05/02/2017

Fact Check: Turnbull’s Speech on Australia’s Energy Future

Climate Council

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has addressed the National Press Club, describing energy as a “defining debate of this parliament”.
The speech set out Turnbull’s vision for Australia’s energy future – covering renewable energy, “clean" coal, gas, power prices and electricity security. Here's a snippet:


CLEAN COAL??? Yep, it seems to be back on the agenda. And that's not the only spanner in the works – below we breakdown Turnbull's statements on energy, pointing out the right and the wrong.

What Turnbull got wrong
Clean Coal Forever

Turnbull: “Australia is the world's largest exporter of coal... Old, high emissions coal-fired power stations are closing down as they age, reducing baseload capacity... as Australia is a big exporter we need to show we are using state-of-the-art clean coal-fired technology… Coal will have a role to play for many decades into the future.”
When Turnbull talks “clean” coal, it is unclear whether he means coal plants that are more efficient than Australia’s ageing clunkers, or whether he means coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS).
Whichever the case, let’s be clear: clean coal is NOT A THING.
Both of these “clean” coal technologies are expensive (much more so than renewable alternatives) and still emit greenhouse gases. Large-scale wind and solar plants are already cheaper than new “more efficient” coal plants, and waaaay cheaper than coal plants with CCS.

Pump Up The Gas
Turnbull: “Increasing gas supply in Australia is vital for our energy future and vital for industries and jobs, but State bans on onshore gas development will result in more expensive and less reliable energy.”
Investing in more gas will not result in cheaper energy and reduced emissions. Gas is actually becoming more and more expensive due to Australia’s LNG export industry sending most of our gas offshore. And in states like SA, gas power companies are using their market power to maximise profits, driving power price spikes at opportune times.
Lastly: gas, like coal, is a fossil fuel – producing significant greenhouse gas emissions when produced, transported and burnt. Gas is not the solution.

Cheap Energy
Turnbull: “The battlelines have been drawn – it's clear that the Coalition stands for cheaper energy. We are approaching this issue clear-eyed, pragmatic and objective.”
This statement directly contradicts Turnbull’s plans for new gas and coal power plants in Australia – which will not deliver cheaper electricity to Australians.
Wind and solar plants are already cheaper than new coal, gas and nuclear plants. So if the Coalition really stands for cheaper energy, they’d be backing renewables all the way.

Renewables = Power Price Hikes
Turnbull states: “Our energy is among the most expensive in the OECD... South Australia, now with the most expensive and least secure energy has had its wake-up call – one storm blacked out the entire state. But Labor snores on... continue their mindless rush into renewables."
It’s true that Australia has some of the most expensive power in the OECD. But the main cause of household power price hikes has been network investments, retail charges and – in some places – the increasing price of gas.
Renewable energy is unfairly scapegoated. It’s already reduced the wholesale cost of power, and is helping homeowners and business owners control their energy bills with rooftop solar.
Just so we're clear: Building expensive new coal or gas plants will do nothing to alleviate power prices.

States’ “mindless rush into renewables”
Turnbull: “States are setting huge renewable targets far beyond that of the national RET, with no consideration given to the baseload power and storage needed for viability… But Labor snores on, heedless of what awaits the rest of the country if Labor governments and would-be governments continue their mindless rush into renewables.”
Renewable energy targets set by state and territory governments have played a crucial role in keeping the renewable energy industry alive in Australia, as federal government support has wavered in the past three years.
If we waste more time arguing the merits of a renewable energy future, then investors, innovation and jobs in clean energy will simply go elsewhere. Our States' targets are much closer to the level of action needed on climate change, as modelling for the Climate Change Authority has shown.

Jobs
Turnbull: "Bill Shorten's energy plan, whether it is a 50 per cent RET by 2030 or double our Paris emissions reduction target by 2030, is a sure recipe to deliver much more expensive and much less reliable power… Labor's approach is driven simply by ideology, heedless of cost or the thousands of jobs that it will destroy."
Renewable energy doesn't destroy jobs. Renewable energy creates jobs – from plant development, construction and operation, to producing and installing solar panels.
Detailed modelling from Ernst and Young showed that 50% renewable electricity by 2030 would create more than 28,000 jobs nationwide – nearly 50% more than a business as usual scenario.
There are now more jobs in renewable energy than in coal in Australia. And worldwide, there are now more than 8 million people employed in renewable energy. So if jobs are the main game, renewable energy is a winner.

What Turnbull got right
Ok, so that's it for the bad stuff. Fortunately, there were a few glimmers of hope in the speech as well:

Power Policy Trifecta
Turnbull states: “Australia should be able to achieve the policy trifecta of energy that is affordable, reliable and secure, and that meets our substantial global emissions reduction commitments as agreed in the Paris climate change treaty.”
These three principles of clean (low pollution), affordable and reliable power are appropriate. They are the driving principles of the Finkel Review currently underway by Australia’s Chief Scientist.

Energy Storage
Turnbull states: “Energy storage, long neglected in Australia, will also be a priority this year… Large-scale storage will support variable renewables like wind and solar... and it will enhance grid stability.”
It’s great to see energy storage highlighted as a priority. It’s crucial that Australia makes the right investments now to support low emissions electricity, because the energy infrastructure we build will lock-in Australia’s future emissions for decades.
A range of technologies, including large-scale energy storage, are available to make our existing grids stronger. Examples include:
  • Greater interconnection: e.g. the proposed interconnection between SA and NSW
  • Energy storage: e.g. pumped hydro and batteries, which can store energy for use later ensuring consistent supply to meet demand
  • Energy efficiency and demand management: e.g. to maximise the use of rooftop solar
  • Different renewable energy technologies: e.g. Port Augusta’s proposed solar thermal plant
And one more thing...
Taxpayer funds spent on clean coal were wasted
Turnbull: "We've invested $590 million since 2009 in clean coal technology research and demonstration and yet we do not have one modern high-efficiency low-emissions coal-fired power station, let alone one with carbon capture and storage".
Surely, if anything, this is a stunning admission of wasted government spending? That we would invest almost $600 million in clean coal technology, and have nothing to show for it?!
And yet Turnbull continues to plug the virtues of “clean” coal, while renewable power such as wind and solar is already cheaper than new coal, and getting cheaper by the minute.

Links

Electric Cars And Cheap Solar 'Could Halt Fossil Fuel Growth By 2020'

The Guardian - Press Association

By 2035, electric vehicles could make up 35% of the road transport market, and two-thirds by 2050. Photograph: Miles Willis/Getty Images for Go Ultra Low
Falling costs of electric vehicles and solar panels could halt worldwide growth in demand for oil and coal by 2020, a new report has suggested.
A scenario that takes into account the latest cost reduction projections for the green technologies, and countries’ pledges to cut emissions, finds that solar power and electric vehicles are “gamechangers” that could leave fossil fuels stranded.
Polluting fuels could lose 10% of market share to solar power and clean cars within a decade, the report by the Grantham Institute at Imperial College London and the Carbon Tracker Initiative found.
A 10% loss of market share was enough to cause the collapse of the coal mining industry in the US, while Europe’s five major utilities lost €100bn (£85bn) between 2008 and 2013 because they did not prepare for an 8% increase in renewables, the report said.
Big energy companies are seriously underestimating the low-carbon transition by sticking to their “business as usual” scenarios which expect continued growth of fossil fuels, and could see their assets “stranded”, the study claims.
Emerging technology, such as printable solar photovoltaics which generate electricity, could bring down costs and boost take-up even more than currently predicted.
Luke Sussams, a senior researcher at Carbon Tracker, said: “Electric vehicles and solar power are gamechangers that the fossil fuel industry consistently underestimates.
“Further innovation could make our scenarios look conservative in five years’ time, in which case the demand misread by companies will have been amplified even more.”
James Leaton, head of research at Carbon Tracker, added: “There are a number of low-carbon technologies about to achieve critical mass decades before some companies expect.”
The cost of solar has fallen 85% in seven years, and the report finds panels could supply 23% of global power generation by 2040 and 29% by 2050, entirely phasing coal out and leaving natural gas with just a 1% share.
By 2035, electric vehicles could make up 35% of the road transport market, and two-thirds by 2050, when it could displace 25m barrels of oil per day.
Under such a scenario, coal and oil demand could peak in 2020, while the growth in gas demand could be curtailed.
It could also limit global temperature rises to between 2.4C and 2.7C above pre-industrial levels, while more ambitious action by countries than currently pledged, along with falling costs of solar and electric vehicles, could limit warming to 2.1C to 2.3C.
But the report shows that cutting carbon from the power sector and road transport may not be enough to achieve international climate targets, so emissions reductions from other sectors such as heating buildings and heavy industry will also be needed. 

Links

Two Charts Show How Fossil Fuels Could Peak By 2020

Carbon BriefSimon Evans

Diesel oil spill. Credit: P_Wei/E+/Getty Images.
According to fossil fuel companies, the world will continue to rely on their products for decades. They even have sophisticated scenarios, outlooks and modelling to prove it.
What if they are wrong? New analysis published today by the Carbon Tracker Initiative and Imperial College's Grantham Institute suggests global demand for fossil fuels could peak by 2020. The power sector would see the most dramatic change, becoming virtually fossil-free by 2040.
This fossil fuel "demand destruction" would be hugely disruptive for incumbent industry business models, the report's authors say. Carbon Brief has two graphs to summarise their findings.

Changing assumptions
Oil majors, including Shell and BP, have long published outlooks showing why they think the need for oil and gas will keep growing. Last week, for instance, the annual BP Energy Outlook argued oil demand would continue to grow, despite the rise of electric cars.
Coal firms have also relied on such outlooks to justify new investment. However, these outlooks are frequently criticised for underestimating the pace of change in the energy industry or for downplaying the likelihood of climate action. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has been in the firing line too, with renewable forecasts that keep falling short.
At the heart of the problem lie complex models of the global energy system. These models are set up with a long list of assumptions: How quickly will economies expand? How many people will inhabit the world in 2050? What will it cost to build a wind turbine or solar panel in 2035?
If you change these assumptions, you can radically alter the models' outlook for energy.

Peak fossil
It's one thing to criticise the likes of BP, Shell or the IEA for their assumptions. Carbon Tracker and Grantham have gone a step further, modelling the impact on fossil fuel demand of using different assumptions instead.
Their stand-out finding is that global fossil fuel demand could peak by 2020, if clean technologies get cheaper more quickly than expected, and if climate policy is ramped up.
Historical global fossil fuel use and the outlook to 2050 (shaded areas) if climate policy is ramped up and costs for solar and electric vehicles fall quickly. Source: Expect the Unexpected, Carbon Tracker Initiative and Grantham Institute; BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2016. Chart by Carbon Brief using Highcharts

In this scenario, coal use would peak by 2020 and then fall to 60% below 2012 levels by 2050. Oil demand would also peak by 2020, ending up 8% lower in 2050. Gas demand would continue growing until 2030, but it too would then peak and decline.
It's worth emphasising that the new study includes a range of scenarios, each with different assumptions that are laid bare in the report. The authors say this transparency is vital if energy outlooks – and the business cases that rely on them – are to be interpreted and understood.
The scenario in the chart above assumes solar will cost $1.1-1.7 per watt by 2020 and $0.6-0.9/W by 2030. For context, in the US, utility-scale solar costs have already declined from $4.46/W in 2009 to $1.42/W in early 2016. Some forecasts see these costs falling below $1/W by 2020.
The scenario assumes battery electric cars, vans and buses will be as cheap as, or cheaper than, standard models by 2020. For comparison, Bloomberg New Energy Finance says electric vehicles (EVs) will be cheapest by 2022.
The 2020 cost assumed in the scenario is about the same as the current cost the recently-launched Chevy Bolt, says Dan The US associate professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Rice University. He notes the Energy Information Administration recently made "dramatic" downwards revisions to its forecast for EV costs.
The scenario says the figures are in line with the most up to date information and "low end market projections". These are different to the assumptions behind most models, but still plausible. "Our lower cost assumptions may prove to be conservative," the study notes.
It represents "strong" climate policies using a global carbon price of $50 per tonne of CO2, rising by 5% per year. Existing climate commitments would be roughly equivalent to a lower level of $30/tCO2, the study says. Note that models typically use carbon pricing as a proxy for the impact of all other climate policies, which are hard to model directly.

Power shift
The most dramatic shifts in this cheaper clean technology and stronger climate policy scenario would be seen in the power sector, as the chart below shows. (Note that it only shows coal, gas, wind and solar).
Global Electricity generation from coal, gas, wind and solar to 2050, under a scenario with stronger climate policy and cheaper solar. The chart does not include hydro, nuclear or other fuels. Source: Expect the Unexpected, Carbon Tracker Initiative and Grantham Institute. Chart by Carbon Brief using Highcharts.

Under these assumptions, coal use in the power sector would already have peaked and would fall two-fifths by 2030. It would then fall to zero by 2040. Gas use would increase to 2020 and then fall rapidly, declining three-quarters by 2040.
The study finds virtually no role for coal or gas with carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the power sector, because renewables are assumed to be cheaper. CCS could still be important for industry, the study suggests.

Conclusion
Energy firms have been criticised for being slow to adjust their outlooks in response to changing circumstances. They say that the world will continue to rely on coal, oil and gas for decades to come and that the energy sector, like an oil tanker, is slow to change course.
Today's research suggests that they could be wrong, and that global demand for fossil fuels could soon start to decline. It does so by using different, but still plausible assumptions about the future path of technology costs and climate policy.
You can explore a range of assumptions, and the implications for fossil fuel demand, in an interactive tool developed by the team.