Does battery storage help the environment?

Battery storage is widely touted as the all encompassing solution to the intermittency of renewable energy sources such as solar or wind. Given the many variables that influence the greenhouse credentials of these devices does installing a battery make sense economically and/or environmentally?

"Does battery storage help or hurt the environment?" from web site SolarQuotes, provides an in depth analysis that is well worth reading.

The short answer is generally not today, at least for domestic use.

Put Energy Security first !

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.

Was US treated fairly in Paris CC agreement?

Focusing narrowly on the Paris Climate Change (COP21) commitments of the US, China and India, Donald Trumps' claim that the US was disadvantaged has some merit. Neither India nor China have agreed to make any cuts in their emissions to 2030, they have committed only to change the mix of their emissions by changing their emissions intensity. This does  translate into an economic incentive to China and India over the US. And given China is already the world's largest GHG emitter it is time for China to make a commitment to stop growing its emissions!

Nevertheless that does not tell the whole story. The COP21 global agreement was intended to set targets whereby each country would be contributing "fairly'' to limiting global warming to <2 degrees C by 2100.

I have argued in my series of articles "Seeking a fair GHG reduction target" ( 1,2,3,4,5, 6) that an equitable contribution by all countries requires 4 principles to be followed; -

1. Each country has to mitigate their own contribution to CC.
2. If global emissions are projected to produce global warming beyond the 2C degree target, then all countries have to reduce their emissions in the same proportion that they contributed to CC.
3. Developing countries are allowed a proportionate quota of 'free emissions'.
4. Countries which face the burden of climate change have to be compensated by those who caused it.

If you compare the COP21 commitments to that required by applying these principles you find that the countries with the greatest contributors to global warming, USA, China, Europe, and to a lesser extent India, have made inadequate commitments. 

Consequently the countries with smaller contribution to the global warming problem are wearing a disproportionate burden on their economies. In short Trump is right and wrong!

Beware the self serving finger waggers

After the big bang of the final declaration at the Paris climate change conference we have barely heard a whimper. Yes, there have been distractions, with terrorism monopolizing headlines at least for the past few weeks. But have no doubt Climate change will return once again. Have no doubt we we will hear the all to frequent, the all too shrill calls to action supported by exhortations to save the planet before the rapidly approaching tipping point. Yes you detect my skepticism. My issue is not with Global Warming (see my earlier post Credo on Climate Change re my personal position) but with the whole circus that seems to be the way the modern world approaches and executes change.

Consider COP21. The wash-up is a range of 'historical', 'unprecedented', global commitments by almost 200 nations to stop the world heating by 2 degrees over the next 85 years. It sounds fantastic and I guess I believe it is. Without getting into the plausibility of the result, the real miracle of COP21 is not just getting any agreement at all, although that is admittedly an achievement, but the swifty that the largest emitters have pulled on the rest of the world. Yes I called it a swifty, a sleight of hand, a subterfuge. The largest contributors to global warming have gained commitments from smaller contributors that are clearly far in excess of their contribution to the problem.

"The largest emitters have pulled a swifty on the rest of the world"

Consider the facts

The greatest contribution to climate change since industrialization has come from USA and Europe with significant contributions by China , Russia and Japan. (see graphic below.)

China is most notable for the speed with which it has become the largest annual emitter and a significant driver of global warming in its own right, despite its much more recent industrialization.

The historical contributions of just 5 countries, if you will permit me to call Europe a country, to global warming is approx 75%. Three quarters of all global warming (to 2011) is due to just these 5. One would therefore expect that the contribution to the mitigation effort should be commensurate. Quite simply if you caused 75% of the problem you should clean up 75% of the problem. You clean up your own mess. Well, let's see.

A vast majority of the pledges made at Paris were based on a nominated percentage reduction of GHG emissions below some baseline rate by a nominated deadline. The actual percentages and baseline dates vary but do not really impact on the problem. At first glance it may seem quite reasonable that each country makes commitments that reduce their own emission rates, especially if the reductions are of the same magnitude, and indeed most countries have chosen roughly similar reductions. So each country is effectively making equal commitments based on their own contribution. That's ok, isn't it?
 No it isn't.
Climate change is the result of the cumulative impact of emissions over decades. So any mitigation should relate to the cumulative impact of a country.

But all Paris pledges are based on emissions rates as opposed to cumulative historical emissions.

And here is the problem. The large emitters, Europe and the US, and to a lesser extent Russia and Japan, went through industrialization a long time ago and have had high emissions for a much longer time. Their current annual emissions may still be high, but nowhere near their cumulative impact.

Lets look at the numbers. While the top 5 contributors to climate change represent 75% of cumulative emissions they only represent 50% of current emission rates. (see below)

Source  CAIT Climate Data Explorer

So pledges based on current emission rates will always favor the earlier industrialized countries. 

But wait there is more

If that were not bad a enough there is a second problem.  GHG emission rates do not take into account the impact of imports and exports. The GHG generated in the production of goods is generally not included in the emission rates attributed to a country. So the producing country  has the burden of the emissions which are enjoyed by the consuming country. Countries like the US and Europe are major importers of high GHG products and therefore benefit from this error, while exporters like China bear the burden in their emission figures.

China is the elephant in the room

But let's not start feeling sorry for poor China. Yes, China can rightly expect an adjustment in their emission rates for the impact of exports, and it is not insignificant. It amounted to some 22% in 2005 and would, I guess be similar today (see my earlier post Seeking a fair GHG reduction target - Part 5: Who is responsible? which presents some of these figures with sources). However, even after adjusting for the exports error, China remains the largest annual emitter, by far.

In any case, China has virtually opted out of any reduction commitments. It has agreed to decrease the carbon intensity of its economy by 60-65% by 2030. But it had already committed to a 40% reduction by 2020, and it seems its extended commitment is really 'Business as usual', requiring it to simply continue along its current path of building more gas/nuclear power stations than coal fired ones.

China has justified its stance on the basis that its industrialization is relatively recent and that it should be accorded the same 'free emissions ' that the rest of the industrialized world enjoyed over the decades. That too may sound like a reasonable argument, but the figures don't stack up. China's Emissions per capita is already equal to that of Europe and also rising fast. So it should increase the standard of living of its citizens as is the case for Europe with no greater emissions than Europe's.

So like many arguments posed in this messy battle for the moral high-ground, it is self-serving, deceptive and false.

Everyone is complicit

Given these rather blatant errors in the accounting of emissions and the specious justifications for low pledges, why haven't the strong CC adherents and their media hangers-on called this out? Let's face it the chatterati are not really good at nuances. They don't fit well into a 15 second grab. As for the strong CC adherents, it is a silent acquiescence. Given that the errors in emissions accounting serve to apply more pressure to more countries for ever higher commitments, they choose to let it run. In short they are tacitly complicit.

So beware! Beware the self-serving finger-waggers wielding their dagger of shame at the smaller countries. Don't be seduced by false measures and beguiling justifications, and face the unpalatable truth, that despite the inspiring words uttered. Despite the wide acclaim by the cheering masses. Despite their much lauded commitments at Paris, our leading polluters, the United States, Europe and China, have not accepted their fair share of the burden of GHG mitigation. Shame on them.

Seeking a fair GHG reduction target:part 6- Equitable Reduction Targets

This is the 6th sixth post in the series: "Seeking a consensus on GHG reduction targets".

In earlier posts we suggested 4 propositions to derive 'Equitable Reduction Targets', ETR's for each country.

1. Each country has to mitigate their own contribution to CC.

2. If global emissions are projected to produce global warming beyond the 2C degree target, then all countries have to reduce their emissions in the same proportion that they contributed to CC.

3. Developing countries are allowed a proportionate quota of 'free emissions'.

4. Countries which face the burden of climate change have to be compensated by those who caused it.
(For the full story so far see parts 1,2,3,4,5.)

In this post we will look at the implications of Proposition 2 and derive the Equitable Reduction Targets for the leading emitters.

Proposition 2: What rate of abatement to target by 2030?

The ceiling on 'acceptable' global warming has generally been set at 2 C degrees by the end of the century. This in turn puts an upper limit on the global emissions acceptable throughout the coming 85 years.

IPCC estimates that since the industrial revolution (~1880) up to 2013 about 2035 Gt CO2-e were emitted into the atmosphere. Given the vagaries of climate models the acceptable global emissions rate to achieve this limit is not certain. IPCC has set a Carbon budget of 3,700 GtCO2-e to limit warming to the desired 2 degrees with a 67% probability (See Reference 3 for a discussion.)

Extrapolating to 2015, the budget for the coming 85 years is 1570 GtCO2-e. This averages to ~18.5 GtCO2-e/yr over the coming 85 years.

Given a global emission rate of 46 GtCO2-e pa (see Globe nears peak greenhouse gas emissions, says report), clearly continuing emissions at the current rate is not an option and would have us consume our 85 year budget by 2049. Global emissions must be reduced so that over the next 85 years the average per year is ~18.5 Gt CO2-e.

 To limit global warming to 2C the average global emissions per year over the next 85 years has to be less than half the current rate

This is no easy task. 

Global emissions have been increasing at ~2% per year over the past decade. This is despite efforts by  many developed countries. The biggest problem today is China. China is by far the largest emitter and continues to increase its emissions year on year. Indeed in its pledge to the Paris Climate Change conference it has only committed to 'peak' its emissions in 2030.

After China, comes India, another country with a large population which is only now entering its 'industrialization' phase. This is likely to lead to much greater emissions over the coming decades. Then of course come the rest of the developing world, each trying to lift the standard of living of its citizens, through industrialization, and leading to ever greater consumption of energy.

Without doubt there are real challenges here. On the other hand there are some small reasons for optimism. The most recent update on global emission rate projects a drop in global emissions(see Global Emissions Decline in 2015 ) It is most likely due to the slowdown in the world's economy, reflected in a reduction in China's output. If so it is but a small respite as the US is starting to really speed up after the GFC and will again re-start China's engines.

What is the target by 2030

If we are to achieve the emissions budget what is a reasonable target for 2030?

Figure 1 illustrates various paths for achieving our overall objective. Each curve represents a possible global emission rate over the next 85 years that will ensure Global Warming is limited to 2C.

Figure 1 Potential abatement curves restrictng CC to 2C 

Blue - Uniform fixed reduction in annual emissions of 0.67 GtCO2-e

Red- Fixed 2.7 percent decrease in annual emissions year on year

Yellow - Rise at 2% to 2030 then Fixed 7.5% decrease in annual emissions yoy

Of course the choice of a path is open to debate. One could argue that over the next 20 years new technologies will significantly reduce the costs of renewable energy, making abatement much easier in the future. This favors postponing emissions reductions to later. On the other hand it would entail higher risk, as rapid reduction without the desired new technology would be expensive and disruptive.

Without asking for miracles in technology I suggest a simple straight line. The advantage of this scenario is that it has a uniform decrease in world emissions stretching from now till 2100.  So year on year the reduction is the same. Given the relatively high global emission rate it does have the unfortunate property of requiring negative emissions for approximately 15 years. While that seems most unlikely today it is far from impossible in a future world. A world which has learned how to manage the carbon cycle to absorb more CO2 than it emits. There are many options for doing this including re-forestation of the earth, feeding phyto-plankton to increase their absorption rates, or indeed other active management processes.

If we take this uniform decrease model the reduction in the global emission rate required by 2030 is 10 GtCO2-e pa, reducing the current annual global emission rate from 46 GtCO2-e today to 36 GtCO2-e pa by 2030.  

I have used this as the Equitable Reduction Target for the following calculations. This is not to single it out in any way as the best solution. It simply represents the minimum consistent rate at which emissions can be abated and still achieve the 2C limit. If this is not achieved in any period then future periods must have greater reductions. In this sense it sets a threshold.

What does this mean for world emitters?

As covered in earlier posts, each country is responsible for abating their own emissions.  Equitable reduction targets are set in accordance with each country's historical contributions to CC.

So what ever the global reduction target it needs to be distributed across countries in the ratio of their historical emissions.

With a global annual emission rate today of  46 GtCO2-e and a target emission rate by 2030 of 36 GtCO2-e pa, each country has to reduce their historical emission by ~22%. Note this is a reduction not on their current emissions rate but a reduction based on their historical total emissions.

Table 1 presents the ERT of the 20 countries that have been responsible for the majority of global warming to date. The ERT was calculated by apportioning the required 10GtCO2-e reduction in global emissions over the top 10 emitters in the ratio of their cumulative historical emissions. The reduction target is shown in MtCO2-e pa as well as the % reduction required from the 2015 emission rate. (Note that the 2015 emission rate is not yet available so it was estimated from 2012 emissions with an uplift of 6% to represent the ~2% increase pa since then.)

Top 20 Countries' equitable targets
Rank	Country	Historical contribution to CC			Equitable Reduction Target
		C	GTCO2-e[3]	% of total	Current Emissions (4) (MTCO2-e)	Reduction Target (MTCO2-e)	ERT % from 2015
1	United States	0.160	370	22.9	6,609	2,287	35%
2	Brazil	0.056	129	8.0	1,074	798	74%
3	China	0.052	119	7.4	10,704	738	7%
4	Russia	0.045	104	6.4	2,461	641	26%
5	India	0.043	99	6.1	3,195	611	19%
6	Germany	0.041	95	5.8	936	585	62%
7	United Kingdom	0.035	81	5.0	579	498	86%
8	France	0.020	47	2.9	452	288	64%
9	Japan	0.016	38	2.3	1,426	234	16%
10	Indonesia	0.014	33	2.0	807	204	25%
11	Canada	0.012	27	1.7	757	165	22%
12	Mexico	0.009	22	1.3	767	134	17%
13	Thailand[2]	0.009	21	1.3	399	129	32%
14	Columbia[2]	0.009	21	1.3	163	129	79%
15	Argentina[2]	0.009	21	1.3	358	129	36%
16	Nigeria[2]	0.007	16	1.0	315	100	32%
17	Venezuela[2]	0.007	16	1.0	301	100	33%
18	Poland	0.006	14	0.8	367	84	23%
19	Australia	0.005	11	0.7	725	71	10%
20	Netherlands	0.004	10	0.6	195	59	30%
	Top 20 total	0.559	1,292	80		7,981
	Global total	0.700	1,619	100		10,000
Notes
1 http://climateactiontracker.org/
2 No trade data
3. Using 1.6deg per 3,700 GTCO2-e
4. From WRI site for 2012 pls 6% to cover growth for periods 2013,14,15
5. Germany, France, United Kingdom, Polan, Netherlands, from http://unfccc.int/files/ghg_emissions_data

Table 1 Equitable Reduction Targets 

The % ERT varies greatly across these countries because they have different historical contributions to the problem. The US which has been responsible for 22.9% of global warming to date, and threfore has to contribute 22.9% of the reduction by 2030. Given a global reduction target of 10 GtCO2-e pa , the US has to reduce its annual emissions by 2.9 GtCO2-e by 2030. Since its emissions in 2015 are 6.6 GtCO2-e pa , the reduction is equivalent to 35% of its current emission rate. The calculation is similar for all the other countries.

Table 2 compares these required reductions to the pledges made at the recent Paris Climate Change conference.

Rank	Country	Equitable reduction target			COP21 Pledge
		Current Emissions (4) (MTCO2-e)	Reduction Target (MTCO2-e)	% decrease
1	United States	6,609	2,287	35%	reduce net GHG emissions by 26–28% below 2005 in 2025
2	Brazil	1,074	798	74%	reduce net GHG (LULUCF), by 37% below 2005 levels by 2025
3	China	10,704	738	7%	peak CO2 emissions by 2030, lower the carbon intensity of GDP by 60% to 65% below 2005 levels by 2030
4	Russia	2,461	641	26%	reduce its emissions of net greenhouse gases (GHG) by 25% to 30% below the 1990 level by 2030
5	India	3,195	611	19%	lower the emissions intensity of GDP by 33% to 35% by 2030 below 2005 levels, to increase non-fossil power generation capacity 26–30% by 2030
6	Germany	936	585	62%	European target of at least 40% domestic greenhouse gas emissions reductions below 1990 levels by 2030
7	United Kingdom	579	498	86%
8	France	452	288	64%
9	Japan	1,426	234	16%	emissions reduction target of 26% below 2013 emission levels by 2030
10	Indonesia	807	204	25%	29% below business-as-usual (BAU) and a conditional 41% reduction below BAU by 2030 (with sufficient international support).
11	Canada	757	165	22%	reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 30% below 2005 levels in 2030
12	Mexico	767	134	17%	reduce emissions GHGs and black carbon by 25% below baseline emissions in 2030.
13	Thailand[2]	399	129	32%	20% by 2030 upto 25% with international support
14	Columbia[2]	163	129	79%	20-30% reduction on BAU by 2030
15	Argentina[2]	358	129	36%	reduce GHG emissions (LULUCF) by 15% below its BAU scenario by 2030
16	Nigeria[2]	315	100	32%	N/A
17	Venezuela[2]	301	100	33%	no pledge
18	Poland	367	84	23%	N/A
19	Australia	725	71	10%	26-28% below 2005 by 2030
20	Netherlands	195	59	30%	European - at least 40% below 1990 by 2030
	Top 20 total		7,981
	Global total		10,000

Table 2 Comparison of ERT against Paris climate change conference pledges

Green indicates that the pledge is > requried by ERT and Red indicates  the pledge is < required by ERT

The %ERT colour indicates whether the pledge is higher than required by the ERT (green) or lower than required by the ERT (red). For the countries where no pledge was readily available, it was assumed reductions would be less than required by ERT and therefore are shown in Red.

It is clear that the largest emitters, US, China, Brazil and the European countries have made pledges which fall short of their equitable reduction target. In other words they are shirking their duties.

Perhaps surprisingly India and Russia, two of the top emitters have made pledges in line with the ERT. So too have mid-range large emitters, Japan, Indonesia, Canada and Mexico. Closer to home Australia by committing a 26-28% decrease over 2005 levels is committing to significantly greater reductions than required by the ERT.

How correct are these figures?

It has been a long road getting to these results. So, are they accurate? Believable?

They are certainly not accurate in a technical sense. I have taken several shortcuts, estimates and made some extrapolations when data was not readily available. These have been done explicitly, so one can revise the calculations when more data is available.

Despite this I believe the overall import is reasonable and appropriately gauges the required reductions by leading emitters. This is subject to the proviso that so far we have only considered Propositions 1 and 2, and the ETR's require some adjustment after Proposition 3 is taken into consideration. These will be covered in the next post in this series.

The core propositions and the process for deriving the ERT, however, are more important than the numbers themselves. These I believe will withstand scrutiny. From the outset our objective was to derive a process for setting GHG reduction targets that would achieve consensus. Given what we have seen in Paris, the long-winded machinations, the verbiage, the convoluted wording, the limited binding commitments it is clear that the existing processes are not working. I write this despite the great fanfare with which the final announcements have been announced. That is all show,. Watch the news articles in the next few weeks. So I am confident that the process used to derive these ERT figures is a much more equitable than the prolonged and messy process used at Paris 2015.

What about the Paris conference?

The conference has now concluded with great fanfare. Pledges have been accepted and are to be 'legally enforceable'. Really? Well so it is said. I am sceptical.

Be that as it may, what are we to make of the pledges and the Paris conference. I believe the current set of pledges are nothing more than negotiated compromises. The largest emitters due to their bargaining power have managed to force the smaller emitters to accept a disproportionate burden in effect cleaning up emissions they did not cause. Not a very satisfactory outcome. The US, Europe and China should be ashamed of themselves!

References

1. Global Carbon Budget - http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/14/hl-full.htm
2. The Carbon Budget - http://www.wri.org/ipcc-infographics
3. The Climate Change Authority - Chapter 3, Box 3.2, http://www.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/chapter-3-global-emissions-budget-2-degrees-or-less
4. Emissions 2012 - http://cait.wri.org/historical/Country%20GHG%20Emissions?indicator[]=Total%20GHG%20Emissions%20Excluding%20Land-Use%20Change%20and%20Forestry&indicator[]=Total%20GHG%20Emissions%20Including%20Land-Use%20Change%20and%20Forestry&year[]=2012&sortIdx=1&sortDir=desc&chartType=geo