Modelling Shows Move To 100% Renewable Energy Would Save Australia Money

The Guardian - Michael Slezak  |  Nick Evershed

Estimated cost of moving all electricity, industry and transport onto renewables by 2050 would be $800bn, a saving of $90bn

Three scenarios in which Australia moves to 100% renewable energy by 2050 show it would save money. Photograph: Carla Gottgens/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Transitioning Australia to 100% renewable energy by 2050 would cost less than continuing on the current path, according to a new report.
Building the infrastructure to supply renewable energy for all electricity, transport and industry would cost about $800bn between now and 2050, the report from the institute for sustainable futures at the University of Technology Sydney, found.
That's about $650bn more than continuing with the status quo. But by removing the need for fossil fuels such as coal, gas and oil, it would save the economy up to $740bn, saving $90bn over the period to 2050, the report found.
Fuel cost savings would cover 110% of the capital investment needed to transition the economy.
The report is the first comprehensive modelling study to examine a scenario where not just electricity, but also all transport and heat used by industry, is transitioned to 100% renewable energy in Australia. It uses a model developed by the German Aerospace Agency and Greenpeace, which was relied on to help inform how Germany would implement its 80% renewable target for 2050, and by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for some of its scenario testing.
Commissioned by GetUp and Solar Citizens, it examines three scenarios for Australia's energy system.
The first is based on a continuation of current policies and government forecasts, in which coal, gas and other fossil fuels continue to be used. The second scenario sees electricity generation is almost completely transitioned to renewable energy by 2030, but gas and oil continue to be used for heat and transport.
In the third scenario electricity generation is completely transitioned to renewable energy by 2030, and all transport and heat used in industry are transitioned by 2050. Renewable synthetic fuels replace fossil fuels in some cases where electrification is difficult, such as air travel and long distance freight.

Since many of Australia's coal-fired power stations are ageing, the first scenario requires considerable infrastructure investment, with $150bn being spent by 2050. Almost half that would be spent on infrastructure for fossil fuel-based electricity generation.
The model suggests that both renewable scenarios become cheaper than the status quo as early as 2020.
In the modest renewable scenario, about $600bn would need to be spent to source all electricity from renewables. Most of that would need to be spent on wind and solar PV – $258.1bn and $167.9bn, respectively.
In that scenario, significant investment in solar thermal and geothermal would also be needed, since they can provide power on demand and fill any gaps when wind and solar are not producing much electricity – $97.8bn is spent on a combination of those in the scenario.


In the ambitious scenario, most transport is electrified, so that it can run on electricity from renewable sources. That increases the demand for electricity, requiring more investment in electricity generation.
But Australia currently spends more on oil for transport, than it does on all other forms of energy combined. By almost completely eliminating the need for any oil, the ambitious 100% renewable scenario emerges as the cheapest, overtaking the less ambitious renewable scenario by 2035.
By using a mix of different renewable energy sources, the scenarios all maintain an electricity network that is as reliable as the current one.
The authors consulted with the Clean Energy Council to ensure the scenarios grew the renewables industries at rates that would be feasible. It involves increasing wind installations by 2,600MW a year for 15 years, which is in line with what Germany did between 1999 and 2014. And solar PV would need to be installed at a rate of 4,500MW per year to 2030, which is about four times what was installed in Australia in some previous years.
Study author Sven Teske from the University of Technology Sydney, said work that combined energy for transport and electricity was needed, since electrifying cars would have a huge impact on the electricity network.
"This models across all sectors, which gives us a very good overview of different technologies and the interaction of those technologies," Teske said.
The modelling work doesn't examine what policies will be needed to achieve the scenarios, although it does assume in the renewable scenarios that current coal-fired power stations are phased out by 2035.
Miriam Lyons, a senior campaigner at GetUp, said the $800bn investment needed to transition the economy could be boon for the economy.
"If we decide to go all the way to 100% renewable energy, Australia can get an $800bn slice of the global renewable investment boom. That's something that Australia is sorely in need of right now," she said. "There is a great big gap that's been left by the end of the mining investment boom."
"It turns out we can get to 100% renewable energy quite fast, and it turns out it saves us money," Lyons said.
Olivia Kember from the Climate Institute told Guardian Australia: "This modelling adds to the growing body of evidence that Australia is completely capable of decarbonising its electricity system. But this won't happen without a comprehensive policy package to replace our high-carbon coal stations with clean energy."
Mark Diesendorf from the University of New South Wales said the report was a valuable study for examining possible renewable energy futures in Australia. But he pointed out it did not model how fast Australia could transition its workforce to cope with the energy transition. "The studies to explore possible timescales of the transition are still to be done," he said.

Links

• Australia's defence force could run on sugar cane and tyres under biofuel plan
• Have we reached the tipping point for investing in renewable energy?
• Australia's 'future' fund should not consider financing the energy projects of the past
• Victoria renewables target of 30% is achievable, modelling shows
• Surge in renewable energy stalls world greenhouse gas emissions
• Solar and wind energy backed by huge majority of Australians, poll shows
• New South Wales and Victoria 'going backwards on renewable energy'
• 10 steps to save the Great Barrier Reef
• While Didcot B burned, renewable energy powered on
• Reserving gas for domestic users would hurt the renewable energy industry
• Renewable energy won't rid us of the horrors of coal

Air Pollution Increases 69 Per Cent As Coal Named Top Polluter

Fairfax - Josh Dye

Air quality across Australia has deteriorated to alarming levels with the coal industry the nation's worst polluter, new data has shown.
The most concerning rise in air pollution is from PM10, a coarse pollution particle about the width of a human hair. Nationally, total PM10 emissions have increased 69 per cent in one year, and 194 per cent in five years.
The figures come from the National Pollutant Inventory's 2014-15 report which collects information about toxic pollution. Non-profit legal practice Environmental Justice Australia (EJA) spent the weekend analysing the figures, which were released on Friday.
EJA researcher Dr James Whelan said the findings raise serious questions about the future of Australia's air quality and called for tougher federal government regulation, an urgent transition from coal to renewable energy, and a National Air Pollution Control Act.
"Watching the continuing escalation of air pollution across Australia, particularly from coal mines and coal-fired power stations, is like seeing a car speed faster and faster with no police response."
Air pollution kills more than 3000 people in Australian every year, almost three times the annual road toll, and costs the nation more than $24 billion in health care costs each year.
Dr Whelan said reducing particle pollution is critical to avoiding a public health crisis in mining areas.
"Particle pollution accounts for more than 90 per cent of the total health impacts of air pollution in general."
Dr Whelan said just like smoking, there is no safe level of particle pollution.
"Any reduction has direct health benefits including preventing premature death," he said.
While PM10 emissions from the coal industry have fallen 8 per cent in 2014-15 to just under 400,000 tonnes, they have increased 84 per cent over the past five years.
Other findings from EJA's analysis include:

• Coal companies reported almost 400,000 tonnes of PM10, an 84 per cent increase in the past five years
• Newcastle's three coal terminals account for 62 per cent of the city's PM10 emissions (295,000 kilograms this year)
• PM10 emissions from Maules Creek coal mine increased 187 per cent in 2014-15
• Emissions of toxic pollutants from coal mines including PM10, lead, arsenic and fluoride increased by 100-200 per cent during the last decade
• Australia's 20 most polluting coal mines are located in the Bowen Basin and the Hunter Valley
• Particle pollution emissions from Mackay's two coal terminals increased by 50 per cent in just one year and 254 per cent over five years.

Reporting pollution data is mandatory, but is not audited and data is often missing, inaccurate or blatantly false, Dr Whelan said.

Links

• Sydney's corals now bleaching in 'pretty shocking' sign of warming waters
• Is this the end for the Great Barrier Reef?
• Global temperature records tumble, including in Sydney