27/08/2020

(AU) Gas Is Not Transition Energy We Were Promised, New Research Suggests

Sydney Morning Herald - Nick O'Malley

The good news about natural gas is that when it is burnt it creates between 40 and 50 per cent less carbon dioxide than coal would to create the same amount of energy.

This is why it has been embraced by some climate activists and governments as a useful energy source to replace coal and oil while renewable energy technologies catch up with global energy demand.

Gas appears to be no cleaner an energy source than coal, new research suggests. Credit: Glenn Hunt

But the good news ends there, and there is a lot more to the story.

Before it is burnt natural gas is mostly made up of methane, and methane is estimated to be about 28 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide over a 100-year period.

Over a 20-year period - about the time scientists believe we have to try to prevent the worst impacts of global warming - it is up to 80 times more potent at warming the planet than carbon dioxide.

The United States’ Environmental Protection Agency estimates that for every cubic metre of methane extracted by the US oil and gas industry, 1.4 per cent escapes into the atmosphere as so-called fugitive emissions.

But more recent research suggests this estimate is drastically low, and that, in fact, the industry in the US is leaking 13 million metric tonnes of methane a year, or 2.3 per cent.

It is not yet clear how much fugitive methane is released by the Australian gas industry, but new technologies now allow scientists to accurately measure it and the data is expected to be published in the coming months.

The US Environmental Defence Fund estimated that, in America, if just 3 per cent of methane escapes, gas is no cleaner an energy source than coal.

Either way, as gas begins to displace coal - or in Japan, nuclear power - as an energy source, its significance as a warming agent via both the carbon dioxide it produces when burnt and via fugitive methane emissions is growing rapidly.

According to research published last month by the CSIRO's Global Carbon Project, at the end of 2019, methane concentration in the atmosphere reached 1,875 parts per billion – more than 2½ times higher than pre-industrial levels. This was a level consistent with the climate warming by a catastrophic 3-4 degrees Celsius by 2100.

Between 2008 and 2017, 60 per cent of methane emissions were man-made, created by agriculture and waste, followed by oil and gas production and then the burning of biofuels.

The most recent research suggests that agriculture and the use of fossil fuels - mainly gas - are equal contributors to the rise of methane in the atmosphere over the past decade, says Dr Pep Canadell, a senior scientist with the CSIRO and director of the Global Carbon Project.

Links
at No comments:

(AU) Chief Scientist Alan Finkel Fires Back On Gas Criticism From Colleagues

Sydney Morning Herald - Nick O'Malley

Australia's Chief Scientist, Dr Alan Finkel, has defended his position on the use of natural gas after being criticised by some of the nation's leading climate change scientists, saying it would remain one of the nation's key energy sources.

"There will be times when supply from renewable electricity generators will be inadequate to meet demand and occasionally such periods will last many days and affect adjacent jurisdictions," Dr Finkel wrote.

Dr Alan Finkel has defended his position on the use of natural gas following criticism from a group of Australian climate scientists. Credit: Jessica Hromas

On Monday The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age reported that a group of 25 leading Australian scientists had written to Dr Finkel, voicing their concern that his support for the use of gas was not supported by scientific evidence about the need for the rapid abandonment of fossil fuels to tackle climate change.

They were particularly concerned about elements of Dr Finkel's address to the National Press Club earlier this year, which preceded the government's adoption of an economic stimulus policy backed by an expansion of the gas industry.

Dr Finkel wrote that as he said in his press club address, "the adoption of more renewable electricity will be faster, more economical and more reliable if natural gas fired electricity generation continues to be available in the near- to medium-term."

"Natural gas fired electricity can pick up where batteries and pumped hydroelectricity run short. Furthermore, natural gas fired electricity has an important firming role to play as, and when, existing coal-fired stations close due to age or competition," he wrote.



He wrote that greenhouse gas emissions caused by burning coal gas to generate electricity were lower than that created by burning coal, "even when upstream fugitive emissions of methane are included in the analysis". He also wrote that because gas-fired power stations could ramp up faster than coal-fired power stations they did not need to operate for as long to meet shortfalls in renewable power in the grid.

"The combination of lower emissions per megawatt-hour and a smaller number of operating hours means that natural gas fired electricity can make a valuable contribution to reliability during our transition to a low emissions electricity system."

Dr Finkel wrote that he has not commented on an expanded role of gas for industry, rather his focus has been on the use of gas-fired electricity generation alongside renewable energy.

One of the signatories to the letter, Professor Will Steffen, said Dr Finkel had not addressed its key points.

"He is addressing engineering problems. He is not speaking about the fact that using gas as a transition fuel is not compatible with meeting Paris Agreement climate targets to which Australia is a signatory," he said.

Former chief scientist Penny Sackett, who did not sign the letter, said that there was no time for a decades' long switch from coal to gas.

"'Fuel switching' from coal to gas is policy based on factors that were at play around the turn of the century or before, not in today's world and beyond," she said. "The last thing we need is to increase fossil fuel production at a time when coal, gas and oil must all decline starting now in order to stay well below 2°C of global heating."

Asked in Parliament by Greens leader Adam Bandt if he shared the concerns of the scientists, Prime Minister Scott Morrison reiterated the government's view that gas would not only help sustain Australian jobs and industry, but also supported a transition to a low carbon economy.

"That is why we want to see more of it and get more out of the ground, Mr Speaker, so we can fuel the jobs that this country needs as we come out of the COVID-19 recession."

He noted that government members were "united in that view of gas".

"We all support it, Mr Speaker. We are all behind it. I believe the Australian people will also."

He noted that the Labor Party appeared to be divided over the issue. Labor energy spokesman, Mark Butler, declined to comment.

The independent MP Zali Steggall said she was "very concerned about Dr Finkel's statements on gas as a transition fuel for "decades to come".

"The Government relies on Dr Finkel's views to justify a focus on gas, and yet his advice is at odds with scientists across the country who say a gas-led recovery is not in line with tackling the emissions reduction challenge we must do under the Paris Agreement," she said.

Links
at No comments:

(AU) 4 Reasons Why A Gas-Led Economic Recovery Is A Terrible, Naïve Idea

The Conversation - 

Shutterstock

Author
 is Director of the Centre for Energy and Natural Resources Law, Deakin Law School, Deakin University.     
Australia’s leading scientists have sent an open letter to Chief Scientist Alan Finkel, speaking out against his support for natural gas. Finkel has said natural gas plays a critical role in Australia’s transition to clean energy. But, as the scientists write:
that approach is not consistent with a safe climate nor, more specifically, with the Paris Agreement. There is no role for an expansion of the gas industry.
And yet, momentum in the support for gas investment is building. Leaked draft recommendations from the government’s top business advisers support a gas-led economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. They call for a A$6 billion investment in gas development in Australia.

This is a terrible idea. Spending billions on gas infrastructure and development under the guise of a COVID-19 economic recovery strategy — with no attempt to address pricing or anti-competitive behaviour — is ill-considered and injudicious.

It will not herald Australia’s economic recovery. Rather, it’s likely to hinder it.

The proposals ignore obvious concerns

The draft recommendations — from the National COVID-19 Coordination Commission — include lifting the moratorium on fracking and coal seam gas in New South Wales and remaining restrictions in Victoria, and reducing red and “green tape”.

In a speech in February to the National Press Club, Alan Finkel said gas was vital in Australia’s transition to clean energy. AAP Image/Mick Tsikas

It also recommends providing low-cost capital to existing small and medium market participants, underwriting costs at priority supply hubs, and investing in strategic pipeline development.But the proposals have failed to address a range of fundamental concerns.
  1. gas is an emissions-intensive fuel
  2. demand for fossil fuels are in terminal decline across the world and investing in new infrastructure today is likely to generate stranded assets in the not-too-distant future
  3. renewable technology and storage capacity have rapidly accelerated, so gas is no longer a necessary transition resource, contrary to Finkel’s claims
  4. domestic gas pricing in the east coast market is unregulated.
Let’s explore each point.

The effect on climate change

Accelerating gas production will increase greenhouse gas emissions. Approximately half of Australian gas reserves need to remain in the ground if global warming is to stay under 2℃ by 2030.

Natural gas primarily consists of methane, and the role of methane in global warming cannot be overstated. It’s estimated that over 20 years, methane traps 86 times as much heat in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.

And fast-tracking controversial projects, such as the Narrabri Gas Project in northern NSW, will add an estimated 500 million tonnes of additional greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Accelerating such unconventional gas projects also threatens to exacerbate damage to forests, wildlife habitat, water quality and water levels because of land clearing, chemical contamination and fracking.

A protest in 2017 against Santos’ plans for a major coal seam gas field near Narrabri. This gas project will pump enormous amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. AAP Image/Paul Miller

These potential threats are enormous concerns for our agricultural sector. Insurance Australia Group, one of the largest insurance companies in Australia, has indicated it will no longer provide public liability insurance for farmers if coal seam gas equipment is on their land.Fossil fuels in decline

Investing in gas makes absolutely no sense when renewable energy and storage solutions are expanding at such a rapid pace.

It will only result in stranded assets. Stranded assets are investments that don’t generate a viable economic return. The financial risks associated with stranded fossil fuel assets are prompting many large institutions to join the growing divestment movement.

Solar, wind and hydropower are rolling out at unprecedented speed. Globally, renewable power capacity is set to expand by 50% between 2019 and 2024, led by solar PV.

Solar PV alone accounts for almost 60% of the expected growth, with onshore wind representing one-quarter. This is followed by offshore wind capacity, which is forecast to triple by 2024.

Solar PV accounts for almost 60% of the growth in renewables. AAP Image/Lukas Coch

Domestic pricing is far too expensive

Domestic gas in Australia’s east coast market is ridiculously expensive. The east coast gas market in Australia is like a cartel, and consumers and industry have experienced enormous price hikes over the last decade. This means there is not even a cost incentive for investing in gas.

Indeed, the price shock from rising gas prices has forced major manufacturing and chemical plants to close.

The domestic price of gas has trebled over the last decade, even though the international price of gas has plummeted by up to 40% during the pandemic.

As Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chair Rod Simms declared in the interim gas report released last week, these price issues are “extremely concerning” and raise “serious questions about the level of competition among producers”.

To date, the federal government has done very little in response, despite the implementation of the Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism in 2017.

This mechanism gives the minister the power to restrict LNG exports when there’s insufficient domestic supply. The idea is that shoring up supply would stabilise domestic pricing.

Former chief executive of Fortescue Metals Nev Power heads the government’s COVID-19 commission. AAP Image/Joel Carrett

But the minister has never exercised the power. The draft proposals put forward by the National COVID-19 Coordination Commission do not address these concerns.

A gas-led disaster

There is no doubt gas producers are suffering. COVID-19 has resulted in US$11 billion of Chevron gas and LNG assets being put up for sale.

And the reduction in energy demand caused by COVID-19 has produced record low oil prices. Low oil prices can stifle investment in new sources of supply, reducing the ability and incentive of producers to explore for and develop gas.

It’s clear the National COVID-19 Coordination Commission’s recommendations are oriented towards helping gas producers. But investing in gas production and development won’t help Australia as a whole recover from the pandemic.

The age of peak fossil fuel is over. Accelerating renewable energy production, which coheres with climate targets and a decarbonising global economy, is the only way forward.

A COVID-19 economic strategy that fails to appreciate this not only naïve, it’s contrary to the interests of broader Australia.

Links
at No comments: