tony would love to hear from you Peter to reassure him that he is on the right track.

LikeLike

@David Walters – I’m quite aware there is no spot market for power in California – I believe generators have to bid 3-hour blocks in to the market, a day in advance (correct me if I’m wrong). The point being that if demand spikes unexpectedly, they can’t jack the price up.

My point, which several of you seem to have missed, is that PV does not have to be able to provide baseload in order to be economical for large utilities in California. Daytime power usage (I’ll freely admit that I probably didn’t use the term ‘peak’ technically correctly) is significantly higher than night-time. Prices are also significantly higher – I believe in California they are higher than the LCOE of Solar PV for the entire daytime period, right when Solar PV is generating. How does that make Solar PV not economical for utility-scale generators who need to meet regulatory targets on ‘renewable’ energy, and would also like the ‘greenwash’ aspect as well?
BTW, I looked up the demand curve for California (which is the specific case I was discussing, in case you missed it – it’s what that quoted ClimateSpectator article was talking about – solar plants for California switching from CSP to PV).
See e.g. http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html for today’s expected demand curve. Looks like it ‘peaks’ at 4-5pm. Unless I’m mistaken, that’s before sunset in California (at least the southern parts, where a solar plant is likely to be built!). So PV can provide ‘peak’ power, at ‘peak’ prices. Or at least, the generators can include the expected PV output in their bid for tomorrow’s peak periods (said bid including their entire generation portfolio – it’s up to them how they run it, I think). It’s not like it’ll cost them anything to include it, and it’ll save them money in fossil fuels that would otherwise need to be burned, or water that would need to be let out of a dam, etc…

BTW, Can someone please explain to me how several thousand MWp of solarPV can not reduce CO2 emissions, by reducing FF burning during the day? Are you telling me that throttleable power plants are *so* inefficient that, say, reducing output by 1GW for 8 hours ends up burning more fuel than keeping it running flat out and just blowing steam?
I’m no expert in power stations, but you’re gonna have to come up with some strong evidence & data to persuade me of that one. Probably some efficiency curves would be good to look at, if you can point me to them. I’m a mechanical engineer, so technical data is fine, I just need to know where it is.
I know the *efficiency* of the plant drops, in terms of CO2 per kWe output, but if you’re cutting the kWe by more than the efficiency drop, then the CO2 also drops.

@Peter Lang – responding to one of your many posts above.
1. A carbon price, applied in Australia, will not reduce world CO2 emissions nor affect the climate.
Not true. The effect will be small, in isolation, but not zero. The real value of it is political – being able to provide leverage – or, even more importantly, being able to remove leverage used by those who say “Why should we cut our CO2 emissions, [$country] hasn’t made any effort to reduce theirs”.
In particular, if even America’s closest allies start pricing carbon, it may force a rethink amongst conservatives there, who all seem to have hitched their wagons to the “It’s not happening” bandwagon.

2. A carbon price, applied in Australia but not in Australia’s trading partners or trade competitors, will damage Australia’s economy.
You repeatedly assert this. Others (including myself) reference economic analysis that says this just aint so.
e.g. http://theconversation.edu.au/the-effects-of-a-carbon-tax-some-harmony-amongst-the-discord-1865

…if the economy had been predicted to grow by 3% without the tax, then a $30 tax would cause the economy to slow to a growth rate of 2.29%.

Last time I looked, a growth of 2.3% wasn’t a recession, let alone economic suicide.
Technically, yes, you could call it ‘damage’, but weighed against the damage of not pricing CO2 emissions?

3. Damaging Australia’s economy will mean we will be less able to take effective action over the long haul to decarbonise our economy.
And if the ‘damage’ takes the form of a levy on carbon emissions which is used to ‘stand up’ decarbonised energy sources? (yes, including nuclear)

4. Australia cannot reduce CO2-e emissions to 5% below 2000 levels by 2020 without having a serious economic recession.
Many serious economists would strongly disagree with you. It would have certainly been much easier if we’d started the job back in 1997 when Kyoto was signed, though. 14 wasted years, there, that will come back to bite us.

5. Therefore, a carbon price would have to be raised high enough to cause a sever recession if we want to achieve the 2020 targets.
Again, assertion with no evidence to back it up, and see my answer to point 2 above.

6. A carbon price is intended to shift electricity generators from coal to gas, the consequences of which, both economic and environmental, are not known. The consequences of widespread coal seam gas production and possible poisoning of water supplies is one serious threat.
Not disagreeing with your dislike of the shift to gas, especially coal-seam gas. Whether the carbon price is intended to achieve this, I don’t know, but I strongly doubt it.

More importantly, I think the simple precedent of having put a price on carbon emissions will have significant political ramifications. You’ll note that this is what the Opposition here (and the conservatives in the US) are desperately fighting to avoid. They (and the fossil fuel industry lobbyists) don’t want any price on carbon emissions, however small, because a price on carbon emissions is an admission that carbon emissions have an economic cost. A crack in the dam that is global warming denial, so to speak.

The argument then becomes over exactly how great the cost is, rather than whether there is one in the first place.

To be entirely honest, that is why I support the “initial fixed price ETS” (or whatever the gov’t is calling it at the moment). Not because I think it will solve the problem all by itself, but because it will make it clear to everyone that there is a problem that must be solved, and that Australia, at least, recognises this fact.

It’s about framing the argument, not winning it in one fell swoop.

LikeLike

Peter, could you imagine a situation where nuclear power didn’t exist… what is your solution then? Most people who think an ETS is the best way to deal with this do not have nuclear power in their solution toolkit. In which case again I agree with you that the most important thing is to correct the fallacies against nuclear.

I actually agree with what you propose as the best way forward, but I’m not convinced an ETS/tax is as terrible as you suggest. I know you think it is insane, but personally I think a bit of ETS reality without nuclear will be quickest path to nuclear. I’d rather not go there without nuclear, but I’d rather go there than stay where we are.

LikeLike

The question is not whether PV can reduce CO2 emissions, the question is how the hell are we going to reduce our global emissions to only a few billion tonnes CO2 equivalents per year. In other words how do we get to that 90+% reduction. PV is very marginal here. It can’t replace coal so its a marginal technology by definition.

LikeLike

> 1. Reduce the regulatory obstacles to nuclear …

Also needed–smarter management, e.g.

http://aksarbent.blogspot.com/2011/06/nebraska-nuclear-reactor-flooding.html
“Two years ago the Nuclear Regulatory Commission discovered that (due to a miscalculation) Ft. Calhoun’s flooding preparation was inadequate, and forced the plant’s operator, OPPD (Omaha Public Power District) to get with the program and make necessary upgrades, without which the current situation would be much, much worse.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303654804576348910944570204.html
“Nine months before the March earthquake and tsunami … one of its reactors suffered a loss of electricity under much more mundane circumstances: A maintenance worker from a subcontractor accidentally bumped an electronic switch with his elbow.

The outage triggered a sharp drop in the level of cooling water for the radioactive fuel rods ….
… Water levels inside the No. 2 reactor had dropped by two meters (nearly seven feet) for about 30 minutes before being restored.
…. caused by …. what NISA and Tepco described in their reports as a “momentary” flutter that was long enough to trip a circuit breaker shutting off the reactor’s main power supply, but too short to trigger the normal backup power supply.

As a result, the electric pumps seized up ….”

LikeLike

Bern @ 2 July 2011 at 9:56 PM

@Peter Lang – responding to one of your many posts above.

1. A carbon price, applied in Australia, will not reduce world CO2 emissions nor affect the climate.
Not true. The effect will be small, in isolation, but not zero. The real value of it is political – being able to provide leverage

I cannot go over it all over again. I’ve posted the references for all the statements summarised in the six points. I’ve posted the various references dozens of times. They are authoritative sources, not just nonsense from Climate Spectator and the like.

If you are interested, I’d urge you to go back through and read and understand the previous comments and references.

Just to explain, in short, a carbon price in Australia will not cut world emissions, not change the climate.

Firstly, what a carbon price will do, if high enough, is to move energy intensive industries out of Australia to other countries like China.

Secondly, it does not help to bring the cost of low emissions electricity down, so it does not help developing countries to get lower cost low emissions electricity generation. It’s not worth me explaining all this again here. Please read the “Alternative to Carbon Pricing” thread.

Thirdly it damages our economy so we are less able to take the appropriate action

Fourthly, it burries the problems of the masses of regulations the prevent low cost low emissions electricity generation. So we won’t tackle it. We’ll just cover it over. This is actually my major reason for opposing the carbon pricing. It avoids dealing with the real, underlying issues and it will defer it for ever. Nuclear will be deferred for a very long time if we go down the carbon pricing route before we confront the real problem.

The costs of the monitoring reporting and administration – both public sector and private sector will be enormous (I listed some of it up thread). Bern, you do need to put your thinking cap on to bring it all together.

Bern, The more of your comment I read, the more I realise you’ve either missed nearly all the background and the references or you are simply locked into reiterating the Al Gore et al line. Some people just believe no matter what. There is no point trying to discuss with them. They want symbolic gestures – like Kyoto – and think they are good. We can point to many others equally as bad, but I doubt there is any point trying to discuss with some people, because people like yourself believe they are good (anti nuclear, renewables subsidies, pink bats, green loans, green cars, ethanol, bio diesel, the list is endless of the bad policies driven by true Green believers).

LikeLike

Bern,

I’ll just make this comment too.

Many people are being deceptive saying on one hand a carbon price of $20 or $30 will not drive the economy into recession and on the other had trying to imply that the carbon price will cause us to achieve the 2020 targets. The point is that the carbon price will have to rise high enough to cause GDP growth to be negative (a recession) if we are to achieve the 2020 targets. There is no realistic way of achieving the 2020 targets without a deep, long recession. Do the calculations yourself and explain where the 160 Mt/a of cuts will come from. You might want to start by reading what I’ve already posted (including the references).

LikeLike

EN I think alleged fossil fuel subsidies should be looked at on a case by case basis and the responsible party asked to justify their position. To take one example that of low electricity prices to aluminium smelters I believe it traces back to competition between the States for the prestige of hosting a smelter. The States should now explain why it wouldn’t be better for the local economy to close each smelter and give households lower power prices.

I’ve just seen a TV program on why carbon credits could be an alternative to logging. Ye gods it’s a legal and measurement nightmare. They did say that carbon tax needs to be at least $40 not closer to $20. However I believe as do others that ~$20 is a foot in the door. That door has been closed and now there is the possibility it could be thrown wide open. It officially acknowledges that CO2 is a harmful product in excess doses.

Therefore I hope carbon tax gets up without too many giveaways. The initial result I think will be some efficiency gains which will trim the fat. Hopefully people will then notice that the only technology shift is gas, not renewables (if they keep their promise to drop subsidies). Then 2-3 years from now the public will look for something else. It’s all progress.

LikeLike

@ Neil Howes, on 3 July 2011 at 2:18 PM:

Neil has correctly presented us with the more reasonable range of prices for 2-shifting a conventional coal fired power plant. The fuel costs and maintenance costs are not the only issues, however, because we are not discussing a two-step on or off situation, but one where after a period of being off, there is a warm restart, followed by continuous load following.

Now, load following is perfectly normal but it comes at a cost.

First, there is the fuel cost due to inefficiencies involved with not operating at or close to the most efficient load. Say, for example, a 500MW unit is most economical at 420MW, but is set at 200MW after warming up. This represents an ongoing efficiency loss. Similarly, there may be a loss of efficiency if the unit is operated outside a range of, say, 250 – 470, even though this nominal 500MW machine is capable of perhaps 530MW in short bursts.

Second, there is a loss of efficiency every time the load level is adjusted either up or down. Until the air/fuel mix is stabilised again at the optimal level, either additional air is passing through the furnace, being heated, then being blown up the chimney. This is called running lean.

Otherwise, the furnace will run rich, ie with not enough oxygen to fully burn the fuel at the correct time and place within the furnace. Again, heat or fuel is lost. Unburned fuel turns up as CO in the exhaust flow or as carbon fines in the fly ash. Either way, they represent a loss of energy and hence a cost.

Stochastic power sources, typically the renewable ones of wind and solar PV, result in many more and steeper adjustments, minute by minute throughout the operating period of the coal fired unit which is working in tandem with renewable power sources.

So, whether the additional cost per start is $2k or $90k, depending on how long the unit has been out of service, to complete the picture we need to consider the additional ramping up and down continually throughout the day as the wind puffs and blows and the sun is shielded by fleeting clouds.

One final observation: The cheapest base load (ie largest, newest coal or OCGT or nuclear or must-run hydro) are not the units that follow the fluctuating of renewables. The slightly dearer, older coal fired units and the much more expensive but (thankfully) responsive OCGT will get this task. These are also the units that have the highest thermal penalties when load-following.

The system operators make all of this work, but it is difficult to allocate the costs of load following to the generating plant which caused the need in the first place – variable renewables.

Until these costs are determined and lreimbursed by the renewable generators, they represent a subsidy of the variable generators by the reliable generators. Assuming a warm start and say 2% loss of efficiency, the equation becomes something of the order of:
For a two shifting 500MW unit, warm start = $20k after being parked for 8 hours.
For every MWh generated, the efficiency loss is of the order of 2% of 200 tonnes of coal per hour * $100 per tonne. (Adjust figures as you chose for another guess).

Penalty for 500MW unit, running at an average of 60% (300MW) for 16 hours as above is thus
= $20,000 + 16 hours * 200 t * $2
= $20,000 + 6400 = $2640 per day
= $963,600 per year, per unit. NB Power stations often consist of four or more units.

NB I have not considered the cost of labour standing by or the cost of capital tied up in a less efficient operation.

Remember also, that you cannot just shut down a thermal unit and walk away. The shaft must be kept turning or it will distort (“hog”) and damage the turbines and generator. Shaft jacking motors and careful observation are required during the shutdown and there are strich limits on the rate of rise of temperature in critical components during re-start. It is possible to 2-shift, but what have just written should indicate that there is huge risk involved every time, and risk represents money, as any insurer will tell you. Replacement of a damaged generator stator is counted in the tens of millions of dollars on units of this size, and that’s before the cost of the lost revenue during a shutdown of at least half a year is taken into account.

No doubt those who own the generating plant will price 2-shifting a 4-unit station in the tens of millions of dollars per annum, above and beyond normal operating costs.

If it was my unit, I’d be trying everything possible to keep it running at minimum load (say 140MW), rather than 2-shifting, for which I reckon $90k per day is very cheap in a market situation.

Where does the baseload generator sent this bill?

LikeLike

Tom Keen,

I find it tiresome (your term) trying to discuss this with you when it seems you intentionally avoid most of the relevant points I’ve made up thread and in previous discussions with you. There is no point me repeating it all again, nor any point in linking to my previous comments, because this has been going on for so long it demonstrates it is the way of this discussion. So I’ll just pick up on a couple of your final points for the benefit of other readers.

Firstly, you’ve quoted selectively from the Productivity Commission report and put your own interpretation on the conclusions that should be drawn from it.

And, Peter Lang, I read “The Failure of Al Gore: Part Deux” article. There was no evidence in it that a carbon tax would be detrimental to Australia.

Clearly you have missed the point I made by posting the link to that article. Others may want to read it and draw their own conclusions http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/06/27/the-failure-of-al-gore-part-deux/ . The point the article makes is absolutely clear and applicable to what is going on here.

I am yet to see any evidence that a carbon price will cause a recession, or significantly affect the economy.

That is because you do not accept what is clear from the Roger Pielke Jr, (2011) http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/2010.36.pdf ,Treasury http://www.treasury.gov.au/documents/1999/PDF/100910_Email_Size_of_Abatement_Challenge.pdf and others make absolutely clear. In attempting to explain why you do not accept them you made some distracting comments to the effect you do not accept the Kaya Identity; we can cut emissions by other ways without having to deal with cutting fossil fuels. I refuted your comment at the time. In short, there are only two variables that can be influenced by the carbon price: GDP growth and Emissions intensity per GDP. The latter is comprised of two factors: Energy Intensity and Emissions Intensity. Neither of these factors can be changed fast enough, across the whole economy, to cut emissions at the rate needed to achieve the unconditional 2020 target (5% below 2020 levels). The only factor that can be changed fast enough is the GDP growth rate. That is what the carbon price will have to act to change. The carbon price would have to be raised fast enough to cause GDP growth rate to be cut severely (probably average negative) for 8 years to achieve the unconditional 2020 target.

Nuclear power is cheaper than fossil fuels.

That is not what all the studies have been showing consistently (ANSTO, EPRI, ASTE, ACIL Tasman and other studies contracted by AEMO, Department of Industry … and others. They consistently show that the LCOE of nculear in Australia would be in the order of 2x LCOE of coal if we implement with the impediments alread in Australia and as are imposed in USA< Canada, UK and EU. So, unless we tackle and remove these impediments, nuclear will not be viable in Australia. A carbon price will not help to remove theseimpedments. It will bury them under another layer of massive regulatory burden and cost imposts. It will defer addressing them. We’ve been over and over this point ad nauseum. Its tiresome.

I’ve also pointed out, many times, that raising the cost of energy in Australia will not cut world emissions. No point repeating this again and providing all the links when you either wont read them or don’t get the overall picture. It’s tiresome.

For others who want to follow up on this, please refer to the lead article and comments on the "Alternative to Carbon Pricing" thread: https://bravenewclimate.com/2010/01/31/alternative-to-cprs/

Then look at the comments on this thread linked in this comment:

Open Thread 17

LikeLike

Tom Keen, @ https://bravenewclimate.com/2011/06/29/open-thread-17/#comment-130807

Further to my previous response to your comment at 11:40 pm, this point you made is an example of the ongoing distortions that I find worse than tiresome:

Australian Treasury modelling suggests that a carbon price impact on the economy will be “very modest”.

I’ve explained repeatedly that the modelling quoted by the Treasurer is for the scenario where carbon price starts at $20/tonne and increases at 4% per year. That price is nowhere near sufficient to cut CO2 emissions by 2020 to achieve the unconditional 5% reduction below 2000 levels.

Implying that it is, as the Treasurer is doing – and many fall for it – is a slight of hand.

(see summary of key points here: https://bravenewclimate.com/2011/06/29/open-thread-17/#comment-130749 )

LikeLike

@David Walters, John Bennetts

I don’t believe I said anything about using CCGT plant for only a few hours. Sorry if you misinterpreted.

We know that wind/solar provides on average 20% of its nameplate capacity as average power and it must/should be backed up 100% of name plate by OCGT with 80% of the wind/solar/gas combo energy being provided by the inefficient OCGT plant.

In my green storage scenario the OCGT is replaced by more efficient CCGT plant providing that 80% of the energy as well as backup to the storage, with the storage simply replacing the need for fast spoolup OCGT.

The second option is obviously cheaper and produces a lot less GHG’s making wind/solar a somewhat less odious and expensive option but still an order of magnitude more expensive than nuclear.

LikeLike

coal closure would cut growth not carbon

Shutting down the Australian coal industry would cost the economy between $29 billion and $36bn a year and have no effect on global carbon emission levels. </blockquote
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/coal-closure-would-cut-growth-not-carbon-report/story-fn59niix-1226086753914

Most people in Australia now realise this.

This chart shows clearly that a rising carbon price has not stopped, nor even slowed, demand for coal.
http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=coal-australian&months=360

Pricing carbon is the WRONG POLICY. Instead, we need to allow clean alternatives to be cheaper. Only by allowing the clean alternatives to be cheaper will they be adopted where the main growth in CO2 emissions is occurring and will occur for the decades ahead.

We need to remove the impediments to low cost nuclear, not slow the economy with another bad, Green policy – a carbon price.

LikeLike

In Australia:

…, the [carbon] tax could result in electricity supply problems in Victoria and South Australia if enough funds are not allocated to financing alternative energy sources once coal-fired power stations are shut down, The Australian reported.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Govt-struggles-to-keep-carbon-tax-revenue-neutral–pd20110704-JFPUH?OpenDocument&src=mp

Can we learn anything from overseas:

Britain’s Green Energy Policy Is A Complete Fiasco

Britain’s richest energy companies want homeowners to subsidise billions of pounds worth of gas-powered stations that will stand idle for most of the time. Talks have taken place between the Government, Centrica, owner of British Gas, and other energy companies on incentives to build the power stations needed as back-ups for the wind farms now being built around the country. It is understood 17 gas-fired plants worth about £10 billion will be needed by 2020. The Energy Department has been warned that without this massive back-up for the new generation of heavily subsidised giant wind farms, the lights could go out when the wind dies down. –Tom McGhie, This is Money, 24 June 2011

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/article-2008055/Energy-giants-want-billions-windfarms.html

LikeLike

Book review: Robert Rapier on Terry Tamminen’s Cracking the Carbon Code”:

“…the author is fairly confident that we will get some meaningful regulations in the U.S. that will put a price on carbon dioxide emissions. In that case, a lot of what Tamminen describes in the book may be realistic. But I don’t think we will actually see any sort of stringent regulations being passed into law. There is too much opposition on the Republican side…”

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2011/07/03/book-review-cracking-the-carbon-code/

LikeLike

Peter Lang at 9.22 I predict there will only be token gas replacement of coal burners in SA and Vic. A couple of small CCGT plants will be built and a raft of excuses found to keep burning the poor quality coal in both States. As I’ve pointed out there is a precedent for this in Muja, southwest WA where the coal plant was brought out of retirement when the gas price rose.

Ironically Martin Ferguson’s predecessor RFX Connor anticipated the need to link NW Australian gas with the SE some 30 years ago with disastrous consequences http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loans_Affair
I think RFX Connor could be the spiritual ancestor of many BNC posters as he also wanted an enrichment industry.

SA and Vic are between a rock and a hard place. As the years go by the lame excuses offered to keep running the Pt Augusta and Latrobe Valley stations will start to wear thin. For example some dedicated tree plantations will frizzle up in a drought. Then the public will ask what is the realistic alternative.

LikeLike

EN this is why I think we need a variable carbon price but not scammed by bogus carbon credits. The two big issues are China peak coal and world peak oil. I see on today’s Oil Drum the Chinese think their coal peak won’t occur for at least another decade. Maybe but how how come they need to buy so many farms around Gunnedah NSW?

On peak oil I wonder if the price may not escalate so much but stay roughly affordable in proportion to global GDP. Thus as global economic activity contracts negative feedback keeps the oil price in check. Others say there will be an oil price spike next year downturn or not. The beauty of an auctioned CO2 price is that the market will pay what it can afford. That assumes no collusion, no scamming and no free kicks from the umpire.

First I think the govt will have to sort out the anomalies in the carbon tax. When that turns into an ETS in 2015 there will be yet more anomalies to sort out. Hopefully within a decade everybody will know what works and what doesn’t work. If the world economy is subdued in 2020 the CO2 price could be lower than $20/t. Many scenarios are possible.

LikeLike

@John Bennets…you were an operator? I was too also for a couple of decades and also with GT (diesel powered, with compressed air starts) black start capability.

Yeah…I was wondering if in Fukushima, even without the meltdowns, wouldn’t the turbines be basically trashed anyway without DC back up for the turning gears? Have to wonder. We almost bowed our shaft on more than occasion with the DC lube oil pump wouldn’t kick in. Not good…can’t even turn the shaft by hand.

At out plant we had a minimum of 24 hours on turning gear before we cold turn it down, and temperature differentials within 50 F from top of the turbine to the bottom, from the inside of the casing to the outside and so on. There is a LOT to do with a shutdown…I always hated them. Start ups were far more fun!

Now generally new OCGTs and CCGTs have these units on *constant* turning gear, at least the GE ones I worked at in Texas (Frame 7As).

But this is the problem with solar/wind…they *always* exclude the costs of the GTs capital costs and of course the fuel costs to run them when the wind isn’t blowing.

LikeLike

Regarding electric vehicles:
Assuming, for the moment, that 100% of road transport energy requirements could be provided by electricity. (I’m aware that it just doesn’t work in many circumstances, but bear with me)
We all know that cars, in particular, are horribly inefficient at turning the energy content of petrol into vehicle kilometres travelled, with considerable wasted energy and low thermal efficiency (often < 20%).
Burning that fuel in a large, highly efficient power station (e.g. a CCGT) could substantially increase the efficiency of energy use. Of course, replacing the CCGT with nuclear gets rid of the emissions altogether, but that's another issue.

If all passenger cars were to be replaced in the next 5 years with electric equivalents, what would be the additional electricity demand on the national grid?
Assuming no change in other electricity demand, and no change in vehicle-kilometres-travelled.
ARRB figures for VKT for light vehicles (mostly passenger cars) is about 637 million VKT per day.
Wikipedia figures suggest electric vehicle efficiency of 10-23 kWh per 100km travelled.

So I get 64-146 GWh per day, or an average draw over 24 hrs of 2.7 – 6.1 GW. Not a small amount, compared to the total Australian generation capacity of ~56GW.

Assume all those vehicles need to be charged overnight (say 10pm-6am), and you're looking at an additional demand of 8-18 GW. Put another way, charging electric passenger vehicles overnight may require up to a third of all the electricity generation capacity in the country.

That would certainly help smooth out the demand dip during the night! :-P

Anyone have any comments on that?
Obviously, shifting people to public transport allows still greater efficiency gains, with corresponding required gov’t expenditure in providing good public transport that meets people’s needs – particularly for the outer ‘burbs that are designed around the assumption of private vehicle use.

LikeLike

While undoubtedly the plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) offers significant energy savings the uptake seems to be slow. In the US the much hyped Chevrolet Volt has only sold 3000 units as of last month. The problem may be that if petrol prices skyrocket even fewer can afford the higher sticker price for these vehicles. Whether they will become mainstream is not yet clear.

On ABC Lateline they showed the CSIRO Ultrabattery storing windpower at a site near Newcastle. What I gather was Mwh scale energy storage appeared compact enough to reside in a shed. The website gives no hint of costs. We need cheap storage at the Gwh scale.

It appears that the two coal fired power stations Loy Yang (Vic) and Playford B (SA) have been earmarked for replacement by CCGT.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/emergency-carbon-tax-compensation-for-power-plants/story-fn59niix-1226088458477
I guess that means Hazelwood will be with us for another 20 years. I presume the gas plants will be of a few hundred MW each. They are not major coal replacements and they face high fuel costs. I guess the government hopes they will distract the public’s attention for a few years.

I don’t understand the need for cash handouts to the coal industry and coal generators. With $20 carbon tax the customers aren’t going anywhere and we’ll be lucky if demand reduces even a few percent. Perhaps we’ve hurt their feelings.

LikeLike

Peter Lang,

Regarding my (inane) reply of July 4 at 5:32PM: Yes, I have limitations, and, yes, I should talk to SOME people on the other side of the carbon tax debate, but still I hope we can continue our conversation, even if it is at a slow pace.

There’s certainly going to be a lot to talk about. As I understand it, next Sunday the government is going to release details about its carbon plan. Although I enthusiastically support the idea of a carbon tax, I might take exception to some of the details of the plan were it to be proposed for the United States. You and I both want to limit economic damages from any environmental measure.

LikeLike

I am detecting signs change is in the air.

The Canberra Times, a strongly politically correct, anti-Conservative, pro-Progressives paper has started publishing articles supporting nuclear and questioning the Green orthodoxy.

Today an article by George Monbiot “Spin, distrust keep setting back the nuclear energy cause.”
I can’t find a link to it but it is a rehash of this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/04/nuclear-industry-stinks-cleaner-energy

Yesterday an article titled “Greens running off the rails” by Susanna Rustin:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/02/green-movement-lost-its-way

When the Canberra times begins publishing articles like these it is a sign change is in the air.

LikeLike

Peter Lang, was this the Canberra Times article you mentioned?
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/green-means-going-nuclear/2214798.aspx
Barry tweeted that a couple of days ago.

It’ll be a gradual process, but as the Chinese scrub their sulphate emissions, temperatures soar, and the low carbon tax has no real impact, more people will start to question whether we’re going about things the right way.

LikeLike

Moderator,

Peter – this is an Open Thread – it can be “diverted” any way the commenters want it to go.

Yes. I fully understand that. My point was not directed at you. It was, perhaps a bit too subtle. I was making the point that regular BNCers have shown consistently they want to avoid discussing the most important policy issue of the time – Carbon Pricing.

That supports the point I’ve made several times over the past 18 months that BNCers avoid discussion of this topic – a point that has been repeatedly denied by BNC regulars and the host.

Avoiding this important economic and policy issue demonstrates a lack of objectivity.

Some here are prepared to challenge some of their beliefs – ie they have changed from being anti-nuclear to pro nuclear – but they are not prepared to challenge other deeply held beliefs.

That was why I pointed out that the BNC contributors continually want to avoid discussion of rational economic alternatives to carbon pricing; they do not want to discuss or look into the impediments that prevent nuclear from being economically viable alternative to coal in Australia. This is not new. It has been absolutely clear for well over a year. It is clear that BNCers do not want to discuss this topic and continually attempt to derail the discussion when ever it starts – no matter what thread it is posted on. For a clear demonstration of what I am saying, read through the comments (and note the avoidance) on the “Alternative to Carbon Pricing” thread. It has, of course, continued on the past three Open Threads (with encouragement!).

I also now understand why EN always posts a plie of rant comments following each of my comments. He has his email box set to alert him each time aI make a post. More clear evidence of the attempt by this individual to distract discussion from the most important economic and policy issue of the time.

I also notice how the continually vitriolic and bating comments by EN are allowed to continue (eve encouraged), whereas any small breach of the commenting policy I make in response to him or others draws a comment by the Moderator. If anyone else had behaved as EN has done over the past 18 months, he would have been banned long ago.
MODERATOR
You are completely wrong! EN has actually had far more of his comments, or parts thereof, deleted than you have – remember I am not always “on board” and the moderation often occurs “down the track” timewise.If you check back over the comments you will see this to be the case. You are becoming totally unreasonable about EN (and some others). They have as much right as you to state their point of view on the OT’s as long as they stick to being civil. I ALWAYS moderate incivility from EN, you or anyone else.Further complaints of this nature from you will be deleted. Remember, you have been banned once already for persistent violations of the Comments Policy.If you don’t like the moderation you are free to leave and head to an un-moderated blog.

LikeLike

Peter Lang
You are coming across as being just a tad paranoid. I can assure you that we all get moderated – it has happened to me several times and I am a “Progressive” as I suspect you already know. Live with it or leave.

LikeLike

What a mess Australia has got itself into with the carbon pricing:

Coal power stations having to ask the corporate regulator for relief from breaches of its corporate trading licence due to the financial impacts of the proposed carbon pricing scheme
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/dirtiest-polluter-hazelwood-seeks-relief-from-financial-pain/story-fn59niix-1226088458681

What sort of message does this send to the investors we would want to invest in nuclear in the future? It send the message that governments can change their minds at the whim of extremist groups and steal investors investments. Why would anyone invest in nuclear if such a thing can happen? How could investors they wouldn’t be robbed by a future government, sometime over the 60 year life of the asset? This is one example of the sort of impediment that is making nuclear far more expensive than coal in Australia.

LikeLike

MattB

1. How high would the carbon price have to go to force Australia to achieve the unconditional 2020 target?

Ans – the market will set the carbon price

That answer is avoidance. Pure and simple avoidance.

The answer needs to be a figure with a dollar sign in front.

Will it be $2, $20, $200, $2000 per tonne CO2?

If you cannot answer this question then why on Earth are you advocating for a carbon price?

To do so is totally irreeesponsble.

To avoid answering key questions like this is a sign of lack of objectivity.

By extension, the fact that most Progressives want to avoid this question demonstrates a lack of objectiivty in arriving at their beliefs.

LikeLike