'We'Ve Turned The Corner': Australia Set To Cash In On Low-Cost Renewable Energy

Fairfax - Latika Bourke

The cost of producing electricity from renewable energy could be slashed by as much two-thirds within 10 years, making it competitive with coal-fired power, experts say.
And the cost of doubling the world's total output of clean energy by 2030 would be lower than a "business as usual" approach because of the stunning production costs.

The winds of change: renewables are set to give coal a run for its money.

The findings are fuelling calls for Australia to re-evaluate its reliance on coal-fired power and speed up its transition to clean energy, which the coalition has slowed by abolishing the carbon price and lowering the Renewable Energy Target.
A new report by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), an intergovernmental organisation, says the cost of solar photovoltaics (PV) could be slashed by 59 per cent by 2025 to 6 US cents per kilowatt hour.
The cost of offshore wind could reduce by as much as 35 per cent in less than a decade, with the cost of onshore wind slashed by 26 per cent.

Bill Shorten dances with locals during a trip to Kiribati to raise awareness of climate change. Photo: ABC

Report author Michael Taylor told Fairfax Media the rapid advances being made in the renewable tech sector meant the idea that renewable energy was unaffordable and hugely expensive compared to energy produced by fossil fuels was now outdated. "We've turned quite a corner … it's easy to realise a little bit after the fact that we've turned another corner and I think indeed we have done that in the last six months to a year," he said.
Mr Taylor said the rapid deterioration in the costs of wind and solar energy meant that Australia, blessed with both, was poised to produce low-cost electricity.
"In Australia, with the quite high retail electricity prices you've seen, renewables is now a highly competitive opportunity for Australia and to focus on resource extraction to the extent of all else perhaps should be re-evaluated," he said.
"It's obviously a debate for Australia to have, but what we can say in terms of the transition and the economics is that it's definitely one we encourage Australia to have."
The research follows BP's annual review of world energy, which found "rapid technological gains" have supported strong growth for solar and wind power. Both recorded "solid growth" in 2015 "at the expense of coal."
The report calculated global renewable energy consumption to be 2.8 per cent, up from 0.8 per cent a decade ago.
Renewables accounted for 6.7 per cent of global power generation, with China recording a whopping 21 per cent growth and Germany 23 per cent. Coal's share of global primary energy consumption fell to its lowest level since 2005 at 29 per cent.

'Coal is a very important part of the energy agenda'
Shortly after becoming prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull lauded Australia's "cleaner coal" as one solution to "energy poverty."
He noted the rapid advances being made in wind and solar, but said "coal is a very important part of the energy agenda" and he rejected calls for a moratorium on new coal mines.
Opposition leader Bill Shorten has also rejected such calls, telling the leaders of Pacific countries affected by rising sea levels that he had "made it very clear Labor is not going to stop coal mining."In June 2015, the Liberal and Labor parties agreed to lower the Renewable Energy Target from 41,000 gigawatt hours of renewable energy supply by 2020 to 33,000 GW-hours or 23.5 per cent. This followed a push from within the Coalition to abolish or drastically cut the renewable energy target.
Many Liberals deny the science of climate change, while others believe the renewable energy sector should rely less on government mandates and subsidies.
The Coalition government's decision to abolish the carbon price has led to a 5.6 per cent increase in emissions from the electricity sector.
Mr Shorten wants half of Australia's energy produced by renewables by 2030, but has only committed to a goal and not a mandated target.

Costs lower than business than usual
Mr Taylor said the new analysis showed the world could double its output of clean energy by 2030 and stay on target for reaching its climate change goals. He said that scenario would still cost less than current policies centred on coal.
"Once you take into account the environmental costs that would be avoided ... and the fact that costs have come down, it would be less than business as usual," he said. "There are net economic benefits for this transition."
And he said IRENA's estimates of the cost reductions were on the conservative side.
"If history has told us anything with renewables, you can be quite optimistic and we can still be surprised," he said.
"No-one anticipated the rapid decline [in the costs of] solar PV modules that we saw between 2009 and 2013 – that wasn't part of the orderly plan in the transition, but it happened," he said.
Mr Taylor said energy policies over the next 15 years would be critical."We're in a critical phase – the cost of renewables has come down dramatically," he said.
"The decisions we make over the next five to 10 years are going to be critical to how successful we are in avoiding dangerous climate change."

Links

• Decision on coal mine 'defies reason'
• Super-coral may take heat off reef bleaching
• Can we reverse coral bleaching?
• Climate change: Full coverage

How The Coalition Is Using Clean Energy Financing As An Election Slush Fund

The Guardian - Michael Slezak

Some in the sector fear the government is trying to defund the Clean Energy Finance Corporation by stealth. The truth may be a little more mundane

A 'reef fund' will be created with $1bn of Clean Energy Finance Corporation money if the Coalition returns to office. Photograph: Alamy

After trying in vain to dismantle the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the Coalition is now using Labor's $10bn financing scheme as an election slush fund, throwing its money at the Great Barrier Reef, at "smart cities" and even at the steel industry in South Australia.
These announcements left some clean energy sector experts crying foul, saying the government was trying to squeeze the CEFC for every last drop, and defund it by stealth.
That might be the case but the truth could be more mundane. The announcements probably amount to little, leaving the spending pledges bereft of substance – but equally doing little to harm the CEFC.
By anyone's reckoning, the CEFC has been a success. According to its 2015 annual report, it invested $1.4bn, financing projects worth a total of $3.5bn, which would reduce 4.2m tonnes of CO2-equivalent emissions annually. And it did all that while making a profit. But under the Tony Abbott, who called the CEFC "Bob Brown's bank", the Coalition tried unsuccessfully to abolish it, tried unlawfully to stop it operating, and tried – also possibly unlawfully – to stop it investing in windfarms and small-scale solar.
When Turnbull became prime minister he conceded the government had failed to abolish the CEFC but stopped short of giving it his backing.
"We do not support government banks performing roles that can be performed by the private sector … yes it has done some good work, the question is whether it is an appropriate use of government money," he said in question time in October, refusing to concede it played a "crucial" part in Australia's emissions reduction.
But now it is certainly playing a crucial role in Turnbull's re-election campaign.
So far, more than $2bn of the CEFC's money has been leveraged as election commitments. First Turnbull suggested up to $100m from the CEFC and EFIC (a similar organisation that finances export ventures) could be used to provide a loan for South Australia's steel industry. Then last week $1bn was carved off for a so-called "reef fund". And on Monday another $1bn of the CEFC's money was used to fund Turnbull's "smart cities" policy.
Together with Turnbull's earlier move to defund the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and take $1bn from the CEFC to make a new Clean Energy Innovation Fund in its place, John Grimes from the Solar Council – Australia's peak solar industry body – is convinced this is all part of a covert plan to abolish the CEFC.
"Their agenda has been very clear all along, to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation," Grimes said. "What Malcolm Turnbull is doing it is abolishing it by other means.
"He's making a series of announcements where he's trying to get kudos … but actually what he's doing is taking the funding that is essential to push forward the renewable energy projects and help transition the economy, and using them for other purposes."
But without a change to the CEFC Act – which the government hasn't flagged any intention to pursue – no government decision can stop the CEFC from doing its best to "facilitate increased flows of finance into the clean energy sector".
Grimes said that was no comfort, since the Coalition hadn't promised not to amend the act if it had the numbers after the election.
Ariane Wilkinson from Environment Justice Australia said that limiting the scope of what the CEFC could invest in by too much could fall foul of the law – as was suggested could have been the case when the Coalition government tried to stop the CEFC from investing in windfarms.
But assuming it stays within the law, and doesn't try to change the legislation, what do these policy announcements amount to? Probably not much, in the end.
Take last week's reef announcement. The policy was that the CEFC would be directed to invest $1bn into projects that tackled both climate change and water quality issues on the Great Barrier Reef.
Jon Brodie is one of Australia's leading experts on water quality and coral reefs. He's been involved in writing hundreds of technical reports on the matter and authored a plan for how to improve water quality on the reef.
Guardian Australia asked him which of those recommendations could be assisted by money loaned to clean energy projects. "Well, I wouldn't have thought any of them," he said.
Stuart Bunn is director of the Australian Rivers Institute at Griffith University. Asked what sorts of projects could be funded with CEFC loans, he replied: "The odd thing is that nothing really leaps to mind."
He said that even if there were water quality projects that could be funded with loans for clean energy projects, they would be futile, since there were very particular locations and farmers that needed to be targeted, and incentive schemes like low-interest loans were unlikely to target those precise spots.
Cane farmers – the main target for water quality projects – have also said they're unsure how the financing could be used.
What's more, it's probably not really a $1bn fund, in any meaningful sense. A spokesman for the environment minister, Greg Hunt, said the fund would provide "up to" $1bn.
And we can be sure that, as with all CEFC money, it won't be spent unless the projects stack up.
What's more, the Coalition has said the fund will be used to fight both climate change and water quality. But despite being asked several times, Hunt's office has so far refused to answer questions about whether any percentage of the fund will be required to be spent on projects with water-quality co-benefits.
In response to that questioning, Hunt's office said climate change was the biggest long-term threat facing the Great Barrier Reef. But if it was including funding for climate change mitigation as part of a "reef fund", it might as well claim the full $10bn in the CEFC as part of it.
The "smart cities" policy funding looks similar. The CEFC already spends money on "smart cities" projects. Financing commercial buildings already happens. In fact commercial buildings are the second biggest sector to receive loans from the CEFC. In 2014 the chief excecutive of the CEFC, Oliver Yates, delivered a detailed presentation on how the CEFC was working to "making cities liveable". "The CEFC has been playing a role in this space to date," says Kane Thornton, chief executive of the Clean Energy Council. "I'm not sure if this changes things substantially."
But Thornton thinks the directive from the government to focus on clean energy projects in cities will give the CEFC some renewed focus on that sector. "There will be more opportunities and more scope for cities, local councils, building managers etcetera to go down the clean energy path."
And overall, Thornton said the CEFC had so much money to throw around that these limitations on where it could lend its money can spend its money weren't going to negatively impact the industry.
"I think it would be an issue if the CEFC only had a small amount of resources at its disposal but it does have a significant pool of funds to invest and these sorts of directives are within its scope, and I think it helps to give it some focus rather than depleting its funds."
But that is exactly what other groups have picked up as the key problem with the announcement. "This is another politically driven, piecemeal policy that sees us yet again responding to a political need rather than building a decent plan for our future energy needs," said Claire O'Rourke, national director of Solar Citizens, a group that represents households with rooftop solar.
She said these moves distracted from what the CEFC was really designed to do. "The global transition to renewables is already under way. Australia needs a national plan to harness the multibillion-dollar renewables boom and manage the orderly transition to 100% clean renewable power," she said.
"Australia stands to gain an $800bn slice of the global renewable energy investment boom, and we will miss out on jobs, growth and investment if we don't get on with it now – this is what the CEFC is really for."
The plundering of CEFC funds – using it as an election slush fund – isn't likely to hurt the clean energy industry much, but it is unlikely to do any good either.

Links

• Boost renewable energy target to 50% and get 28,000 extra jobs, says report
• Great Barrier Reef needs $10bn for chance of survival, scientists say
• Saving Great Barrier Reef from climate change should be central election issue, says Tim Flannery
• Voters trust Coalition with economy and Labor with climate change, poll shows
• Q&A recap: vote me out next election if you don't like tax cuts, Turnbull says
• Wentworth activists GetUp to mischief with Malcolm Turnbull's election posters

Brexit Means Little To Refugees Prepared To Die Fleeing Climate Change

New Statesman - Diane Abbott*

Britain can shut its borders, but it can't alone stop climate change.
It's June and it's pouring. In the UK, we have just had the wettest winter on record and are heading for the wettest spring. Globally, NASA tells us that every month since November 2015 has been the hottest since records began. The World Meteorological Organization warned this week that "fundamental change" is now happening in the global climate.
But the large economies and temperate climes of Europe and North America are for now spared the worst of global warming. It is poorer countries who have had no role in pushing up the temperature that are not so lucky.
Africa is experiencing a continent-wide drought – its worst in living memory. International humanitarian relief has come a long way since the days of Live Aid, and famine has been averted in the hotspots of Somalia, Ethiopia, Malawi and Zimbabwe. But millions of farmers are on the move. Most head to the cities and the slums. But others hand over their savings and often their lives on the dangerous crossing from lawless Libya to Europe.Climate change is making conflicts worse

Low-lying island nations such as the Seychelles, Tuvalu and the Maldives face being wiped off the face of the earth within decades due to sea-level rise.
Climate change is drying up arable land across the Persian Gulf, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine and Egypt, once known as the Fertile Crescent and the cradle of civilisation.
The Syrian civil war followed four huge and consecutive droughts. These uprooted 1.5 million farmers, who fled to the cities. They formed a tinder box. And the chaos sown by the US invasion in neighbouring Iraq provided a spark.
Currently, Baghdad suffers eight extreme heat days a year. In the best case scenario, where the average global temperatures is controlled to within two degrees, this will jump to 90 extreme heat days. In other words, this makes Baghdad uninhabitable for humans for a third of the year.
But in the West, instead of clamping down on our carbon emissions that are driving climate change, we are clamping down on helping its victims.

Brexit won't stop climate change

We are told by the likes of Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage that by leaving Europe that we can pull up a drawbridge and the immigrants just won't come.
This is nonsense. Whether we are in or out of Europe, the interconnected forces of climate change, conflict and resource crunch mean that people will flee to stability, and for many, particularly citizens of former British colonies, that inevitably means here. Borders mean little to people who are prepared to die, as estimated 3,500 did trying to cross the Mediterranean to Europe last year.
If we are truly interested in slowing immigration we must think long term. That means working with both Europe and the governments and societies of the developing world to address the root causes of instability.
This means ending our multi-billion pound annual subsidy to the multinational fossil fuel industry.
It means mobilising export credit and aid for small scale renewable projects and climate finance for mitigation to create sustainable energy sources. Germany, which is on track to for 45% renewable energy by 2030, and Barbados, which is powered 100% by renewable energy should be our guides in this pursuit.
Lastly, it means recognising that our colonial and industrial history, as well as our role in recent years of destabilising vast areas of the Middle East and North Africa, mean that we have no right to pull up the drawbridge even if we could.
We share a smaller and more globalised world with the men, women and children in the camps of Greece and Calais who have fled war, poverty and climate change. They simply want to contribute to European societies and economies by making something of their lives.
This is a reality that cannot be ignored with an Out vote. If your neighbour's house is on fire, you will not save yourself – or them – by locking your door.

*Diane Abbott is Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, and shadow secretary of state for international development.