The Bullroarer - Saturday 5 July 2008

SMH - The year everything changed

The stormclouds are gathering. Our market has plunged below 5000 for the first time in two years, oil prices are soaring, America is in (unofficial) recession and the Reserve Bank is clearly worried about the home front. ... I'm going to go out on a limb here with a couple of bold predictions. I think we are at a pivotal point in history; that we are witnessing the early stages of a massive shift in the global economy, in the balance of power and in the way we live

The real change being wrought on us is in energy. And it is energy - or rather the cost of energy - that will determine our future. It was energy that started the Industrial Revolution 200 years ago - when we first started burning hydrocarbons in the form of coal. And it was energy, in the form of oil, that sparked the transport revolution a century ago. You'd have to be blind not to notice what is going on now. It's all over the news, it hits you in the hip pocket every time you pull in at the petrol pump.

Clean Energy Council - Detractors miss the point; emissions trading will lead to economic boom

The Clean Energy Council refuted claims that emissions trading will lead to an economic downturn citing that emissions trading with complementary measures will unlock over $20 billion in clean energy investment. A robust, broad-based emissions trading scheme beginning in 2010, with mid-range abatement targets based on the science and an explicit trajectory, will lead to a boom in both traditional and new sectors of the economy. However, without complementary measures such as the 20% by 2020 renewable energy target and energy efficiency targets, an emissions trading scheme alone will not deliver a strong market signal to transition the economy and deliver the necessary deep cuts to Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions.


The Age - Woodside drill deep into an African money pit

WOODSIDE'S great African oil adventure had all the elements of a modern spy novel. There was a military coup, a shady big-money deal in Dubai, corruption allegations, a jailed politician, police interrogations, high-stakes international politics and the threat of terrorism. Even the name of the country Woodside had $1 billion tied up in — Mauritania — sounded like something from the pages of an espionage thriller. ...

Unfortunately for Woodside, the story of its pursuit of African oil did not have a pleasant ending. Last September, amid an Australian Federal Police investigation into allegations of corruption, the Perth-based resources giant sold its interests in the offshore Chinguetti oilfield. Chinguetti's output had failed to meet expectations and Woodside's first overseas production venture ended with a $233 million loss.

Collie Mail - Protesters storm Muja Power Station

Concerned Independent Activists (CIA) spokesperson Nicholas Morgan said it was a sad joke that the government was responding to the lack of gas by reopening the state’s “dirtiest” power station, which he said was decommissioned because it used old, polluting technology.

Mr Morgan said he was disappointed and frustrated that short-sighted politicians and vested interests were preventing WA from moving forward into the renewable energy industry. “This is not about taking away jobs, it’s about creating more jobs in energy industries that are sustainable and reliable, such as wind, solar, wave, and geothermal,” he said. “It is unacceptable that in this day and age the WA Government is still relying on fossil fuels for the state’s energy needs.

The Australian - LNG plant faces impact test

A PROPOSED $8 billion liquefied natural gas joint venture between Queensland Gas Company and Britain's BG Group will undergo an 18-month environmental impact assessment after the project was deemed significant by the Queensland Government. The Queensland Curtis LNG project ranks as one of the nation's single largest capital investments and will be a world first, using coal seam gas (CSG) from Queensland's Surat Basin to feed an LNG plant. It will have to comply with federal and state environmental legislation, having been deemed a project of significance.

SMH - Disconnection in Queensland

Things are changing. Not the structure of the latest toll-road float though. In spite of a rampant oil price, the recent business-model-backflip from Transurban, atrocious market conditions and, more specifically, the punishment meted out to externally-managed infrastructure vehicles, the float of BrisConnections is away with aplomb. ...

Queensland is catching up to NSW and Victoria on transparency lack of transparency that is. Flogging monopoly concessions, taxpayer assets, on terms undisclosed for large fees to bankers and consultants.

What are the oil price assumptions? No answer. Why are they being kept secret? No answer. Was there a comparative evaluation of state and other financing options before the tender? No answer. How much have consortium members made in political donations over the past two years? No answer.

The Australian - No credit as oceans turn sour

NOW that Ross Garnaut's draft report has been released, most of the climate change debate in Australia will focus on the economic effects of any emissions trading scheme. However, there's another carbon problem, which will profoundly affect our oceans, that has received scant attention beyond a small band of marine scientists and is largely independent of global warming. The public, aware of the role of carbon dioxide in climate change, doesn't know of its function in acidifying the oceans and the hundreds of years that would be required for recovery.

The Age - Emissions will drop when we end the reliance on coal

Carbon dioxide escaped naturally from Lake Nyos in Cameroon in 1986. A colourless and odourless cloud of carbon dioxide bubbled up from the lake during the night and rolled down the valley, asphyxiating about 2000 people. This is unlikely to happen in the areas chosen for sequestration unless there was a surprise earthquake as occurred in Newcastle in 1989.

It doesn't take much imagination to see that the geosequestration process is uninsurable. Politicians who blather on about leaving it to the market to sort out the energy market while at the same time paying most of the cost of geosequestration experimentation and underfunding renewable energy are very much in the business of picking winners and trying to fix the race at the same time.

Grist - Lester Brown unveils plan for 80 percent cuts by 2020

Brown's plan consists of three main goals: raising efficiency, moving from fossil fuels to renewable energy, and biosequestration -- or basically, increasing the Earth's forest cover. Most of his talk focused on moving to renewables.

The core of the plan is to replace 40 percent of the world's electricity that is generated by coal -- there are currently about 2,400 coal-fired electricity generation plants in the world -- with wind power. This would mean, roughly, the construction of 1.5 million 2 MW wind turbines, which he said could be done over the next 12 years, using just the production capacity of idle U.S. auto factories. Although it seems like a huge amount of turbines, considering that the world produces 65 million automobiles a year, it's really quite doable.

Brown noted that Texas is aiming to supply 60 percent of residential electricity with the construction of huge wind complexes in that state. Brown travels quite a bit to China, and he says that the Chinese could supply twice the total electricity they now generate, which is currently mostly coal plants, with the enormous wind potential that they have. As for the U.S., he pointed out that Texas, Kansas, and North Dakota contain enough wind potential to replace all of our energy needs, much less electricity.

Solar energy has three main potentialities, according to Brown: solar water heaters (40 million of which have been installed in China alone), solar cells, and solar thermal plants (concentrating solar plants). He pointed out that Algeria wants to construct a 6,000 MW CSP plant in their desert; they plan to be a major of exporter of electricity, which will replace their oil exports when those run dry.

John Quiggin - Radical scepticism

For a long time, I’ve used the term “delusionist” rather than “sceptic” to describe those who reject mainstream science on global warming. In general, the term “sceptic” is inappropriate for the vast majority of this group, since their position is hardly ever based on a willingness to look sceptically at evidence without reliance on a preconceived views. The gullibility with which so many delusionists parrot the latest talking points (”Hockey stick broken!”, “Global warming on Mars”, Warming stopped in 1998″ and so on) is clearly incompatible with any kind of scepticism. And, given the volume of evidence that has accumulated on the issue, only an adherent of some very strong form of scepticism could reasonably remain undecided. Such a sceptic has now appeared in the form of Adam Shand, a Channel 9 journalist who said, in a recent Sunday program on global warming “it’s only an assumption” that summer is warmer than winter. I imagine he gets great prices on ski holidays, by going in January!

The Age - Radical plan to change sky's hue

SCIENTIST Tim Flannery has proposed a radical solution to climate change which may change the colour of the sky. But he said it may be necessary, as the "last barrier to climate collapse". Professor Flannery said climate change was happening so quickly that mankind might need to pump sulphur into the atmosphere to survive.

Peak Energy - Renewable Energy Investment Soars

Peak Energy - Indonesian President On Oil Market: If We Can't Increase Production, We Must Decrease Consumption

Peak Energy - Peak Oil Portfolio Update

Peak Energy - Does Google Make Us Dumber Or Smarter ?

Stuart McCarthy points to this price chart in relation to the Brisbane transport article:

20% renewable by 2020 doesn't necessarily mean non-renewables (ie coal) will decrease. If we are talking electrical output not heat or fuels the reference case for 2008 could be say 50 GW total generation capacity with 1 GW 'clean' renewables (this is a guess) or 2%. That means non-renewables or 'dirty' are 49 GW.

Here's 3 generation scenarios each with 20% renewables

growth: 75 GW total = 15 clean + 60 dirty
stagnation: 50 total = 10 clean + 40 dirty
recession: 25 total = 5 clean + 20 dirty

From an emissions point of view any increase on the current 49 dirty GW is bad so recession or stagnation is preferred. By golly that's what we'll have then.

I like the look of Lester's 80% reduction by 2020 plan better, myself.

We're a bunch of wimps - no one shows any ambition whatsoever.

Right on Gav,

Yes, the 80% solution not the 20% solution! Australia would also become import-independent, surely even Andrew Bolt could get his head around that one.

Alan Kohler did his whole Inside Business program this morning on Emissions Trading. http://www.abc.net.au/insidebusiness/content/2007/s2295654.htm
Kohler seems to have been thrown somewhat by the line on Page 11 of the Garnaut report that it's already "too late" to avoid significant climate change.

Gav,
Note though a lot of browns reductions are for stopping rain-forest destruction and re-planting trees. While Australia has stopped most tree clearing, re-planting is not going to be considered in initial carbon trading. This is probably a serious flaw.
The balance, almost eliminating FF for transportation and electricity production will boil down to replacing FF in transport with electricity and thus generating a LOT more electricity by renewables ( and nuclear?).

I can't see much of the world automobile capacity being used for wind generators because they will be flat out building BEV and PHEV's.
Some steel from not building larger vehicles may be available for wind towers. Surplus aluminium from scrapped aircraft could be used for turbine blades and transmission lines. For Australia to replace 90% of the coal used in coal-fired electricity generation( keeping the coal fired power plants for back-up during days of poor wind, while using hydro to flatten hour by hour changes in wind power) would require us to increase our wind capacity by a similar amount to our entire existing wind capacity every year. With world wide shortages now, we would have to build up a new wind power manufacturing capacity. At least we have surplus copper, steel, aluminium. Similarly for solar PV capacity.

Wind Turbine Blades made out of Aluminium? ("Congealed Electricity")

Oh dear. I was kind of hoping they'd be sequestering some (ahem) Carbon Fibre....
;-)

We certainly need to ramp up our production of alternative energy equipment.

Re-opening the closed Vestas factory in Tassie would be a good start.

Ideally an increased MRET would result (perhaps with some additional govt encouragement) in manufacturing of wind turbines, raw silicon, PV panels and CSP reflector plates (as well as EV / PHEV cars).

We are in the fortunate position of being able to use our own raw materials, our own energy and our own manufacturing capability to create a non-fossil fuel dependent future if we want to - unlike many other countries, which need to source one or more pieces of the puzzle from elsewhere.

The former Vestas factory at Wynyard is now making mining machinery. The hard rock mining industry is of course totally dependent on coking coal or electrolytic smelting paying 3c/kwh max. Also diesel and ANFO explosive made from both oil and gas. China Power and Light bought half the Roaring 40s windpower subsidiary off Tas Hydro. I presume their turbine factory in China uses European designs. Australia will earn fees (whoopee!) even if no new wind farms are built locally.

Some kind of energy storage breakthrough will be needed if windpower is ever to make the aluminium for new towers. Perhaps we should set aside x% of remaining fossil energy for such purposes.

Boof,
"Some kind of energy storage breakthrough will be needed if windpower is ever to make the aluminium for new towers"

We don't need an energy storage breakthrough, aluminium is being produced in Australia using NG and coal generated electricity. Wind-power generated on Australian S-East Coast and West Coast of Tasmania can be backed-up by the relatively large hydro capacity and thus save most of the coal used now, with additional NG for residential daily peak power. On the few days each year when there is very little wind along the east coast,and NG powerplants are at capacity,and hydro is in danger of being depleted, idle coal fired plants could be started. This takes 12-24 hr but would have lots of warning that hydro was starting to run down. Another alternative would be to have all coal fired plants capable of duel coal/NG as is done in WA, and only use them as wind back-up. Whats missing now is;1) additional wind capacity 2) additional pumps for pump storage 3) an improved grid from Hunter valley to Brisbane, and probably increased capacity of Bass Straight connection, allowing Gladstone to be linked to Tasmania.

This definitely needs study. The driest autumn since 1974 dealt a heavy blow to Tas Hydro who evidently are not interested in pumped storage. Could be why they imported over $100m in coal power via the cable. Some sites on the Tas west coast lend themselves to pumped hydro storage of windpower, though the platypus might not like brackish water pumped up from lower down. I guess the bean counters are asking why dedicate the wind output to water pumping when they could get double revenue from separate electricity sales.

Aluminium and zinc anode smelters could be told to redesign their plant so it can be turned down on short notice.

Gav,
Reading Lester Browns article in more detail what he is proposing could be implemented by 2050, but it seems totally unrealistic to replace ALL oil,ALL coal and 75% of NG with wind and solar in 12 years!.
In Australia's situation its clear that we can only make significant reductions in carbon emissions in 12 years by phasing out coal. It seems that the Garnaut Report is taking aim at eliminating coal, with carbon sequestration the sugar an a bitter pill. There is no way that any significant CCS will occur in next 12 years, but could see existing coal fired plants converted to CSM.
Taxes on "other carbon sources" are really included for fairness and increases in petrol prices are going to be collateral damage. The world oil price rises are going to do much more to reduce consumption than any CO2 tax.
Direct legislation to directly reduce coal use(for example mandating 1% NG replacement and 2%wind or solar replacement of coal use per year; much larger capacity changes) and improve vehicle fuel efficiency by 50% could allow CO2 targets to be met with a very mode CO2 tax(much less than required to make CCS viable).
So by 2020 we would have 20% of electricity generated by solar and wind, 6-8% from hydro and a big part of the remaining coal generation capacity able to progressively switch to NG to continue to meet targets beyond 2020. So instead of coal being used as the cheapest base-load, it could be used during longer periods of high demand(heat waves,low wind periods), or low hydro storage(droughts) or as is occurring in WA if there was an interruption of NG supply. Wind and solar would eventually be the low priced fuels, a mix of NG/coal to top-up predictable changes in demand and hydro capacity mainly used for short term grid balancing(greatest value hence highest priced).

Reading Lester Browns article in more detail what he is proposing could be implemented by 2050, but it seems totally unrealistic to replace ALL oil,ALL coal and 75% of NG with wind and solar in 12 years!.

Well - its certainly an aggressive target :-)

It would be interesting to cost replacing all our coal with solar, biogas and wind (and maybe some geothermal and ocean power) plus an expanded and smarter grid with more storage built into it over a 12 year period. If we find ourselves mired in global recession it would actually be a pretty good nation building project.

But I'm not claiming that anyone is likely to try and do this - just that it would be a good aspirational target instead of all the namby pamby half measures people usually propose.

With a massive swing to gas (NG + CSM) we could have lower carbon but it wouldn't strictly be renewable. Gas I think is the best way to keep the wheels turning short term not only for transport but for peaking and load balancing of increased wind and solar. That may mean setting export limits since I suspect not all of the claimed gas reserves will be easy to get.

I still don't see the slightest sign of a coal cutback with new plants on the drawing board and old ones coming out of retirement. That's why we need both the MRET and a non-bogus carbon cap.