24/01/2018

Frydenberg Factcheck: Is S.A Really Burning 80,000l Of Diesel An Hour To Keep Lights On?

RenewEconomy - Simon Holmes à Court*

If you were unlucky enough to catch Josh Frydenberg’s recent ‘car crash’ of an interview, where he tried to spin Australia’s fourth consecutive year of growing greenhouse emissions as nothing but good news, your ears might have pricked up at the claim that South Australia and Victoria have had to bring in ‘expensive and polluting’ diesel generators and that South Australia in particular is burning ‘80,000 litres of diesel an hour, just to keep the lights on’.
With so many half-truths floating about in the so called ‘energy debate’, it’s worth unpacking this claim.
For the 2017–18 summer, both the South Australia and Victorian governments have installed banks of diesel generators as part of efforts co-ordinated by AEMO to ensure grid security under their Reliability and Emergency Reserve Trader (RERT) arrangements
Australia’s National Electricity Market has for many years included diesel generators in the generation mix.
According to AEMO’s generator database, as of December 2017 there were 98MW of registered diesel generators in NSW, 31MW in Queensland and 266MW in South Australia, not including the new generators installed in late 2017.
In addition, there are many more diesel generators sitting ‘behind the meter’ in hospitals, data and telecommunications facilities, etc. that are not registered with AEMO.
Typically, diesel generators in the NEM run only for short periods during exceptionally high demand. With running costs generally in excess of $300/MWh, most diesel generators in the NEM run for well less than 1% of the year.

South Australian Diesel-Gas Turbines
The South Australian government has acquired nine General Electric ‘aero-derivative’ TM2500 turbines which can run on either diesel or natural gas. (The class of turbines is called ‘aero-derivative’ as the design is derived from GE’s CF6 aircraft engine.)
The trailer-mounted TM2500 turbines have been installed temporarily at two sites to form two power stations:
  • Temporary Generation North — 5 turbines (total 153MW) at the former Holden manufacturing site in Elizabeth
  • Temporary Generation South — 4 turbines (total 123MW) at Adelaide’s Desalination Plant in Lonsdale
Five turbines at the former Holden manufacturing site in Elizabeth
Four turbines at the Adelaide Desalination Plant in Lonsdale
The trailer-mounted turbines arriving by ship.
For their first summer the turbines have been configured to run on diesel, allowing them to be in operation before the start of summer, however once a site with suitable electricity and gas network access is found, they will be moved and reconfigured to run on lower emissions and cheaper natural gas.
Initially the turbines were leased for $111.5m, but in late November then SA Government announced that the fleet had been purchased so that, in the words of Premier Jay Weatherill, “we can get on with the work of securing a permanent location”.
The total capital cost is $338.7m — which works out to be $1227/kW — and since they are no longer temporary, the SA Government is referring to them as the ‘state-owned generators’.
With the addition of this 276MW, SA will have 543MW of diesel capacity (not including the Hallett Power Station) for the 2017–18 summer.
From the first seven weeks of summer, from 1 December 2017 to 21 January, the engines only ran for short periods for testing and licensing purposes — i.e. over this period they have not run for a single minute to support the grid — and have generated just 157MWh, the equivalent of 35 minutes at full load, representing a capacity factor of only 0.05%.
Even when prices hit the market cap of $14,200/MWh last week the engines sat idle. While this might appear nonsensical at first glance, generators cannot both operate in the market and participate in the RERT.
In addition, the SA government has been careful not to distort the price signals in the market that will bring in new participants.
When running on diesel the generators emit 750kg CO2e/MWh (an emissions factor of 750), which is not only a much lower emissions factor than the now demolished Northern Power Station (1010), but lower than even the best coal power stations anywhere.
(Yes, even the so called ‘high efficiency, low emissions’ power stations that are neither highly efficient nor low emissions.)
Once converted to gas, the emissions factor will drop to 540, marginally lower than the Torrens Island gas power station (580).
At full tilt, the engines would burn at most 80,000 litres of diesel per hour, however those endlessly quoting the figure (looking at you Josh Frydenberg, Craig Kelly and Chris Kenny!) won’t tell you that they’ve used less than 47kL for the summer so far.
To put it into context, the state-owned generators have so far burnt less than 40 tons of diesel, while the Northern and Playford power station, before they were shut down by Alinta, consumed an average of 67 tons of brown coal every hour.

Victorian Temporary Generators (Morwell)
As part of the 1,150MW of strategic reserves secured by AEMO, 105 containerised diesel engine generators with a combined capacity of 105MW have been temporarily installed at the site of the old Morwell Coal Power Station (a.k.a. EnergyBrix), shut in 2014.
The equipment is owned and operated by international services company Aggreko and is contracted to be available for the three months starting 8 January 2018.
Containerised generators installed at the site of the former Morwell Power Station (EnergyBrix)
As RERT generators, it is estimated that there is a 61% probability that the power supply will not be required to operate at all.
According to Aggreko’s announcements, “there is a 19.5% probability that it will operate for up to 4 hours during the period January to March, and a 13% probability that it will operate for up to 8 hours over this period.
A condition of the Victorian EPA approval is that Aggreko must seek further approval from the EPA to operate more than 20 hours over the whole 3-month period.”
During last week’s heatwave, AEMO activated the RERT. While AEMO does no release details of which RERT panel members were called on to participate, an AEMO spokesperson has confirmed that the Morwell generators did not operate.
The diesel generators have an emissions intensity factor of 668 (ie. 668 kgCO2-e/MWh). This is less than half of Hazelwood’s factor of approximately 1,400, well below that of  Millmerran Power Station (891), likely the lowest emissions coal power station in Australia.
Layout of the temporary installation at the former Morwell Power Station (EnergyBrix)
While it is not accurate to say that the Morwell engines ‘replace Hazelwood’, it is arguable that they would not have been required if Hazelwood had not closed in March 2017.
Over a typical three-month period Hazelwood used to emit 4,308,000 tons of carbon dioxide.
If the Morwell generators operate at all they will emit 73.5 tons per hour. As such there is a 61% probability they won’t emit a single ton of CO2 outside any testing, a 19.5% probability of less than 293 tons and a 13% probability of less than 588 tons. The engines will need EPA approval to emit more than 1,470 tons of CO2, or 1/3000th of what Hazelwood used to emit over a similar period.
So while it is true that diesel generators have been installed to boost power security over the summer, it must be kept in mind that Victorias are temporary, South Australia’s will soon run on natural gas, both are much cleaner than coal and neither will get much, if any use. Anyone, politician or opinionista, who tells you otherwise is engaging in an act of deception.
As for the cost, we built our generation and transmission system to be 99.998% reliable. Politicians and our government agencies got the strong message through 2017 that this is not reliable enough.
So until we can have adult conversations about energy, we’ll have to pay for infrastructure that’s only called upon in extremely rare circumstances — you can consider that another form of ‘gold plating’.

*Simon Holmes à Court is senior advisor to the Energy Transition Hub at Melbourne University and can be found on Twitter @simonahac  


Links

Don't Shoot The Climate Change Messenger

Fairfax - Emma Johnston* | Alex Sen Gupta*

Today, when our weather forecasters tell us a heatwave is coming, we can be quietly confident of the time it will arrive and the temperatures that will be reached. When western Sydney broke records on January 7, hitting 47 degrees, the Bureau of Meteorology had warned us, enabling individuals and organisations to prepare. While analysis of this event is ongoing, researchers at the Australian Research Council's Centre of Excellence on Climate Extremes found a similar Sydney heatwave last year was twice as likely due to the climatic impacts of humans.
The role of forecasting is to use the best information available at the time to predict conditions, and give us time to prepare, adjust or change course. When we're talking about tomorrow's, or even next week's, weather everyone plans accordingly, without a second thought. Using seasonal forecasts, based on predictions of the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO), industries and governments routinely respond months in advance to forecast patterns of rainfall and wind.
Once thriving wetlands close to the Murray River at Mildura in north-west Victoria.  Photo: Jessica Shapiro
By contrast, when many of the same scientists predict how the climate is likely to change over decades, they find themselves ignored, disbelieved, disparaged or even threatened.
Yet weather, seasonal and climate forecasting all rely on much the same models (based on the same laws of physics). Climate modelling also incorporates external factors that can be estimated long into the future including - most importantly - how levels of carbon dioxide (and other gases) will change under various socio-economic conditions. Because we have a good understanding of how additional carbon dioxide affects the earth's energy balance, we can estimate its effect on the climate. This means we can forecast key trends for different regions, such as if rainfall will be higher or lower on average, if currents are strengthened or weakened, or if extreme events such as heatwaves will become more or less intense and/or frequent.
For decades, climate change forecasters have mainly been telling us what we'd prefer not to hear. Concentrations of global greenhouse gases are rising relentlessly (with the biggest hike in 2017), 17 of the Earth's 18 hottest years ever have been recorded since 2000 and the oceans off Australia's east coast are warming two to three times faster than the global average, radically altering, for example, the composition of marine species off Tasmania. Officials at the Australian Open in Melbourne were forced to consider how excessive heat was affecting, or threatening, elite players.
Given our aversion to bad news, perhaps it's not surprising so many scientists endure damaging 'shoot the messenger' attacks. Consider the recent tirade by a Queensland tourism industry representative against one of Australia's most distinguished experts, Professor Terry Hughes, the director of the ARC Centre for Excellence for Coral Reef Studies. Hughes' latest research demonstrates that devastating coral bleaching events, due to warmer waters, are occurring too regularly for mature coral reefs to recover. It is research the tourism industry representative would like to have de-funded; presumably for fear of scaring off tourists and their cash.
Such short-term thinking – and numerous responses of a similar ilk – demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the role, rigour and immense value of research and forecasting as the global climate changes. This puts us all at risk.
Next month, UNSW Sydney hosts one of the largest and most important international conferences of meteorologists, oceanographers and climate scientists focusing on the Southern Hemisphere; our critical climatic backyard. Delegates will have some complex science and modelling on their plates.
It's clear new partnerships must be forged between forecasters and climate scientists and communities, industries and decision-makers, if we are to go beyond denial and derision, to work together more effectively.
Two recent news stories remind us of the urgent need for a concerted global response. First, the World Meteorological Organisation revealed last year was among the hottest on record without the exacerbating effects of El Nino conditions boosting temperatures, reinforcing global scientific consensus that we are not merely facing natural climate variability, but the effects of human activity.
Second, Nature published a forecast of global temperature increases for this century within a narrower range than previous predictions. While is it is too early to know how important this study is, it suggests two critical things. One, that the climate's sensitivity to rising emissions is high enough to demand action. Two, that we may still have time to avoid catastrophic climate change.

*Emma Johnston is dean of science and professor of Marine Ecology and Ecotoxicology at the UNSW. She will open the 12th International Conference for Southern Hemisphere Meteorology and Oceanography at UNSW on February 6.
*Dr Alex Sen Gupta, is a climate scientist at UNSW and a conference organiser.

Links

'Wasteful Stunt': Turnbull Government Accused Of Doing Too Little To Save Reef

Fairfax - Peter Hannam

The Turnbull government's pledge of an additional $60 million to help improve the health of the Great Barrier Reef has been dismissed by environmental groups and scientists as insufficient and a "wasteful publicity stunt".
The government's pledge of the funds over 18 months includes $10.4 million for "an all-out assault" to reduce the impact of coral-eating crown-of-thorns starfish, the government said in a statement.


Great Barrier Reef's bleached coral up close
Parts of the Great Barrier Reef are enduring sustained periods of heat stress worse than at the same time during last year's record-breaking coral bleaching event, raising fears the natural wonder may suffer another hammering.Vision supplied: Biopixel.

The number of vessels used to curb the spread of the starfish will increase from three to eight
About $36.6 million will also go to further reduce the run-off of nutrients and other pollution from farms near the Great Barrier Reef.
"The reef is the world's largest living structure and a global natural icon," the statement said.
Jon Brodie, a Professorial Fellow with the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University, said the funding would likely make little difference particularly if spent on programs already shown to be ineffective.
He said these included crown-of-thorns efforts that appear to have minimal impact on numbers despite removing 500,000 starfish, and whose full results were not being made public – as Fairfax Media reported last week.
Dr Brodie said the federal and state governments' own water quality report card in 2016 indicated funding needed to be closer to a $1 billion per year over a decade.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull visits the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) to unveil the 'rescue plan' for the reef. Photo: Michael Chambers
The Turnbull government "is not prepared to put enough money in to make a difference", he said.
The Australian Institute of Marine Science, one recipient of money to develop a new Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program, welcomed the funds but noted any recovery hinged on dealing with the threat from climate change.
Crown-of-thorns starfish being lured to one location - for possible easier extermination. Photo: University of Queensland 


"These methods will need to go hand in hand with greenhouse gas mitigation and conventional management" such as no-fish zones, Paul Hardisty, the institute's chief executive, said.
"But they could be the difference in our efforts to preserve and protect the reef, and the tremendous value it provides to all Australians."
John Rumney from the Great Barrier Reef Legacy takes a close look at bleaching corals near Port Douglas. Photo: Dean Miller/GBR Legacy




IMAGE
The Greens, though, said Monday's event was "a wasteful publicity stunt that's doomed to fail".
Some 64,000 jobs rely on the health of the Great Barrier Reef, especially tourism. Photo: Supplied
"If Malcolm Turnbull was serious about protecting the Great Barrier Reef he would listen to scientists and transition away from the real reef-killer: the fossil fuel industry," Andrew Bartlett, Greens senator for Queensland, said.

No state consultation
A spokesman for Leeanne Enoch, Queensland's new Minister for the Great Barrier Reef, said the Turnbull government hadn't consulted the Labor state government ahead of Monday's announcement.
Bleaching corals display vivid fluorescent colours before turning completely white. Photo: E.Matson, AIMS

Federal officials made contact with state counterparts on Monday to discuss how the funding would be rolled out, he said.
WWF-Australia welcomed the funding as "positive but nowhere near enough to meet Australia's promise to the World Heritage Committee".
The group said Australia had promised to cut sediment flowing into the reef by as much as half by 2025 and nitrogen pollution by 80 per cent.
"The funding announced today won't get us to the water quality targets we promised UNESCO" to maintain the World Heritage status of the reef, Sean Hoobin, WWF-Australia spokesman said.
"Failing on these targets is failing the reef," Mr Hoobin said. "With almost half the coral cover lost to bleaching over the last two years the reef needs a massive new investment to help it respond to global warming."
WWF has called for the government to commit $475 million a year for the next four years to improve water quality in key Great Barrier Reef catchments.
Unprecedented back-to-back bleaching hit the central and northern regions of the reef hard over the past two years and there are indications of some bleaching at the southern end this summer, Dr Brodie said.

Links