10 December 2015, Energy Post, The electricity network is changing fast – here is where Australia is heading. The Australian electricity sector is changing extremely fast, writes Paul Graham, Chief Economist CSIRO Energy at CSIRO (the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) in Australia. CSIRO Energy sees solar and storage costs still dropping rapidly. According to Graham, scenarios under which a third of people may be leaving the grid and 25-45% of electricity will be generated on-site are “plausible”. Things are changing extremely fast in the electricity sector. In 2013 the electricity industry and its stakeholders came together in the CSIRO Future Grid Forum to imagine the possibilities for the future of electricity industry to 2050. Electricity demand was falling, solar panels were being adopted en masse, retail prices were rising, and air conditioner ownership had doubled. By 2030, customers with solar panels are expected to be A$150-210 better off on average each year. By 2050 that balloons to $860-$1140 each year. Two years on we’ve updated those scenarios as part of the Electricity Network Transformation Roadmap project with the Energy Networks Association. We expect retail prices to rise further in coming decades, but not as much as we originally thought. Concerningly, we also expect the gap in electricity costs between households with and without solar to increase dramatically. Read More here
Category Archives: The Mitigation Battle
9 December 2015, Renew Economy, Paris, COP21: Australia digs in on fossil fuels, sees coal as solution to hunger. One of the big themes of the Paris climate talks has been the focus on renewable energy – wind and solar in particular – as a means to reach emission reduction pledges, and cut pollution in the cities. Australia’s Coalition government, however, is sticking to a familiar theme: it has invested heavily in fossil fuels with long-life assets it is keen to retain and, anyway, coal is still good for humanity. Foreign minister Julie Bishop used a forum hosted by Indonesia called “Pathways to a Sustainable Low Carbon and Climate Resilient Economy” to push the case for Australian fossil fuels. “Right now we are in a transition phase,” Bishop said. “Traditional energy sources, fossil fuels like coal, will remain a significant part of the global energy mix for the foreseeable future. “Barring some technological breakthrough fossil fuels will remain critical to promoting prosperity, growing economies and alleviating hunger for years to come.” Hunger? It seems a variation of the “coal is good for humanity” theme, despite repeated estimates by the likes of the IEA, the World Bank and others that suggest the needs of poor countries are probably best served by renewable energy. The comments yet again underline the disconnect between Australia’s apparent support for a global target of “well below 2°C” and its lack of policies to get its economy beyond the fossil fuel age – few renewables are being built and none of the major coal generators are being closed. Bishop suggested this would be the status quo. “It is a fact that energy is the mainstay of our respective countries’ export markets and underpins economic growth,” she said. “The capital stock and infrastructure we have in stock to create and supply energy, both fossil fuels and renewables, have long life spans.” So no early closures then. Read more here
9 December 2015, Energy Post, New: renewables can now play important role in industrial development. Thanks to massive cost reduction, renewable energy can now be used by developing countries in their industrial growth strategies, which was unthinkable until recently, writes John Mathews of Macquarie University in Australia in a new publication from UNIDO, “Promoting Climate Resilient Industry“. Mathews notes that renewables can help countries expand manufacturing and create jobs, reduce local pollution, increase energy security and reduce import costs from fossil fuels. Oh, yes – and they reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The necessity to align industrial development strategies with climate change mitigation provides a chance to bring a fresh perspective to both issues. Energy has not been a central concern in industrial development strategies in the past. This was for the simple reason that it was always assumed that countries would industrialize using fossil fuels – in the same way that Western countries had relied on fossil fuels in the 19th and early 20th centuries, followed by East Asian countries as they likewise depended on coal, oil and gas in the second half of the 20th century. Renewable sources are now within reach of almost all industrializing countries, or will be so within a few short years. This changes everything. But a coal-driven industrial pathway does not look so attractive in the 21st century, especially when being pursued at the scale envisaged by China, India and other industrializing giants. One fresh perspective is that renewable energy sources can now be factored into development strategies. This was not even feasible just a few years ago because of concerns that costs were greater than those associated with consuming fossil fuels. But as China and other emerging giants have placed more and more emphasis on renewable sources – with a focus on water, wind and sun – so they have driven down the costs, with global repercussions. Renewable sources are now within reach of almost all industrializing countries, or will be so within a few short years. This changes everything. Read More here
8 December 2015, The Conversation, Removing CO2 from the atmosphere won’t save us: we have to cut emissions now. Over 190 countries are negotiating in Paris a global agreement to stabilise climate change at less than 2℃ above pre-industrial global average temperatures. For a reasonable chance of keeping warming under 2℃ we can emit a further 865 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2). The climate commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2030 are a first step, but recent analyses show they are not enough. So what are the options if we cannot limit emissions to remain within our carbon budget? Emitting more than the allowance would mean we have to remove carbon from the atmosphere. The more carbon we emit over the coming years, the more we will need to remove in future. In fact, out of 116 scenarios consistent with 2℃ published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 101 scenarios require the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere during the second half of this century. That’s on top of the large emission reductions required. So how do we remove carbon from the atmosphere? Several technologies have been proposed to this effect. These are often referred to as “negative emissions technologies” because the carbon is being removed from the atmosphere (in the opposite direction to emissions). In a study published today in Nature Climate Change, which is part of a broader release by the Global Carbon Project, we investigate how big a role these technologies could play in halting global warming. We find that these technologies might play a role in climate mitigation. However, the large scales of deployment currently used in most pathways that limit warming to 2℃ will be severely constrained by environmental and socio-economic factors. This increases the pressure to raise the level of ambition in reducing fossil fuel emissions now. Read More here