Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Energy & Nuclear

Trials & Tribulations of Queensland’s Climate Change

By

Stoney Ck.jpg

There are times, in the Daintree Cape Tribulation rainforest, when rainfall is so overly abundant that it would seem irresponsible not to derive electricity from hydro-generation. However, the Queensland Government’s existing policy prohibits supply between properties, so hydro-potential can only exist on a per property basis and very few have both the requisite flow rate and head.

At Cooper Creek Wilderness, water is diverted from the creek in the above photograph, through a 63 mm poly-pipe at a flow rate of 1.2 litres/sec. The diversion travels just under 1.6 km and drops 59 metres, losing 21 metres through friction. The water is released under high pressure through a nozzle onto a pelton wheel, generating 52 volts at 5.1 amps DC or around 6 kwhrs/day.

The beauty of hydro-power, is that it is constant, 24-hours per day, for as long as the creek’s flow rate exceeds the intake requirements of the hydro-plant. By contrast solar-power is intermittent and at its very best, can only derive electricity when the sun is out. In a place of abundantly high rainfall and luxuriant canopy, it is even more elusive. The reality is, Queensland’s Electricity Policy for the Daintree Area ensures more than 80% reliance upon engine generators.

In a media release last Wednesday, Queensland Premier Bligh announced two new initiatives in ‘Queensland’s fight against climate change, including a pilot program to deliver zero emission solar energy to 1,000 households in regional Queensland’.

“The Government will bulk purchase 1,000 solar power energy systems to make the green, renewable energy source a viable option for Queensland families.

“Even with the current rebates currently offered by the Federal Government, Queensland families still face an out-of-pocket expense of between $4,500-$5,000 to install a 1kW system.

“Our aim with this scheme is to drive that out-of-pocket expense down to around $1,000-$1,500, making the solar choice a much more viable one.”

Within the same media release, Queensland’s Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation, Andrew McNamara said Queensland was currently a low-user of solar power compared with other states.

“As at September last year, only 446 Queensland homes were using grid-connected solar power systems, compared with 2,045 in South Australia, 1,166 in Victoria and 1,007 in New South Wales,” Mr McNamara said.

“This initiative will take what is a boutique industry in Queensland to new heights and create a new wave of green collar jobs.”

The press release has drawn attention to another flawed aspect of existing policy, whereby the Daintree’s Renewable Power production is not available to Queensland through the grid. Queensland’s performance would certainly look healthier compared with other states if all of the renewable electricity generated in the Daintree region was not excluded.

The Premier has also announced that all relevant Cabinet proposals will now include an assessment of climate change impacts for Cabinet’s consideration.

“This means any proposals involving potential increases in greenhouse gas emissions – or projects that may be affected by climate change impacts such as sea level rise – must include an assessment of these issues for consideration by Cabinet.”

In the Daintree Cape Tribulation rainforest community, we are hopeful that this will draw renewed Cabinet consideration to the flawed Daintree policy and address the disgraceful emissions of the hundreds of concurrently running generators polluting both the rainforest and also the health of the sole tourism economy.

Economic Implications of Climate Change Measures: Alan Moran

By

A matter that has received less attention than it should is what are the energy consumption and cost implications of the measures proposed to abate carbon dioxide and what would be the economic consequences of success in this.

There are many emission abatement goals that have been floated. Perhaps the two most conservative are an emission stabilisation goal and a 20 per cent reduction goal. In Australia and England the respective Garnaut and Stern reports have envisaged much deeper cuts than these.

The first chart show business-as-usual – with emissions in 2030 projected forward at the 1990-2004 rates of 1.3 per cent for the OECD and 5.7 per cent for the developing countries; the former Soviet bloc is held constant. This shows emissions at an aggregate 43 billion tonnes, almost 50 per cent higher than 2004.

Chart 1

Alan Chart 1.jpg

Even though emissions in the developing world probably overtook those of the OECD in 2007, their per capita emissions were very much lower 2.4 tonnes compared with 11.5 tonnes (with the former CPEs at 7.9 tonnes). Notwithstanding the fast growth of the developing country emissions in business-as-usual 2030 they remain little more than a quarter of those of the OECD.

If now we were to call for a 20 per cent reduction on 2004 levels and apportion that equally in per capita terms, the outcome is a standard 2.5 tonnes per capita. For the OECD countries this is a dramatic reduction. The OECD’s aggregate 16 billion tonnes under BaU (12 tonnes per capita) becomes 3.3 billion tonnes. Developing countries, though above their 2004 levels are well below their BAU on a per capita basis, as are the former soviet bloc countries. Chart 2 illustrates this.

Chart 2

Alan Chart 2.jpg

The most recent Australian report on the emission control measures, by Professor Garnaut, acknowledges that the easy gains in emission reductions have been made, especially with the dismantling of the command economies of the Soviet bloc and China. Those countries’ CO2 intensities have now stopped falling, in fact are rising. Indeed, China has already surpassed the magic 4 tonnes per capita which would be the level required for stabilisation of emissions and has only pulled a fifth of its population out of poverty.

Mr Garnaut suggests that Indonesia and PNG could become vast sinks to offset other countries’ emission levels. This is a pipe dream. It may allow for a windfall gain for the two economies but there are not enough trees for this to offer anything but a pinprick.

Ominously, Garnaut hints strongly about the necessity of trade pressures on developing countries to reinforce their sense of public spirit. That in itself would destroy the world trading regime and retard all countries’ living standards. And, the process is already underway with the EU negotiations of bilateral “Free Trade Agreements” with developing countries. As Rasheed Sally points out, “The EU is also increasingly interested in linking trade policy to climate change. New FTAs will likely contain trade-and-sustainable-development chapters, which could house climate-change provisions in the future.”

If targets for reduced carbon dioxide emissions could be met by replacing baseload power stations with nuclear power, the cost increases for most countries would be relatively small. For countries like Australia, where coal is cheap and massively abundant, a premium on existing prices of perhaps 30-40 per cent would be expected. Many European countries would face no cost increases since nuclear is already the cheapest option.

However, several of these countries have already gone a good way to a nuclear power based electricity industry. And this illustrates the difficulties in making the required level of cuts. Even France with over 70 per cent nuclear emits 6 tonnes per capita. France is therefore way above the magical 2.5 tonnes of CO2 per capita and has already used up its scope to make the cuts by substituting out of carboniferous fuels.

And France, like many other European economies has outsourced many of its energy intensive industries like smelting to areas like Eastern Europe and the Gulf where energy is cheap but greenhouse emissions are no less than if the production was left at home.

Chart 3 Emissions and GDP per Capita

Alan Chart 2.jpg

The impossibility of meeting emission reductions by replacing coal with nuclear, in itself the least fearsome solution, is illustrated by the relative shares of electricity and gas in the emission profile.

All OECD countries are a bit different but the magnitudes are similar. For Australia, electricity is only 35 per cent of emissions and this starts to define the maximum that can be achieved by making the use of coal prohibitively expensive.

Chart 4

Alan Chart 2.jpg

The report to the former Australian government examined the switch to emission levels at 80 per cent of 1990 levels by 2020 . This estimated the CO2 equivalent trajectories were as follows.

Chart 5

Alan Chart 5.jpg

Noting that a 37 per cent reduction was required, it argued, “To illustrate the magnitude involved, this is equivalent to, for example, replacing Australia’s entire existing fossil fuel–fired electricity generation capacity with electricity from nuclear energy while at the same time removing all existing vehicles from our roads.”

Moreover, these measures are not taking place in a vacuum. A great many greenhouse mitigating regulatory programs are in place even in those Kyoto recalcitrants which used to comprise Australia as well as the US. For Australia:
• There is a vast number of subsidies for emission management renewable energy technology and installations,
• We have regulatory impositions on electrical equipment and most importantly on new houses which have to meet a “5 Star” energy efficiency standard; this is a convenient means by which those that presently have their own homes can shift costs onto those looking to buy them and salve their consciences without incurring any expense – indeed profiting since the higher costs of new houses is automatically transmitted to the value of the existing stock,
• There are obligations on electricity retailers to use a specific and growing share of renewables in their mix of energy sources. These renewables, as well as requiring costly additional management expenditures to deal with their intermittency, are about twice the cost of conventional coal fired electricity. By 2020, 20 per cent of electricity is to be from renewables, less than 6 per cent of which will come from commercially viable hydro sources.

These existing measures are the equivalent of a tax on stationary sources of electricity of about $10 per tonne, or 30 per cent of the ex-generator cost.

A carbon tax or auction of permits would come in over and above this. Early work on the level of such a tax that would be required put the level on $10. That is a distant dream. Stern put the number at US$100 but also had a lot of persuasion and education to assist – calling upon what the economist Lionel Robbins famously referred to as “that very scarce commodity, human love”. And by bending the rules of finance and allocating very low discount rates to the net present value estimates of costs, he managed to argue that the costs would be minor and swamped by the benefits.

Energy costs have already risen strongly in OECD countries in the light of self-inflicted measures to reduce CO2 emissions. To do the task that is sought by those promoting the notion that catastrophic human induced global warming will take place in the absence of rigorous control measures will result in massive industrial disruption and loss of income as investment is diverted to energy resources that offer poor productivity and as industries and consumers reduce and restructure their demand.

The emission reductions required are much greater than the previously horrific calls like 20 per cent below 1990. For OECD countries, we are talking about emission levels of a quarter and less of current levels. Moreover, none of this will do very much for emission controls if Developing Countries are not also forced into making emission reductions or holding them at current levels. In the absence of this we would see emissions of developed countries being largely transferred to developing countries and the emission intensive goods being imported.

To combat this requires a comprehensive new form of currency in the form of carbon ratings. All goods would need to be rated and their producers would be required to demonstrate the required credits. In the case of imports that did not meet these stipulations, the importer would be required to meet the deficit. Pretty soon we would see a world trading economy unrecognisable from that we now have.

At the very least this will create tensions as developing countries will maintain that they are being denied the opportunity to reach the levels of economic wellbeing that the OECD countries have achieved.

In addition, developed countries themselves, aside from denying themselves cheaper goods from the third world, will be incurring inefficient expenditures on investments in green energy (an especially favoured approach by the two Democrat candidates for the US Presidency). This reduces the overall productivity of investment thereby reducing income levels over and above the transitional costs incurred in economic reconstruction.

This is a copy of the address by Alan Moran, Institute of Public Affairs,
to the The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change , New York, March 3, 2008

Porsche Challenge London CO2 Tax with a Judicial Review

By

Porsche GB has announced it will seek a judicial review of London Mayor Ken Livingstone’s £25 ‘Congestion’ charge for cars emitting 225g/km or more of CO2, on the grounds that it is unfair, disproportionate and will not cut either congestion or emissions. A motor manufacturer has at last found the guts to stand up for itself against a deeply flawed ‘environmental’ policy.

Porsche have set up a judicial review website here.

Our Case:

London Mayor Ken Livingstone is planning to raise the congestion charge from just £8.00 a day to £25.00 for some vehicles from October, and remove the exemption for residents, meaning that some people will see their daily charge rise from just 80p a day to £25.00 a day.

The new rules will affect several hundred models and many makes of car – 33,000 cars daily in total. This includes many larger family cars such as larger people carriers.

Porsche believes this will be bad for London and intends to take legal action in the form of a Judicial Review to stop this. This is yet another tax on London and the motorist.

It is a disproportionately large, unfair increase.

• The over 200 per cent increase for non-residents is disproportionately large- it is a huge jump in one go that looks more like a political stunt to raise revenue for an inefficient system than considered action.

• The jump for people who actually live in the congestion zone is even higher. People who currently pay just 80p a day will now have to pay £25.00 a day – a massive and unexpected increase of over 3000 percent.

• This increase will hit a large proportion of families that drive people carriers – the sort of people who use one large car, rather than driving a series of smaller one

• It will cost nearly £6,000 per year for those people, whether resident or not, to drive in London every day. This is a massive additional cost that people would not have known they were going to have to face when they bought their car.

• Motorists in Britain already pay very high levels of fuel tax and road tax.
This is yet a further increase which will squeeze them even further.

It won’t benefit the environment.

• Despite Livingstone’s claims, the increased charge won’t make any meaningful difference to the environment. The CO2 saved in a whole year is the equivalent, at most, to just a few hours of emissions from Heathrow Airport.

• It risks just putting more cars on the road as families move from one large car to two or more smaller ones.

• The increased charge will not be dependent on actual usage. A person driving a few hundred yards in one of the affected cars would have to pay £25.00 a day, whilst someone driving a slightly smaller car all day long would get away with paying just £8.00, or just 80p if they are a resident.

It sends out the wrong message about London as a place to do business.

• When London is competing to become the world’s leading business centre, it sends out completely the wrong message and will make successful people look at other cities to locate.

• The increase will hit large numbers of ordinary small business people who also use their vehicles for work.

• It comes at a time when people are already concerned about the state of the economy and when business centres should be doing all they can to secure their position.

Porsche has written to the Mayor requesting that he review his plans to increase the congestion charge to £25.00 for some vehicles. If he refuses to think more about the plans, Porsche will formally apply to the High Court for a Judicial Review. Porsche is not prepared to sit by and watch a world class city indiscriminately damaged.

ENDS

Porsche seem to be unaware of just how unfair and disproportionate the new tax is. The Stern report, commissioned by the Government, suggested that £44 per tonne is an appropriate level of taxation for CO2 emissions.

Motorists already pay over £240 per tonne of CO2 emitted – FIVE TIMES the level of the Stern recommendations – in fuel duty.

Ken Livingstone is going to charge those who live within the zone 3500 TIMES the amount of tax that Stern suggests is reasonable if they choose to own a car that creeps over the arbitrary thresholds for emissions.

Insult is added to injury when you realize that buyers of some brand new £40,000+ 4x4s won’t have to pay the £25 whilst some VW Beetle owners will.

London Taxis tend to be automatics, which all emit well over 225g/km and they don’t have to pay the charge at all!

Notes:

£25 less 80p is £24.20 extra a day for a resident of the central zone for driving a car with “Band G” emissions (over 225 g/km).

The new BMW X5 3.0D will emit 213 g/km (Autocar report), whereas a 2003 VW Beetle Auto produces 228g/km (SMMT website) — 15 g/km more.

Based on 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year, the brand new BMW X5 owning resident will pay £208 per year to drive in London. The owner of a £4000 secondhand VW Beetle Auto will have to pay £6500 — over THIRTY times as much.

If they both do 10km a day inside the zone, the VW Beetle owner will have to pay £161,333 for every extra tonne of CO2 he emits over and above the X5 driver. 228-213=15g/km =150g for 10km = .00015 tonnes. £24.20/.00015 equals £161.333.

The Stern report suggested that £44 per tonne was the justifiable level of taxation to cover the alleged “damage” from carbon dioxide. The VW Beetle owner is therefore paying 3666 times this amount for his extra emissions over and above a BMW X5.

Newer versions of the VW Beetle all emit under 225 g/km

LTI TXII Auto taxi — emission rated at 243 g/km on www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk

Carbon Trading Blocked until Farmers get Credits: Steve Truman

By

“It had been the previous [Australian] coalition governments intention and by default the Rudd governments plan to meet it’s commitments to limit the nation’s Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2008-2012 to the Kyoto Target of an 8% increase above the levels achieved in 1990, by using these accumulated credits [from bans on landclearing] without paying farmers for them.

“The Federal Court in Sydney in December last year agreed that farmers have an arguable case against the Commonwealth over ownership of the 80 million Tonnes of carbon created from land clearing bans…

“Now the court has given Mr Spencer the Green light to file a “notice of motion” which is an injunction to stop the Commonwealth from entering into any carbon trading scheme, until the case is decided.

Read more here: http://www.agmates.com/blog/2008/02/24/108-billion-payment-to-farmers-to-meet-kyoto-commitment/

Oil on Saturn’s Moon Not from Buried Biomass: A Note from Louis Hissink

By

A recent ABC report detailing the discovery of enormous volumes of hydrocarbons on Saturn’s moon, Titan, was accompanied with the comment that this may teach us more about our own planet’s oil reserves

One wonders whether the journalists writing this article were actually aware of what they were writing, for the Saturnine moon, 1.2 billion kilometres from the sun, where a warm day is -179 degrees Celsius, awash with oil, would cause some of us to ponder about the origin of hydrocarbons, especially when the prevailing belief is that hydrocarbons are assumed to be derived from buried biomass on earth.

To put Titan into perspective, it has a mass of 0.0075 that of earth, which makes it small indeed but then “has hundreds of times more liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth, scientists report”. A satellite smaller than earth with no observed life, has more oil than earth? And it’s also a gigantic factory of organic chemicals?

Does this mean that there are carbon-based life-forms on Titan? Surely not, so how on earth are these hydrocarbons being formed. In fact the researchers are concentrating their work on how life evolved from these “organic” compounds, implying that the “oil” produced life, not the other way round.

Experimentally we now know that hydrocarbons are the high pressure polymorphs of the H-C system and according to the second law of thermodynamics impossible to be derived from biomass.

Considering these basic facts one is left with the conclusion that life is an epiphenomenon of oil. And if that is the case then Peak Oil theory is as much a crock as anthropogenic global warming, such theories being nothing more than pseudoscience.

Louis Hissink
Perth

———————
To help cover the costs of running this blog, click here: https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/display/donations.html