05/10/2016

Lessons From South Australia’s Blackout: We Need To Make Infrastructure More Resilient To Climate Change

The Conversation - 

South Australia's blackout was a reminder of the importance of our infrastructure. AAP Image/David Mariuz
Last week's storm and subsequent state-wide blackout in South Australia reminds us how important the electricity grid – and other infrastructure – is for our communities.
Immediate analysis suggests the blackout was caused by the collapse of transmission infrastructure in South Australia. Australian electricity networks, like most transmission networks worldwide, rely on above-ground conducting wires held aloft by large towers. Some of these towers were blown over in the South Australian event.
While the storm hasn't yet been specifically linked to climate change, it also serves as a reminder of the increasing challenges of delivering essential services in a more variable climate and slowing economy.
Power, water, transport, health, defence and communications infrastructure can be exposed to climate variability and change simply because of their long lifetimes. Therefore, many if not most owners and operators of essential infrastructure have commissioned climate vulnerability and adaptation studies.
There are many good examples of adaptation. For instance, Queensland Urban Utilities, the major water distributor and retailer in south-east Queensland, is implementing a large program to make the water and wastewater delivery network more resilient to flooding.
But there is increasing recognition among climate adaptation researchers that many of the recommendations from climate adaptation studies aren't being adopted. This is sometimes referred to as the "plan and forget" approach to climate adaptation and it leaves critical infrastructure vulnerable to weather extremes.

Speaking different languages
One of the less obvious reasons for lack of uptake is the difference in language used in the climate science and adaptation community and in the infrastructure community.
All technical disciplines develop their own specialised language and climate science is no exception. But planning for climate change means that infrastructure professionals have to apply climate science to engineering planning and design.
Both disciplines use risk management as a common framework for assessing and managing risks. But the "bible" of climate science, the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) process, has invented new definitions of risk.
These differ from the long-standing definitions of risk enshrined by the International Organisation for Standardization and widely used by the engineering and infrastructure community.
Many engineers find they cannot use the IPCC reports and projections because this information cannot be directly integrated into planning and design processes that are often heavily regulated and prescribed.
By necessity, climate projections are based on probabilities that specified environmental conditions may occur.
By contrast, engineering design is often based on a specified extreme number, whether it be a maximum wind strength or flood height, rather than a set of probabilities.
Over time it is expected that engineering design methodologies will be able to assimilate climate projections, but updating these highly prescriptive standards can be a drawn-out process.

Harder, better, faster, stronger
Often the most common recommendations in infrastructure climate adaption studies are to make infrastructure stronger, higher and, by implication, heavier and more expensive. A common example is a recommendation that bridges be elevated and made stronger to account for expected higher flood levels and water flows.
While this is understandable, it is in stark contrast with the way almost all other products are being developed – lighter, faster, cheaper, smarter.
Australia is also consistently either at the top, or near the top, of the infrastructure cost league table. It's one of the most expensive places to design and construct infrastructure worldwide.
Therefore, climate adaptation recommendations to make infrastructure more resilient through brute strength can be difficult to fund – although, in some cases, this may be the only viable option.

Getting creative
We need to think a little more creatively. A good starting point is to take the approach advocated in the relatively new international asset management standard called the ISO 55000 standard.
A key part of this standard is not to think about infrastructure assets in isolation, but to consider how each asset contributes to an essential service, such as providing electricity to our homes. After all, infrastructure assets are only constructed to deliver a service. It is the service that is key, not just the individual asset.
Importantly, the demand for services, levels of service and the way essential services will be delivered in future decades is all largely unknown. Technology will change how essential services are defined and delivered.
Distributed energy – such as rooftop solar – may reduce the need for extensive transmission networks. Smarter combinations of light rail and autonomous vehicles may change demand for major road infrastructure.
New water-treatment technology, such as within-pipe treatment, may do away with the need for large treatment plants that are often located in low-lying regions exposed to sea-level rise.
Climate adaptation needs to stop recommending that existing infrastructure just be built stronger and higher, and take a broader and smarter perspective of what infrastructure may be required as climate change increasingly makes its presence felt.

Links
at No comments:

Australia On The Outer Again As Paris Climate Treaty Comes Into Force

Renew Economy - 

Australia will find itself again on the outer in global climate change efforts, excluded from key decision-making processes because it is one of a minority of major polluters that has yet to ratify the Paris climate accord.

The European Union on Tuesday voted overwhelmingly to ratify the Paris treaty, a day after India announced it would also do the same thing. The ratification is expected to be formally voted by ministers later this week, taking the total well past the trigger point of 55 countries and 55 per cent of total global emissions.
The speed of the ratification – less than a year after the Paris treaty was voted to general acclimation last year – compares with the eight years it took to get its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol, into force after it was adopted in 1997.
The move will impact Australia in two ways. Firstly, only those countries who have ratified the treaty can vote in negotiations for the next step in the treaty's implementation. That means Australia will be excluded from these processes, although it may have observer status.
It also means that Australia will reinforce its status as a climate outlier, a reputation it earned when former prime minister Tony Abbott and former Canadian prime minister Steven Harper were branded "climate villains" because of their opposition to action on climate change.
Malcolm Turnbull was expected to change this. but has instead entrenched the policies of his predecessor. New Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau, however, has signalled a major change in direction.
This week he mandated a national carbon trading scheme, that will set a carbon price of $C50/tonne by 2022.
"After decades of inaction, after years of missed opportunities, we will finally take real and concrete measures to build a clean economy, create more opportunities for Canadians, and make out world better for our children and grandchildren," Trudeau told parliament.
"Mr Speaker, we will not walk away from science, and we will not deny the unavoidable." Canada is expected to formally ratify the Paris deal this week.
The second impact of the Paris treaty ratification is that Australia will face inevitable pressure to increase its emission reduction targets. Already criticised by most analysts as inadequate and below Australia's "fair share", the unexpectedly quick ratification of the Paris treaty indicates the world is serious about upping its efforts to combat climate change.
"In our view, climate diplomacy will shift its focus to raising the ambition levels of country pledges as record temperatures and climate impacts highlight the magnitude of the work to be done to limit temperature rises to within 2°C, or even 1.5°C," HSBC researchers said in a research note this week.
The combined efforts of the pledges that countries brought to Paris are only expected to cap global warming at around 3°C at best, so there is massive work to be done to lower that likely growth in warming to well below 2°C and possibly below 1.5°C.
"Average temperatures for the first half of 2016 were already 1.3°C higher than pre-industrial levels, which is close to the aspirational 1.5°C target," the HSBC analysts said. "We think ambition levels would need to be raised considerably higher in order for the 1.5°C target not to be missed."
Australian officials admitted last week that no modelling has been done on whether its current policy suite – based around Direct Action and the Emissions Reduction Fund – will meet even its 26-28 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030.
Independent analyst suggests it won't. Australia says it has already beaten its first Kyoto target, but that allowed it to increase emissions by 8 per cent, and its 2020 target required virtually no emission reductions at all.
Current estimates suggest that Australia's emissions are rising again and could be 9 per cent ahead of current levels by 2030.
Leading economist Professor Lord Stern said the treaty progress would provide an enormous boost in confidence for investors, particularly at a time when the world needed to ramp up its efforts to meet the targets.
"A key reason why countries have moved so fast after Paris is that they now recognise the great attractiveness of the growth and development paths for both rich and poor countries that will result from the transition to a low-carbon economy," he said.
Australia, however, is showing no such ambition. The Coalition is rejecting any talk of increasing its targets in next year's policy review, and is looking at trying to force states that have higher renewable energy targets to bring them back to the less ambitious national target.
On green finance, Australia is also moving in the opposite direction, voting to cut $500 million from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and slashing $800 million from the Clean Energy Innovation Fund, the only new initiative announced by the Turnbull government, although it involved only recycled money.
On the international stage, the story is different.
"The race has begun: September has been an extraordinary month for green finance globally," the HSBC researchers noted, citing new initiatives in China, which is establishing a "green financial system", and in France and other countries.
"We believe governments are increasingly thinking about how the transition to a low-carbon economy will be funded, and are laying the financial infrastructure to encourage more green capital (especially private) and to develop and scale up new products.
"In the run-up to COP 22 (Marrakech, Morocco from 7-18 November 2016), we expect these initiatives to gain momentum as investors and businesses seek to be a part of, and contribute to, the low-carbon transition."
But, not in Australia.

 Links
at No comments:

Electric Cars Need 15% Market Penetration To Go Mainstream

Gas 2 - Steve Hanley

In 1962, professor of communications Everett Rogers published his theory on the adoption of innovation. He said before a new idea goes mainstream, it needs significant support from participants in a social network. Since there was no internet back then, social networks meant friends, family, co-workers, and other people webinteract with on a regular basis. Rogers' theories can provide insight into when we can expect electric cars to go mainstream.
"What the people around you do influences you in two ways," says Reuven Sussman, who works for the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. "One way, you get information is from what other people do. The other is you get some social pressure. There's a desire to sort of fit in with your social group and do what others are doing for that reason."
Sussman goes on to say that social pressure engulfs more people after the second wave of adopters take up a technology and spread the word. "People who are the most passionate about these topics are not always the ones that are the best influencers." But when opinion leaders adopt, they can readily become…champions. "People that you know within your social network are generally more credible and trustworthy and likable. They're in your network for some reason."
Professor Rogers theorized that 15% of the potential market must have accepted a new idea or technology before it can go mainstream. But after that milestone is reached, the idea or technology catches on rapidly. Often acceptance by 60% of the market happens within a short time afterwards.
It's not hard to test the Rogers' theories. Think of recent innovations like HDTV or smartphones. HDTV was not even a thing until 1993. For about a decade afterwards, prices dropped and it slowly gained ground. Then all of a sudden — or so it seems — HDTVs were everywhere. Today, you can't give an old television away. Nobody wants one.
The smartphone has had a similar trajectory. In the 80's, a few early adopters had bag phones. They were large, cumbersome devices with a battery that weighed about 10 pounds. Then came the iPhone and everything changed. Today, almost everyone in the world has one. You can probably think of other examples of ideas that seemed far out at one time that suddenly took off. From microwave ovens to Facebook, the theories advanced by professor Rogers are being validated every day.
Which brings us to electric automobiles. If you visit Gas2 on a regular basis, chances are you are already believe that electric cars are a better way to get from Point A to Point B. Even if you don't own an electric car, you are having an impact on the people you know. You are a champion of innovation. What you say influences others.
Right now in the United States, electric cars account for about 1% of all new car sales. In other words, there is a long way to go yet before electric cars go mainstream — maybe as much as a decade or more. But don't despair. Attitudes are beginning to change. At the Paris auto show this week, the buzz is all about electric cars. In Norway, more than 25% of all new cars are electric. China is pushing hard to get more electric cars on its roads.
Within 10 years, the world will reach that 15% mark professor Rogers says is so critical. After that happens, watch out. The change will be rapid. Soon, internal combustion cars will be just a curiosity, something for museums and historians to ponder. Does 10 years seem like a long time? It's not, in the general scheme of things. The transition from mainframes to personal computers took 30 years. Why should the changeover to electric cars take any less?

Links
at No comments:

Planet At Its Hottest In 115,000 Years Thanks To Climate Change, Experts Say

The Guardian - 

Global warming is said to be bringing temperatures last seen during an interglacial era, when sea level was 6-9 meters (20-30ft) higher than today
A coal-fired power station. 'Massive CO2 extraction' costing trillions is needed in order to avoid runaway temperature rises, says a new paper. Photograph: Florian Gaertner/Photothek via Getty Images
The global temperature has increased to a level not seen for 115,000 years, requiring daunting technological advances that will cost the coming generations hundreds of trillions of dollars, according to the scientist widely credited with bringing climate change to the public's attention.
A new paper submitted by James Hansen, a former senior Nasa climate scientist, and 11 other experts states that the 2016 temperature is likely to be 1.25C above pre-industrial times, following a warming trend where the world has heated up at a rate of 0.18C per decade over the past 45 years.
This rate of warming is bringing Earth in line with temperatures last seen in the Eemian period, an interglacial era ending 115,000 years ago when there was much less ice and the sea level was 6-9 meters (20-30ft) higher than today.
In order to meet targets set at last year's Paris climate accord to avoid runaway climate change, "massive CO2 extraction" costing an eye-watering $104tn to $570tn will be required over the coming century with "large risks and uncertain feasibility" as to its success, the paper states.
"There's a misconception that we've begun to address the climate problem," said Hansen, who brought climate change into the public arena through his testimony to the US congress in the 1980s. "This misapprehension is based on the Paris climate deal where governments clapped themselves on the back but when you look at the science it doesn't compute, it's not true.
"Even with optimistic assumptions (future emissions reduction) will cost hundreds of trillions of dollars. It's potentially putting young people in charge of a situation that is beyond their control. It's not clear they will be able to take such actions."
The paper, submitted as a discussion paper to the Earth System Dynamics journal, is a departure from the usual scientific process as it has yet to be peer reviewed and has been launched to support a legal case waged by a group of young people against the US government.
Last year, 21 youths aged between 8 and 19 years old filed a constitutional lawsuit against the Obama administration for failing to do enough to slow climate change. Hansen and his granddaughter are parties to legal challenge, which was filed in Oregon and asserts that the government has violated young people's rights to life, liberty and property.
Recent studies have cast doubt over whether the world will stay with an aspirational temperature target set in Paris
Hansen, who has become increasingly outspoken on climate change since retiring from Nasa in 2013, said he recognized some scientists might object to publicizing the paper so soon but that "we are running out of time on this climate issue."
The courts need to step in to force governments to act on climate change because they are largely free of the corrupting influence of special interests, Hansen said. He repeated his call for a global tax to be placed upon carbon emissions and said that fossil fuel companies should be forced to pay for emissions extraction in the same way the tobacco industry has been sued over the health impact of cigarettes.
"The science is crystal clear, we have to phase out emissions over the next few decades," Hansen said. "That won't happen without substantial actions by Congress and the executive branch and that's not happening so we need the courts to apply pressure, as they did with civil rights."
Several recent studies have cast doubt over whether the world will stay with an aspirational target set in Paris of a 1.5C limit on the average global temperature rise. This guardrail, and even the 2C limit agreed by 195 nations, appears dependent on as-yet undeveloped technology that would remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.
Under this scenario, huge emissions cuts would be supplemented by a widespread conversion to biofuels that would be burned for energy. The emissions from this energy would then be buried underground. Some sort of futuristic technology that sucks CO2 directly from the atmosphere may also be required.
Hansen said this is a "dubious" proposition because it requires a vast change in land use at a time where a growing global population will require more food. There are also major doubts whether technology to capture CO2 and lock it underground, often touted as a panacea by the fossil fuel industry, will be developed in time to help avoid the dangerous sea level rise, drought, heatwaves and disease spurred by warming temperatures.
Last week, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said that carbon dioxide levels will not drop below the symbolic 400 parts per million (ppm) mark in our lifetimes – the highest concentration of CO2 since the Pliocene era 3m years ago.
The environment of this time, where sea levels were around 65ft higher than today and trees were able to grow near the north pole due to a lack of ice, is a "bellwether for what future climate might be like," according to Bruce Bauer, a scientist with NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information.
Michael Mann, a prominent climatologist at Penn State University, agreed that CO2 removal will be required if the world was to avoid 1.5C warming although the 2C limit "could likely be achieved without negative emissions, but it would require urgent action, as I have argued myself is necessary.".
Mann added that Hansen's paper is "interesting" but tackles a huge range of topics and is unconventional in its use as a tool to support a legal case.
"Along with the paper being publicized prior to peer review, this will certainly raise eyebrows about whether or not this breaches the firewall many feel should exist wherein policy agenda should not influence the way that science is done," Mann told the Guardian via email.

Links
at No comments: