31/03/2021

Climate Change: Consumer Pose 'Growing Threat' To Tropical Forests

BBCMatt McGrath

Copyright Getty Images

Rising imports in wealthy countries of coffee, cocoa and other products are a "growing threat" to forests in tropical regions according to a new study.

Research shows consumer behaviour in the UK and other rich nations is responsible for the loss of almost 4 trees per person per year.

Increasing numbers of trees are now being planted in the developed world, the authors say.

But imports of products linked to deforestation undermine these efforts.

This growing international trade is doing more harm than good for climate and for biodiversity say the researchers.

Among the world's forests, trees growing in tropical areas are said to be the most valuable in protecting species and limiting global heating.

Tropical forests are home to between 50-90% of all terrestrial plants and animals.

They are also critical for the climate, soaking up and storing vast amounts of carbon dioxide.

But in the Amazon, central Africa, Indonesia and parts of Asia, growing numbers of trees have been cut down in recent decades so farmers can grow commodity crops like soybeans, and graze cattle for beef.

This new study looks at the global deforestation picture over the years between 2001 and 2015.

Demand for coffee is one of the big drivers of deforestation in parts of the world. Copyright Getty Images

Using high-resolution forest maps and a global supply chain model, the researchers were able to compile a comprehensive and highly detailed account of how deforestation is being driven by consumer behaviour, especially in richer countries.

So while countries like the UK, Germany, China and India have all planted more trees at home in recent years, all are linked to rising deforestation outside their borders, particularly in tropical forests.

The researchers were able to be remarkably precise about the impacts of this trade. Cocoa consumption in Germany poses the highest risk to forests in Cote D'Ivoire and Ghana, in Tanzania it's the demand for sesame seeds among Japanese consumers that's a key driver.

It's not just the wealthier nations - demand in China is responsible for deforestation in Northern Laos as land is cleared for rubber plantations.

"The imports of tropical deforestation-related commodities tend to be increasing, while the global deforestation rate was reported to be decreasing," said first author Nguyen Tien Hoang from the Research Institute for Humanity and Nature in Kyoto.

"Obtaining net forest gains domestically but expanding non-domestic deforestation footprints, especially in the tropics, might do more harm than good for climate change mitigation and biodiversity conservation," he told BBC News.

While tree planting in the UK and other countries is making a difference it is being undermined by imports of products linked to deforestation. Copyright Getty Images

While consumers in India and China are responsible for the loss of around one tree per person per year, this rises to almost four in the richer G7 group of countries.

"This figure shows that the consumption of developed countries and the G7 in particular is destroying the world's forests, the planet's lung, and their biodiversity," said Adeline Favrel, from France Nature Environment, who was not involved with the study.

"Our consumption is not destroying our forests, but the forests of other countries, particularly the tropical forest, which is the richest in terms of biodiversity. The main culprits are our consumption of wood, meat, palm oil and soya."

Dealing with the problem though is not easy. The authors say that continued economic growth is not the answer. As richer countries saw their economies grow dramatically over the period of the study, their dependence on tropical forests has increased.

German imports of cocoa beans from Cote D'Ivoire are a growing threat to forests. Copyright Getty Images

"Rich countries should recognize their role in deforestation as a major consumer of forest-risk goods," said Audrey Changoe, an expert on trade at Friends of the Earth Europe.

"Governments need to adopt regulatory measures to oblige companies to assess and mitigate deforestation risks. The EU is now working on an accountability framework to address environmental harms and human rights by business. This must include liability for the harm caused by companies and access to courts for victims of human rights violations and environmental crimes."

The authors argue that paying poorer countries for environmental services has already cut deforestation rates and helped people out of poverty. They are calling for an expansion and increase of these long-term solutions.

The study has been published in the journal Nature Ecology and Evolution.

Links

The Climate Crisis Will Cause Once-Dormant Viruses To Reemerge

Earth.Org - Jamie Sarao

The climate crisis is causing ancient permafrost to thaw, which could unleash viruses and bacteria that have been dormant for thousands of years, presenting a potentially catastrophic risk to humans and ecosystems alike. 

During the 2016 summer heatwave in the Siberian Tundra, a group of reindeer herders became ill from a mysterious illness, which took the life of 2,500 reindeer and a 12-year old boy.

It was thought that the illness was the “Siberian plague” that was last seen in the region in 1941, and investigations revealed that the disease was anthrax.

Its origin was a reindeer carcass that died from anthrax 75 years previously that became exposed due to melting soil as a result of warming temperatures. 


This reemergence of viruses and bacteria may become more prevalent as the climate crisis progresses. The conditions of permafrost are ideal for bacteria to remain alive for very long periods of time, perhaps as long as a million years.

 Permafrost is a very good preserver of microbes and viruses because it is cold, devoid of oxygen and dark.


Scientists have discovered fragments of RNA from the 1918 Spanish flu virus in corpses buried in mass graves in the tundra of Alaska and it is likely that smallpox and the bubonic plague are buried in Siberia, showing the likelihood of these agents being unleashed

A study in 2011 postulated that as a result of melting permafrost, diseases prevalent in the 18th and 19th centuries could come back, especially near the cemeteries where the victims of these diseases were buried.

In a project that began in the 1990s, scientists from the State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology in Novosibirsk have tested the remains of Stone Age people that were found in southern Siberia, as well as samples from the corpses of men who had died during viral epidemics in the 19th century and were buried in the Russian permafrost.

The researchers found fragments of the DNA of smallpox in some of the bodies. 


Additionally, researchers in a 2005 study successfully revived bacteria that had been frozen in a pond in Alaska for over 30 000 years, since woolly mammoths still roamed the Earth. When the ice melted, the bacteria began swimming around, unaffected.

Two years later, scientists were able to revive an 8-million-year-old bacterium that had been frozen beneath a glacier in Antarctica.


Luckily, not all bacteria can come back to life after being frozen in permafrost. Anthrax forms spores, which can survive being frozen for over a century. Similar bacteria include tetanus and the bacteria that causes botulism. 

A 2009 study claimed that residents in the Arctic rely on subsistence hunting and fishing for food sources, as well as a suitable climate to store food. This food storage includes ground air-drying, being placed under ground and in close vicinity to permafrost.

The bacteria that prompts botulism is active in temperatures higher than 4 degrees Celsius and as the climate warms, the potential of food-borne botulism could grow. 


In the Arctic, temperatures have risen faster in the last century compared to the rest of the Northern hemisphere, meaning further rapid melting.

In the past decade, the Arctic has warmed 0.75 degrees Celsius whereas Earth overall has warmed 0.8 degrees Celsius in 137 years.


The warming of the climate will also trigger the migration of species that are carriers of diseases such as the Zika Virus, a mosquito-borne virus primarily carried by Aedes mosquitos and which causes fever, muscle and joint pain and headaches.

Zika virus infection during pregnancy can cause infants to be born with microcephaly and in severe cases, miscarriages. These mosquitoes also transmit dengue fever and chikungunya fever.

Though these mosquitoes primarily reside in tropical southeastern states in America, the increase in temperature could encourage a dispersion of these insects.

A 2017 study focuses on the outbreak of the Zika Virus in Brazil from 2014 to 2016. By the end of 2016, approximately 200,000 cases of Zika Virus were confirmed.

The virus was claimed to be brought to the country in the 2014 World Sprint Championship canoe race in Rio de Janeiro which brought those from the French Polyneisa into the country which triggered Zika transmission.

A year later, once the virus had domiciled in Brazil, it eventually spread throughout Latin America and the Caribbean and the virus had been found in every country that contained the Aedes aegypti mosquito


As the climate crisis continues, air temperatures will increase, resulting in quicker thawing. Higher temperatures also encourage the cholera bacteria (Vibrio Cholerae) to duplicate, resulting in a wider spread.

The melting of the soil could contaminate water supplies, therefore spreading water-borne diseases such as cholera and others. 


While we know of the frightening and life-threatening diseases and viruses that could come back to life with the advancement of the climate crisis, there is no way for us to know the full extent of this without experiencing it.

It is imperative that humanity mitigates the climate crisis before unknown and horrific diseases spring back to life.


Links

(AU) Yes, Achievements Are Important. So What Has Morrison Achieved On Climate?

Canberra Times - Steph Hodgins-May

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison and his UK counterpart Boris Johnson are ideological bedfellows but have very different ambitions on climate. Picture: Getty Images
Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison and his UK counterpart Boris Johnson are ideological bedfellows but have very different ambitions on climate. Picture: Getty Images

Author
Steph Hodgins-May is Greenpeace Australia's head of Pacific.
She is an environmental lawyer and climate campaigner with extensive experience in strategic planning and advocacy. 
Steph Hodgins-May holds a Bachelor of Law & Arts and a Master of International Relations from Deakin University.
When it comes to climate policy, Australia talks big talk.

A month out from US President Biden's global climate summit, the hot air is rising as our Prime Minister pushes for Australia's climate track record to be vindicated by his international counterparts.

But for all the talk of "practical action" on climate change from Mr Morrison, even the most cursory glance at Australia's climate performance reveals a startling lack of action, practical or otherwise.

Just this month a new policy brief by Canberra climate experts revealed Australia won't meet net-zero emissions by 2050 with its current effort.

Australia's poor climate performance has not gone unnoticed internationally, with our country regularly in the bottom ranks of global climate action trackers.

Now, with renewed climate ambition from the US, a vow from Boris Johnson to put climate change at the forefront of his international policy, and the introduction of carbon border tariffs in the EU, Australia is increasingly looking like a poor player in the global effort to tackle climate change. At the global climate summit, that will all come out in the wash, with Australia set to be embarrassed and isolated. Scott Morrison, one eye to marketing as always, is looking to manage the expected fallout.

Morrison's attempt at expectations management is yet another example of the PM putting politics before policy.

Rather than leading by outlining a vision and plan to get there, Morrison is trying to spin his way out of trouble and claim credit for the work of others, namely state governments that are most responsible for the drop in Australia's emissions through their renewable energy targets.

Strong leaders are ambitious and agenda-setting but like Morrison's handling of sexual assault allegations, the climate issue has exposed him as a man without a plan.

When it comes to climate policy, Morrison agrees that ambition is important but says he wants to be judged on his "achievements". Let's take a look at what the Morrison government has achieved so far on emissions reduction.

Scott Morrison leads a government that has not had a national climate policy for years. Under his leadership, Australia was one of only a handful of countries seeking to use Kyoto carryover credits to meet emissions-reduction targets under the Paris Agreement.

Morrison has encouraged the export of ever more fossil fuels, which are responsible for around five times Australia's massive domestic emissions. His government gifts around $12 billion of taxpayer money to the coal, oil and gas industries every year.

As PM, Morrison has steadfastly opposed measures to reduce emissions, protected members of his government who are straight-up climate-denialist conspiracy theorists, and recently supported climate action-blocker Mathias Cormann to become secretary-general of the OECD.

As other countries around the world, including Australia's major trading partners, take steps to decarbonise their economies and achieve net-zero emissions, Morrison has tried to keep highly polluting coal-burning power stations running, and advocated for Australia's recovery from the pandemic to be powered by another climate-destroying fossil fuel, gas.

But the height of this hypocrisy is reserved for the people that Morrison calls "family", our Pacific neighbours, who stand to be more impacted by climate change than any other region in the world. 

In a recent opinion piece co-authored by Morrison and the leaders of the US, Japan and India, Morrison said "we will work together and with others to strengthen the Paris Agreement, and enhance the climate actions of all nations".

These words mean nothing when Morrison has ignored Pacific leaders' consistent calls for Australia to reduce its emissions, despite his government signing onto communiques and declarations that recognise climate change as the number one threat to the Pacific.

As the world's largest coal exporter and the largest per capita emitter, Australia has a responsibility to help protect Pacific Island nations from the devastating impacts of climate change such as cyclones and sea-level rises that threaten to submerge entire nations beneath the waves.

Morrison has shirked many chances to lead, but as the urgent need to prevent the climate crisis grows, opportunities continue to arise. Biden's climate summit is the first, but soon after there is the Pacific Islands Forum and then COP26 in Glasgow.

Try as he might to avoid it, Morrison could still have greatness thrust upon him. He just has to "step up" to the challenge, listen to his Pacific counterparts and join them in leading on climate.

Looking backwards and side-stepping ambition won't save the Pacific, and it won't save us.

Links

30/03/2021

The Real Reason Humans Are The Dominant Species

BBC - Justin Rowlatt | Laurence Knight



Getty Images

From early humans rubbing sticks together to make fire, to the fossil fuels that drove the industrial revolution, energy has played a central role in our development as a species. But the way we power our societies has also created humanity's biggest challenge. It's one that will take all our ingenuity to solve.

Energy is the key to humanity's world domination.

Not just the jet fuel that allows us to traverse entire continents in a few hours, or the bombs we build that can blow up entire cities, but the vast amounts of energy we all use every day.

Consider this: a resting human being requires about the same amount of energy as an old-fashioned incandescent light bulb to sustain their metabolism - about 90 watts (joules per second).

But the average human being in a developed country uses more like 100 times that amount, if you add in the energy needed to get around, build and heat our homes, grow our food and all the other things our species gets up to.

The average American, for example, consumes about 10,000 watts.

That difference explains a lot about us - our biology, our civilisation and the unbelievably affluent lifestyles we all lead - compared, that is, with other animals.



The brains of modern humans (top and bottom right) are bigger than those of more ancient members of the human family. Did the control of fire help fuel the increase in brain size? Copyright Science Photo Library

Because unlike virtually every other creature on Earth, we human beings do much more with energy than just power our own metabolism.

We are a creature of fire.

Humanity's exceptional relationship with energy began hundreds of thousands of years ago, with our discovery of fire.

Fire did much more than just keep us warm, protect us from predators and give us a new tool for hunting.

A number of anthropologists believe fire actually refashioned our biology.

"Anything that allows an organism to get energy more efficiently is going to have huge effects on the evolutionary trajectory of that organism," explains Prof Rachel Carmody of Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

She believes the decisive development was cooking. Cooking transforms the energy available from food, she argues.

The carbohydrates, proteins and lipids that provide our bodies with nutrition are unravelled and exposed when they are heated.

That makes it is easier for our digestive enzymes to do their work effectively, extracting more calories more quickly than if we ate our food raw.

Think of it as a way of "pre-digesting" food.



A resting human being requires about the same amount of energy as an old-fashioned incandescent light bulb to sustain their metabolism. Copyright Getty Images

Prof Carmody and her colleagues believe the extra energy it reliably gave us allowed us to evolve the small colons and relatively large energy-hungry brains that distinguish us from our primate cousins.

And, as our brains began to grow, it created a positive feedback loop.

As neurons are added to the mammalian brain, intelligence increases exponentially, says Suzana Herculano-Houzel, a neuroscientist based at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee.

With smarter brains, we got better at hunting and foraging.

And we figured out more ways to access the calories in our food - by pounding it with a rock, by grinding into a powder, or even just letting it rot - or of course by roasting it over a fire.

In doing so, we further increased the supply of energy to our bodies.

This allowed us to evolve even smarter brains, and the ensuing virtuous circle propelled our brains to the top of the class.



Spanish cave painting believed to show a person scaling a cliff with ropes in order to gather honey from the hives of wild bees. They may be using smoke from a burning brand to make the bees docile. Copyright Science Photo Library

Over hundreds of thousands of years, the climate constantly changed, with ice sheets advancing and then retreating across the northern hemisphere.

The last Ice Age ended around 12,000 years ago. Global temperatures rose rapidly and then stabilised, and humanity embarked on its next energy transformation.

It was a revolution that would see the world reach unprecedented levels of technological change.

"Within 2,000 years, all over the world, in China, in the Near East, in South America, in Mesoamerica, you're getting people domesticating crops," says Dr Robert Bettinger of the University of California Davis.

Cultivating crops had been pretty much impossible during the Ice Age, he believes, but the new warmer climate, coupled with a big rise in carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, was very hospitable to plant life.

The cooking ape became a farming ape too.



Wall painting of a farmer from the tomb of Sennedjem, an artisan who lived in ancient Egypt. Copyright Getty Images

It took huge investments of human energy in the form of hard, arduous labour. But in return, our ancestors reaped a far more abundant and reliable food supply.

Think for a moment about what you are doing when you raise crops.

Fields act like a kind of solar panel, but instead of making electricity, they turn the Sun's rays into packages of digestible chemical energy.

Above all were cereal crops - domesticated grains like wheat, maize and rice acted like a kind of storable energy currency.

You can bank it away in a silo to consume at your leisure during the winter months. Or you can cart it off to market to trade with others. Or invest it in planting the next harvest.

Or in fattening up animals, which could convert that energy into meat, dairy or draught power.



After the advent of farming, humans began to experiment with living in large, complex settlements, such as Mohenjo Daro in Pakistan. Copyright Getty Images

As the centuries passed, animals and plants domesticated in different locations would coalesce into a kind of agricultural package, says Melinda Zeder, an archaeologist who studies the development of pastoral farming at the Smithsonian Institution.

The crops fed animals. The animals worked the land. Their manure fed the crops. And, says Dr Zeder, as a package, they provided a much more reliable and abundant food source.

More food meant more people - who could then expand into new territory, and develop new technologies that produced even more food.

It was another virtuous circle, but this time powered by the solar energy captured through agriculture.

The surplus energy it created meant we could sustain much larger populations, and what's more, not everyone needed to farm.

People could specialise in making tools, building houses, smelting metals or, for that matter, telling other people what to do.

Civilisation was developing and with it some fundamental changes in the relationships between people.

Hunter gatherer communities tend to share resources fairly equally. In farming communities, by contrast, deep inequalities can develop.



In medieval times, only kings and nobles lived the kind of affluent lifestyles more and more of us enjoy today. Copyright Getty Images

Those who worked long hours in the fields would naturally want to hoard their grain. And then there were those with metal weapons who took a cut from those granaries in the form of taxation.

In fact, for thousands of years, the standard of living for the vast majority people on Earth did not improve significantly, despite the bounty of agriculture.

"Hunter gatherer societies were the original affluent society," says Claire Walton, the resident archaeologist at Butser Ancient Farm in Hampshire. "They spent something like 20 hours a week in what you would call proper labour."

By comparison, a Neolithic, Iron Age, Roman or Saxon farmer would be doing at least double that, she believes.

Only kings and nobles lived the kind of affluent, leisurely lifestyles that more and more of us enjoy today.

It would take an explosive shift in energy use to achieve that, a shift powered by fossil fuels.

By the 18th Century, our increasingly populous societies were beginning to run up against the limits of what the energy provided by the daily influx of the Sun's rays could do.



The Rocket, a steam locomotive designed and built by George and Robert Stephenson. Copyright Getty Images

A Malthusian reckoning loomed. How could we grow food fast enough to feed all those mouths? Or indeed wood to build all our houses and ships, and to make the charcoal to smelt all our metal tools?

So we began to turn instead to a black rock that we could dig up and burn in almost unlimited quantities.

Coal contains the solar energy captured over millions of years by fossilised forests.

In the 20th Century, the black stuff would be succeeded by those even richer geological stores of photosynthetic energy - oil and natural gas.

And with them, all sorts of new activities became possible.

Not only were fossil fuels abundant. They also provided ever greater sources of power, liberating us from our dependence on animals.

First came steam engines to turn the heat from coal into motion. Then the internal combustion engine. Then the jet engine.



The Saturn V: an extreme industrial machine with millions of horsepower. Copyright NASA

"A horse can only give you one horsepower," explains Paul Warde, an environmental historian at Cambridge University.
      
"We now have industrial machines that can give you tens of thousands of horsepower, and at its limits a Saturn V rocket: 160 million horsepower to deliver you off the surface of the Earth."

Fossil fuels power much more than just our vehicles.

Some 5% of the world's natural gas supply is used to create ammonia-based fertilisers, for example, without which half the world's population would starve.

Turning iron into steel consumes 13% of global coal production.

An estimated 8% of the world's CO2 emissions are from concrete.

But burning fossil fuels has had an incredible effect on our standard of living.

Since the Industrial Revolution we have grown taller and healthier, our life expectancy has increased vastly, and in the developed world we are on average 30 to 40 times better off.



Humanity may move back to relying on the Sun to meet our energy demands. Copyright Getty Images

And it's all thanks to the energy revolution driven by fossil fuels, argues Vaclav Smil of Manitoba University in Canada, a hugely respected expert on the role of energy in our societies.

"Without fossil fuels, no rapid mass transportation, no flying, no surplus consumer food production, no cell phone made in China, brought to Southampton by a giant container ship with 20,000 containers. All of that is fossil fuels," he says.

We live in a fossil fuel society, believes Smil.

But while they have lifted ever more of us out of agrarian hardship, and created our global economy and high living standards, the catastrophic climate change they are creating now threatens to derail that society.

Just as two centuries ago we reached the limits of what agriculture could do, now global warming is imposing a limit on what coal, oil and gas can safely do.

It has created the greatest challenge human society has ever faced - moving back to relying on the daily influx of energy from the Sun to meet the huge energy needs of eight billion people and counting.

I believe that is possible. But you'll have to listen to my new radio series to find out how.

Links

(AU) Australians Could Be Charged For Exporting Energy From Rooftop Solar Panels To The Grid

The Guardian

Proposed changes to the national energy market rules aims to prevent ‘traffic jams’ of electricity on sunny days 

Solar panels are seen on the rooftops of houses in north-west Sydney. Homeowners could be charged for feeding electricity into the grid at times of low demand. Photograph: Dan Himbrechts/AAP

Australian households with rooftop solar panels could be charged for exporting electricity into the power grid at times when it is not needed under proposed changes to the national electricity market.

The recommendation is included in a draft deliberation by the Australian Energy Market Commission that is designed to prevent “traffic jams” of electricity at sunny times that could destabilise the network.

The commission, which makes the rules for the electricity system, said the change was necessary to allow more household solar systems and batteries to be connected to the grid and make the system fairer for all electricity users.

Benn Barr, the commission’s chief executive, said it was expected an average solar household with a system of between 4 and 6 kilowatts would still save about $900 a year on power bills after the change, about $70 less than currently.

He said it would reduce bills for the 80% of households who do not have solar as they would no longer have to pay for solar export services they were not using.

The Green Recovery: how to fix Australia's energy-inefficient homes.

Renewable energy could render five of Australia’s remaining coal plants unviable by 2025.

“We can decarbonise the electricity sector faster and cheaper if we connect more small solar customers and make it worthwhile for them to install batteries,” he said.

“Within 10 years, half of all energy users will be using energy options like solar. We must make sure this seismic shift doesn’t leave anyone behind because every Australian, whether they have solar or not, deserves an affordable, sustainable power system.”

The “traffic jams” are a result of a fundamental transformation of a grid that was designed to flow power from large generators to distributed homes and businesses, not the other way around. About 20% of households – 2.6m in total – have solar, up from 0.2% in 2007.

The proposal is opposed by some solar household groups concerned about having to pay more for electricity than they expected when they installed rooftop photovoltaic panels. Consumer group Solar Citizens said it would be “yet another handbrake for Australia’s energy transition”.

“As we transition our energy system and clean up our power supply, we need to be encouraging more rooftop solar, not penalising people for putting panels on their roof,” the group’s national director, Ellen Roberts, said.

Barr said the alternative was blocking people’s solar exports when the grid was under strain, but that would cost more and mean less cheap renewable energy in the system.

Another alternative canvassed was building more poles and wires to allow greater solar traffic. Barr said that would be “very expensive and end up on all our energy bills, whether we have solar or not”.

The commission’s draft deliberation, released on Thursday, was a response to proposals from power distribution company SA Power Networks and welfare groups including St Vincent de Paul and the Australian Council of Social Service, which had argued households without solar could face an unfair burden under the current system.

It recommended two-way pricing that better rewarded solar and battery owners that send power to the grid when it is needed, and new incentives that would give customers more reason to buy batteries or set up their homes to consume the power they generate at busy times on the grid.

They would include electricity network owners offering a menu of price options to customers that could, for example, allow free export of power into the grid up to a certain level or a paid premium model that would guarantee consumers they would be paid for export during busy times.

Energy Consumers Australia, representing residential and small businesses energy consumers, welcomed the draft decision and said it should be the first step in a series of changes that prioritises consumer needs.

Its chief executive, Lynne Gallagher, said any change that put a cost on exporting solar at busy times should also increase benefits at other times.

“What is clear is that the changes proposed open up the opportunity for more consumers to provide electricity to the grid and be rewarded for doing so,” Gallagher said.

The Clean Energy Council said the draft decision raised more questions than answers. Its chief, Kane Thornton, said there was little detail about the terms and conditions of any charges and how they would be implemented.

“We need to know whether state and territory energy ministers will allow networks to charge customers whenever they export electricity to the grid and, if so, what customer protections will be put in place.”

Barr said electricity networks should offer “tailored options, not blanket solutions”. If a network wanted to introduce a change for solar exports it would need to consult extensively with customers and have a transition plan approved by the Australian Energy Regulator.

He said the goal was to allow more Australians to install solar.

“We expect networks to deliver pricing proposals in close consultation with consumers, which may include options where they don’t have to pay for exports,” he said.

The commission is taking feedback on its draft determination until 13 May.

Links

29/03/2021

(AU) Victoria’s Grid Runs On 50 Per Cent Renewable Energy For First Time

The AgeNoel Towell

Victoria has powered its electricity grid with 50 per cent renewable energy for the first time, well ahead of state government projections for the transition to clean energy.

The state Labor government says the historic breakthrough, enabled by the cool spring and summer, shows Victoria is well on its way to replacing the carbon-intensive brown coal generators that still provide the vast bulk of the state’s electricity along with wind, solar and hydroelectric power.

New data shows that on three dates between November and January, renewables soared to more than 40 per cent of the state’s daily supply and went above 50 per cent in about 12 instances during two periods in mid-January and mid-November, all on days with temperatures of 30 degrees or below.

But the surge of wind and solar energy into the state’s grid is piling financial pressure on the remaining coal-fired power stations in the Latrobe Valley, which are still essential to keeping electricity supplies stable and bills down.

The announcement this month that the giant Yallourn coal burning plant – which supplies about 22 per cent of the state’s power – would close in 2028 has thrown the spotlight back onto Victoria and Australia’s energy transition away from fossil fuels.

The federal government warns that the 1450 megawatts of electricity produced by the Yallourn plant cannot be replaced without some form of new fossil fuel generation and is championing gas as a “transition fuel”.

The share of renewable energy powering Victorian homes and business has grown from 9 per cent in 2010 to more than 26 per cent in 2020, just exceeding the legislated 25 per cent target.

Victorian Energy and Environment Minister Lily D’Ambrosio told The Sunday Age the new figures showed the state was on track to fill the gap left by Yallourn, and the subsequent closures of the Loy Yang A and B plants, with renewables, with batteries to provide stability and rebuilt to deliver the power.

“Between now and 2028 , we will be delivering an additional 5000 megawatts of new power supply plus batteries, so we then have more than enough supply to meet our needs,” the minister said.

“The grid connections are a really critical issue and that’s a critical issue right across the National Electricity Market, not just for Victoria.

“We’re investing more money into grid upgrades than Queensland and NSW combined; there was $540 million over four years in our budget in November.” 

'From sunny north to windy east': What are Victoria's renewable energy zones? 
Ms D’Ambrosio said the question of peak demand, which cannot currently be met by renewables, was being addressed by the construction of five large scale batteries, three of which were already built with two connected to the grid. 

But Federal Energy Minister Angus Taylor, who said he shared the priority of retiring the big coal generators ahead of time, does not believe the job of replacing Yallourn’s capacity could be done just by wind, solar, batteries and hydro.

”Solar and wind can provide us energy, but it can’t be guaranteed... so you need that back-up...whether it’s through projects like Snowy [Hydro 2]... gas, or whether it’s batteries, all of those technologies will play a role in providing that backup.

“If we don’t have that, we will see blackouts, and we will see higher prices.”

Jeff Dimery, chief executive of Alinta Energy which owns the Loy Yang B plant, said market reform was badly needed as coal-fired stations struggled to compete on price against renewable providers who were selling electricity produced at zero cost or even being paid, via government subsidies, to generate power.

“If something doesn’t change in the medium term, our operation would become very marginal,” Mr Dimery told The Sunday Age.

“We’re the newest and lowest cost marginal generator and if we end up in a situation where we’re marginal and it pretty much tells you that everybody else is unviable, and that may be the outcome that we’re destined for.

“My concern, as an energy industry expert, is the market can’t sustain the closure of all the coal fired power stations in such a rapid time frame and expect the lights to stay on.

“So something’s got to give.”

Links

(AU) Meet The Giant Mechanical Stomach Turning Food Waste Into Electricity

ABC NewsGian De Poloni

Meet the mechanical stomach turning food waste into electricity.

Tonnes of food scraps collected from restaurants and supermarkets are being converted into electricity under a green energy initiative powering thousands of homes in Perth.

The City of Cockburn has made the waste to energy service a permanent fixture of its general duties, collecting rotting food waste from local businesses and feeding it to a mechanical 'stomach' at a nearby fertiliser plant.

The anaerobic digester heats the food, traps its methane gas and feeds the energy into the electricity grid, powering up to 3,000 homes.
"Food waste really shouldn't be thought of as a waste, it should be thought of as a resource," said the city's waste education officer, Clare Courtauld.
"It's really important to take food waste out of landfill because it produces harmful greenhouse gases.

"If global food waste was a country, it would actually be the third-highest greenhouse gas emitter in the world."

Food scraps are fed to the mechanical stomach around the clock. (Flickr: Taz, CC BY 2.0)

Ms Courtauld said the City had so far recycled 43 tonnes of food waste and saved 81,000 kilograms of CO2 equivalent gasses that would have otherwise entered the atmosphere rotting in landfill.

The $8 million mechanical stomach sits at the Jandakot headquarters of fertiliser company RichGro.

It was the first bio-waste plant of its kind to operate in the southern hemisphere when it opened in 2016.
"We're mechanically replicating a stomach, whether it be a cow's stomach or a human stomach," RichGro managing director Tim Richards said.
"Their trucks come in … they tip off the food waste.

"It then goes through a piece of machinery which removes any packaging that might be in with the food waste and any contamination.

"It pulps the food waste up into like a porridge consistency and doses it into a big tank.

The food waste is pulped into a rich slurry and pumped into the digester. (ABC News: Gian De Poloni)

"This tank then feeds the two digesters … they're getting fed 24 hours a day.

"As it breaks down, it generates methane gas. We're capturing that gas and we're running large generators that combined can produce up to 2.4 megawatts of electricity."

The plant powers the company's entire operations and up to 3,000 neighbouring homes, all from food waste.

What goes in, must come out

"Out the back end comes a liquid that is actually certified organic as a liquid fertilizer," Mr Richards said.

"We sell a percentage of that to farmers and the remaining percentage of it we add into our compost piles."

The bioenergy plant converts the methane gas from food waste into electricity to feed into the local power grid. (ABC News: Gian De Poloni)

Some foods are better than others.
"It's a bit like the doctors tell us to eat a balanced diet. I need to feed it a balanced diet as well," Mr Richards said.
"Certainly, you can overdo a good thing — you wouldn't want too much fats, oils and greases.

"A lot of fruit and vege, starchy, sugary products are good. They produce a lot of energy."

Seafood waste is also collected from a business in Hamilton Hill. (ABC News: Gian De Poloni)

The City's waste manager, Lyall Davieson, said there was community appetite for these sorts of initiatives.

"I've been in waste for about 25 years," he said.

"Not so long ago, all we could really do was just recycle a few cans and a bit of steel.

"But now we really have at our disposal lots of options to divert waste from landfill and to recycle."

The energy created from food waste is fed into the existing electricity grid, powering up to 3,000 homes. (ABC News: Gian De Poloni)

Frank Scarvaci, who owns a longstanding independent supermarket in Hamilton Hill, was one of the first businesses to sign up for the service.

He said it was a natural progression for his grocery store after embracing a plastic bag ban and installing solar power.

"I've been surprised [at] how the community has accepted the change," he said.

"I thought [there] was going to be much more resistance in regards to when they scrapped plastic bags, for example — but there was virtually no resistance at all."

Contamination causes indigestion

While common in Europe, the plant is just one of a few of its kind to be built in Australia.

People living close to the plant in Perth's southern suburbs wouldn't even know their homes are being powered by food waste. (ABC News: Gian De Poloni)

The City of Cockburn said it was not a waste service it would expand to households, because the risk of contamination disrupting the process was too high.

"We do have a machine that does have a certain ability to remove a level of the contamination," Mr Richards said.

"Can it remove everything? No, it can't.

"We've even had bowling balls come through — you can't process things like that, in a system like this. It does damage our machinery."

Bio-energy has a bright future

The bio-energy technology is growing in Australia, with the next logical step in the process to convert the bio-waste into biomethane, which could be fed into the gas grid.

The Federal Government is co-funding a biomethane production facility at a wastewater treatment plant in Sydney's southern suburbs.

Once online in 2022, the $14 million plant is expected to pump biomethane derived from biogas created by a similar 'mechanical stomach' that would meet the gas needs of more than 13,000 homes.

Links