Welcome to Grappy's Soap Box - a platform for insightful commentary on politics, media, free speech, climate change, and more, focusing on Australia, the USA, and global perspectives.
Putting political issues to one side, consider the energy equation. The three critical factors are ;
Energy security - electrical energy must be available whenever and in whatever quantity required on a continuous basis for both industry and for households.
Energy costs- must be as low as possible to ensure the quality of life of individuals and households and to make industry productive
Emissions - Energy generation should as much as possible ensure emissions of GHG are minimal.
Real energy security requires continuous supply. Anything less is not acceptable to Australia, or indeed any country worth its salt in the 21st century.
Hence all suppliers of energy should be required to meet a Base-load Equivalence Test, BET. BET requires every energy supplier to provide continuous supply. For example for solar, in a region where daily sunshine can provide the equivalent of 6 hours of supply (averaged over normal climatic conditions) the supplier would have to source an additional 18 hours of base-load power per day. Only by adding this base-load power could the energy supply for intermittent energy sources be regarded as 'equivalent' to continuous supply alternatives.
Suppliers of intermittent energy such as solar or wind could meet the BET by battery or pumped hydro, or by sourcing base-load power from other suppliers. Where such supply was externally sourced it would have to be backed by formally agreed long term supply contracts. No doubt this would add to the cost of intermittent renewables, but without BET any energy supply management process, such as Finkel's CET or the older RET, is flawed.
With Finkel's energy report sitting on the shelf for weeks, the government is under increasing pressure to come to some sort of decision on the Clean Energy Target. Given the political fall-out whichever way they turn, it is no wonder they have been vacillating
Then there's South Australia's self-inflicted energy crisis, with intermittent electricity supplied at the highest prices in the world! The state is now receiving an injection of new-technology bravado with Elon Musk 's 100MW battery farm to be completed in 100 days or your money back. Great for headlines, and depending on your disposition, a great 'up-yours to coal' or simply 'lipstick on a pig'. I guess we will see.
If that was not enough, Mr Climate Change himself, Nobel laureate, almost POTUS, Big Al Gore landed in Aus last week to promote his latest Global Warming Disaster film. Naturally the climate skeptics came out in force to remind us of some inconvenient truths about his first film, that it was banned from British schools lest its blatant untruths corrupt the minds of minors.
Everywhere you turn it seems energy policy and Climate Change are once again taking centre stage.
Yes Climate Change is hot again, but not quite as hot as it has been. It seems to me the deniers are gaining traction. Even John Howard has been reported to say that he is "today more skeptical of the science". The news is not that he is more skeptical, but that he was reported widely to have said so. I note however that the ABC's AM program last Friday, despite reporting widely on his recent comments, selectively omitted his skepticism on Climate Change. In some ways this is flattering to elder statesman Howard, an implicit recognition by the doyens at the left-leaning public broadcaster that his very words may spread this denier-virus to listeners. Heaven-forbid, lets just leave it out. Fake news by omission?
While Gore's film no doubt will receive wide audiences and plaudits from the believers, what about the skeptics. Well it seems the skeptics have fought back with a documentary of their own, "Climate Swindle". It will be shown in some theaters, though my guess is that it will receive scant attention from mainstream movie outlets. Nevertheless another movie length documentary, perhaps an earlier version from 2011 called "The great Global Warming Swindle" is available, free of charge on You-tube. It presents a compelling case against Anthropogenic Climate change.
In summary Climate Change believers claim; -
1. Global Warming is real
2. It is man-made caused by excessive emissions of greenhouse Gases primarily Carbon Dioxide.
3. It is dangerous, threatening life, living standards and potentially global catastrophe
4. If we act decisively and collectively we can do something about it.
In "the Great Global Warming Swindle" skeptics argue; -
1. Climate change is real with cyclical warming and cooling. The earth is currently in a warming cycle that started following the "little Ice Age" of the 17th century.
2. The warming is NOT caused by Carbon Dioxide, but by natural Solar cycles. They argue that increase in Carbon dioxide is dominated by release of Carbon Dioxide from the oceans and it occurs as a result of global warming rather than as its cause.
3. Given well documented history showing periods of much high global temperatures and much higher carbon dioxide than today with abundant life, such changes are not dangerous to life on earth on the contrary a greener warmer wetter world is more fertile.
4. Given there is no problem there is not reason to do anything about it. On the contrary the attempts to limit fossil fuels are doing enormous harm, especially in the developing world, by increasing energy costs.
Once again the Turnbull government is in a mess largely of its own making. It needs to decide on how it will react to the Finkel report ( Blueprint for the future:Independent Review into the Future Security of the National Electricity Market), a report it commissioned. It can either accept the key recommendation to establish CET (Clean energy target) of some 42.5% (much greater than the current 24% RET) and accept the already high an dlikely increasing energy costs as well as the instability in supply or it can reject the key recommendations reneging on its emission reduction commitments and renewable energy targets and in effect rejecting the recommendations of its own report. With passions high in both sides there is no doubt there are electoral consequences to this decision.
However I can see no way of avoiding conflict and with vocal proponents of each side it is likely to be loud.
Avoiding Finkel's poisoned chalice
So lets just put the political issues to one side and consider the energy equation. The three critical factors are ;
Energy security - electrical energy must be available whenever and in whatever quantity required on a continuous basis for both industry and for households.
Energy costs- must be as low as possible to ensure the quality of life of individuals and households and to make industry productive
Emissions - Energy generation should as much as possible ensure emissions of GHG are minimal.
Finkel's report is grossly inadequate. By focusing on Emissions targets and how existing global commitments may be met, the report sacrifices the other two critical factors.
Finkel does recognize energy security as a key issue and sensibly proposes that suppliers of intermittent renewable energy be required to provide base-load power as a backup. However by limiting the backup power required to a mere 90 minutes his proposal does not provide anywhere near adequate cover. In effect he papers over this very real limitation of the most popular renewables, solar and wind. 90 minutes is totally inadequate should a South Australia style event recur.
Real energy security requires continuous supply. Anything less is not acceptable to Australia, or indeed any country worth its salt in the 21st century. Hence all suppliers of energy should be required to meet a Base-load Equivalence Test, BET. BET requires every energy supplier to provide continuous supply. For example for solar, in a region where daily sunshine can provide the equivalent of 6 hours of supply (averaged over normal climatic conditions) the supplier would have to source an additional 18 hours of base-load power per day. Only by adding this base-load power could the energy supply for intermittent energy sources be regarded as 'equivalent' to continuous supply alternatives.
Suppliers of intermittent energy such as solar or wind could meet the BET by battery or pumped hydro, or by sourcing base-load power from other suppliers. Where such supply was externally sourced it would have to be backed by formally agreed long term supply contracts. No doubt this would add to the cost of intermittent renewables, but without BET any energy supply management process, such as Finkel's CET or the older RET, is flawed.
Frydenberg's get out of jail card...
Given the potential political consequences it is no wonder that the government has been vacillating on their response to Finkel. By putting Energy security first there is a sensible path through this dilemma
Step 1: Clearly state that of the 3 conflicting needs identified by Finkel, Energy security is the first priority.
Step 2: In order to ensure all energy supply alternatives are comparable when it comes to energy security, all new supply will have to meet the Base-load Equivalence Test to provide 100 percent continuous energy. Solar and wind will have to either purchase base-load power from other suppliers or add their own battery, pumped hydro or other base-load power solutions hydro.
Step 3: Reject CET, retain the RET, accept the possibility that the current emissions reductions and renewable energy targets may not be met, but argue that Australia cannot afford to jeopardize energy security. While the above three address the immediate problem, they do not re-build the shortage of base-load power following closures of coal fired generators over the past decade. Nor is it likely, given the current political environment, that commercial operators will build new base-load power generators. So the government needs to step in with Step 4. Step 4: Commit federal funds to building new base-load power stations to compensate for closures over the past decade. The government would supply this energy at commercial rates and in competition with other suppliers, and be willing to sell the asset once it was proven to be competitive. Given current electricity prices and the re-balancing of demand due for base-load power due to the need to meet BET, in all probability these power stations will be able to be sold off at a profit.
Look to the electorate
Any proposal that is willing to sacrifice Australia's commitments to GHG reduction or indeed the RET is likely to receive widespread condemnation by the Chatterati. However Australian Industry and households will accept it as a fair compromise. This is especially so given that Australia's contribution to global warming is minimal and any effort we could make is dwarfed by the increasing emissions by China and India.
Despite a valiant effort by our chief scientist to insert an acceptable energy strategy into the milieu, it has ignited a civil war at least within the LNP. Energy strategy was never going to be easy. With passionate advocates of climate change pushing for the highest possible emission reduction targets and their opposites pushing for none, it is a chasm impossible to fill.
Notwithstanding one's belief in climate change , as I have indicated elsewhere (see Warmer, Wetter, Greener ) I believe it is real but not as dangerous as the tipping point advocates would have you believe, we face a very real dilemma.
How do we encourage energy companies to invest in energy supply when our political parties keep changing the rules?
Lack of planning and rampant politics have squandered Australia's once abundant cheap energy advantage.
The energy landscape has many pot holes; -
Our base-load power stations are aging and require investment either for replacement or at the very least extension
Renewables remain more expensive than fossil fuels and suffer continuity issues
on again, off again carbon taxes by different parties have made investment in new non-renewables very risky
battery storage is not yet of age and remains expensive
electricity prices are already too high to encourage manufacturing
So it is no wonder that energy companies have been reluctant to invest in new supply and our manufacturing industry, what little there remains, is looking for greener pastures.
No doubt these are some of the constraints Dr Finkel faced when contemplating a viable energy strategy. Yet his solution also presents problems. His CET (Clean Energy Target) is an effective 42% RET much greater than LNP's current 24% but less than ALP's 50%.
In effect he has advocated what amounts to a line between the two parties. A Solomon-esque solution dividing the difference by slicing the baby.
His strategy was to present something that was half acceptable to each party and had a chance of bipartisan support. Indeed it may even work out, but it carries enormous political risk for the LNP and if adopted would force more of their support towards One Nation.
Was there any other way?
I believe so, but will leave my suggestions for another day.
