Our Fight To The Death With Nature Is Not One We Can Win

Fairfax - Elizabeth Farrelly

In population biology a refugium, or simply fuge, is a protective place for a relict population that has become threatened in its native habitat. Paradoxically, refugiums often make things worse for individuals and populations remaining in nature.
The vast royal greenhouses at Laeken, near Brussels, are such a refugium. Built as a pirate showcase for the extraordinary biodiversity of the Congo rainforest that Leopold II had so brutally colonised, they now preserve these fast-disappearing species. Yet the paradox: the 800,000 litres of fuel oil burnt each year to keep these plants alive help drive the climate change that is destroying what natural populations remain.

Illustration: Simon Bosch

Another refugium is the evangelical rapture. Relying on expected end times, as seen by many in the "Trumpocalypse", it yields such gems as the "rapture index", reported in the Daily Mail this week, which lists anti-semitism, droughts, false prophets and civil rights as signs of imminent end. When the excrement really hits the whizzer – the idea goes – the faithful elite will be airlifted bodily, rapturously, to heaven, leaving the rest of us to our miserable fate.
The paradox? Given the number of evangelical Christians in Sydney leadership – and that a 2011 survey that found "six of ten evangelical leaders believe in the rapture – a few  would actually believe this arrogant nonsense. That way - naturally counting themselves amongst the liftees - it's suddenly easy to treat climate change as no big thing.

Alison Whyte in Sydney Theatre Company's The Testament of Mary. 

This tussle between "I" and "we" underpins everything humans do on Earth. Clearly, our fight to the death with nature is not one we can win, because if we win, we die. Yet we continue to act on the delusion of wasteless, costless abundance, designing our arrant theologies to ignore the evident oneness of economy and ecology. For me, two recent Sydney events – Melissa and Mary – brought all this ineluctably to mind.
Melissa and Mary. These innocuous-sounding names could be the most significant you'll hear this century. Melissa, properly written MELiSSA (Micro-Ecological Life Support System Alternative) cropped up in a Sydney Festival art event by extraordinary scent artist Cat Jones. MELiSSA is the European Space Agency's bare-minimum ecosystem for indefinite human existence in deep space.
Mary is, well Mary, Mother of, as voiced by Colm Toibin's Testament of Mary, currently at Sydney Theatre. Toibin's Mary is overwhelmingly a mother: harrowed, heartbroken, doubtful of her son's divinity, insisting he just got in with the wrong crowd.
At first, MELiSSA and Mary seem to occupy opposite extremes of the existential spectrum – abstract, hyper-sterile reductionism versus stoic, earthy humanism. Each represents a future, a power relationship with nature: which (assuming we still have a choice) will we choose?
But perhaps, under the surface, Mary and MELiSSA are singing the same anthropocentric tune.
To be honest, the words European Space Agency seem almost a contradiction in terms, so far does old textured Europe (and especially Barcelona, where MELiSSA is based) seem from the abstract nothingness of space. But MELiSSA takes abstract nothingness totally on board – which is why it's terrifying.
The yearning for space is deep, but still morally ambiguous. There's the brave and noble urge to explore, self against Big Universe, chasing the final frontier. And there's the less noble – more brutal and territorial – urge to colonise.
The colonial drive has always been dodgy – both because it generally involves stealing other peoples' lands and lives, and because it offers the illusion of something for nothing: free resources, costless plunder and, as UTS social scientist Dr Jeremy Walker notes, escape from the moral and environmental responsibilities of home.
Walker has studied MELiSSA, parsing the eco-political ramifications of "guiltless abundance". MELiSSA, he writes (with colleague Celine Granjou), "emboldens the utopian anticipation of a synthetic biosphere within which the privileged may continue to elude the earthly consequences of their history".
MELiSSA is more exploratory than colonial, aiming to garner the fewest, smallest, most transportable species necessary to sustain human life with no input except sunlight.
But anyone who saw Matt Damon in The Martian knows that, ship or planet, it's the same deal. You're in space, you need water, oxygen, food. How do you make it? How do you treat waste?
The inverse relationship between respiration and photosynthesis is clearly key. That each process absorbs the other's waste and excretes the other's raw material seems one of evolution's little gifts to space travel. Certainly, it lets MELiSSA whittle the "necessary" species to a few photosynthetic bacteria and algae, 30 or 40 needed food crops and the billion-odd microbes that, extracted from the human gut, compost the waste back into nutrients. As Walker notes, MELiSSA demands "a claustrophobic proximity between the crew and its wastes".
Forget Noah. This is an ark sans trees, elephants, gibbons and grasshoppers. Multicells unnecessary. If Earth dies (we decide), they die with it – while in cold loveless space, humans live on in their hyper-sterile pharma-factory, feeding forever on hydroponic, shit-fed veges without gravity, mystery or chance
For me, it has strictly limited appeal. If Trump presses the button, I'll probably head for the epicentre and be done with it.
But MELiSSA's founding premises also need scrutiny. One is that storming off to new planets is legitimate as a response to having wrecked this one. The other is that "necessary" species are definable in strictly anthropocentric terms.
Enter Mary. Although Toibin's Mary grudgingly acknowledges one or two of her son's miracles, she denies the immaculate conception ("I was there") and insists the resurrection story is a dream repeated in error.  She herself worships Artemis, goddess of animals and the hunt.
Many see this as the play's strength. Tracing our planetary exploitation to our shift, way back, from embedded pantheism to transcendent monotheism, they regard Mary's stoic humanity as one for the planet.
I'm less sure. Transcendence is not arrogance. It doesn't mean remaking yourself as some space-based jet-propelled sky god. What you're meant to transcend is not Earth, but ego. Exploitation should become impossible.
Neither space nor rapture will save us; not heaven, not Mars, not the Starship Enterprise. The gods, one or many, have no interest in slithering us from our deeds. Earth is our refugium. Fade to black.

Links

• Our bright future can't have black heart of coal
• Nature's called our bluff and we can't keep ignoring it
• Home truths strike at heart of our habitat
• Two degrees or four? It's a personal choice for survival in the near future

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

• 2016: Global Heat Record Broken Again
• Super-Charged Storms in Australia: The Influence Of Climate Change
• Watch out Santa: The North Pole is 20°C hotter than normal
• Climate Change and the Victorian Bushfire Threat
• Climate Change and the NSW & ACT Bushfire Threat

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

• Reasons to be cheerful: a full switch to low-carbon energy is in sight
• Brighton gears up for new fleet of solar-powered buses
• Cheap and clean: Australian company creates hydrogen with near-zero emissions 
• Switch to low-carbon transport could 'save UK billions'
• Ford to invest £3bn in electric cars
• 10 reasons to be hopeful that we will overcome climate change
• Cheap batteries will revolutionise the renewable energy market
• China builds world's biggest solar farm in journey to become green superpower

Two Charts Show How Fossil Fuels Could Peak By 2020

Carbon Brief - Simon 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.

The Government Is Right To Fund Energy Storage: A 100% Renewable Grid Is Within Reach

The Conversation - Andrew Blakers | Bin Lu | Matthew Stocks

With the right mix, the grid can go fully renewable for the same cost and reliability as fossil fuels. Pixabay/Wikimedia Commons

In a speech to the National Press Club yesterday, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull declared that the key requirements for Australia’s electricity system are that it should be affordable, reliable, and able to help meet national emissions-reduction targets. He also stressed that efforts to pursue these goals should be “technology agnostic” – that is, the best solutions should be chosen on merit, regardless of whether they are based on fossil fuels, renewable energy or other technologies.
As it happens, modern wind, solar photovoltaics (PV) and off-river pumped hydro energy storage (PHES) can meet these requirements without heroic assumptions, at a cost that is competitive with fossil fuel power stations.
Turnbull and his government have also correctly identified energy storage as key to supporting high system reliability. Wind and solar are intermittent sources of generation, and while we are getting better at forecasting wind and sunshine on time scales from seconds to weeks, storage is nevertheless necessary to deliver the right balance between supply and demand for high penetration of wind and PV.
Storage becomes important once the variable renewable energy component of electricity production rises above 50%. Australia currently sources about 18% of its electricity from renewables – hydroelectricity in the Snowy Mountains and Tasmania, wind energy and the ever-growing number of rooftop PV installations.
Meanwhile, in South Australia renewable energy is already at around 50% - mostly wind and PV – and so this state now has a potential economic opportunity to add energy storage to the grid.

Pushing storage
To help realise this potential, in South Australia and elsewhere, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) will spend A$20 million of public funds on helping flexible capacity and large-scale energy storage projects become commercially viable, including pumped hydro and batteries.
PHES constitutes 97% of worldwide electricity storage. The retail market for household storage batteries such as Tesla’s Powerwall is growing, but large-scale storage batteries are still much more expensive than PHES. “Off-river” pumped hydro has a bright future in Australia and many other countries, because there are very many suitable sites.
Wind and PV are the overwhelming winners in terms of new low-emissions electricity generation because they cost less than the alternatives. Indeed, PV and wind constituted half of the world’s new generation capacity installed in 2015 and nearly all new generation capacity installed in Australia.
Recently, we modelled the National Electricity Market (NEM) for a 100% renewable energy scenario. In this scenario wind and PV provide 90% of annual electricity, with existing hydro and bioenergy providing the balance. In our modelling, we avoid heroic assumptions about future technology development, by only including technology that has already been deployed in quantities greater than 100 gigawatts – namely wind, PV and PHES.
Reliable, up-to-date pricing is available for these technologies, and our cost estimates are more robust than for models that utilise technology deployment and cost reduction projections that are far different from today’s reality.
In our modelling, we use historical data for wind, sun and demand for every hour of the years 2006-10. Very wide distribution of PV and wind across the network reduces supply shortfalls by taking advantage of different weather systems. Energy balance between supply and demand is maintained by adding sufficient PHES, high-voltage transmission capacity and excess wind and PV capacity.

Not an expensive job
The key outcome of our work is that the extra cost of balancing renewable energy supply with demand on an hourly, rather than annual, basis is modest: A$25-30 per megawatt-hour (MWh). Importantly, this cost is an upper bound, because we have not factored in the use of demand management or batteries to smooth out supply and demand even more.
What’s more, a large fraction of this estimated cost relates to periods of several successive days of overcast and windless weather, which occur only once every few years. We could make substantial further reductions through contractual load shedding, the occasional use of legacy coal and gas generators to charge PHES reservoirs, and managing the charging times of batteries in electric cars.
Using 2016 prices prevailing in Australia, we estimate that the levelised cost of energy in a 100% renewable energy future, including the cost of hourly balancing, is A$93 per MWh. The cost of wind and PV continues to fall rapidly, and so after 2020 this price is likely to be around AU$75 per MWh.
Crucially, this is comparable with the corresponding estimated figure for a new supercritical black coal power station in Australia, which has been put at A$80 per MWh.
Meanwhile, a system developed around wind, PV and PHES and existing hydro can deliver the same reliability as today’s network. PHES can also deliver many of the services that enable a reliable energy system today: excellent inertial energy, spinning reserve, rapid start, black start capability, voltage regulation and frequency control.

Ageing system
Australia’s fossil fuel fleet is ageing. A good example is the pending closure of the 49-year-old Hazelwood brown coal power station in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley. An ACIL Allen report to the Australian Government lists the technical lifetime of each power station, and shows that two-thirds of Australia’s fossil fuel generation capacity will reach the end of its technical lifetime over the next two decades.
The practical choices for replacing these plants are fossil fuels (coal and gas) or existing large-scale renewables (wind and PV). Renewables are already economically competitive, and will be clearly cheaper by 2030.
Energy-related greenhouse gas emissions constitute about 84% of Australia’s total. Electricity generation, land transport, and heating in urban areas comprise 55% of total emissions. Conversion of these three energy functions to renewable energy is easier than for other components of the energy system.
Transport and urban heating can be electrified by deploying electric vehicles and heat pumps, respectively. Electric heat pumps are already providing strong competition for natural gas in the space and water heating markets. Importantly, these devices have large-scale storage in the form of batteries in vehicles, and thermal inertia in water and buildings. Well-integrated adoption of these technology changes will help reduce electricity prices further.
So wind, PV and PHES together yield reliability and affordability to match the current electricity system. In addition, they facilitate deep cuts to emissions at low cost that can go far beyond Australia’s existing climate target.

Links

• We’re set to hit our renewable energy targets – now let’s aim higher
• Pumped hydro energy storage – making better use of wind
• Wind and solar PV have won the race – it’s too late for other clean energy technologies
• The Greens’ plan for 90% renewables by 2030 sounds hard, but it stacks up

President Trump, Military Split On Climate Change

Voice of America - Steve Baragona



NORFOLK, VA — A nondescript metal box at the end of an unremarkable pier in Norfolk, Va. is one key to why the U.S. Navy is concerned about climate change. For nine decades, the Sewells Point tide gauge or its ancestors have been recording the sea level off Pier 6 at Naval Station Norfolk.
The story it tells is clear. Between naturally sinking land and global warming driven sea level rise, the water is a half-meter higher than it was at the beginning of the last century.
That's creating problems at the world's largest naval base.
In rough weather, damaging surf slams against electrical, water and steam lines under the piers where the Navy docks its Atlantic fleet. High waves can keep sailors from getting to the ships. Even getting on base is getting harder as "nuisance flooding" becomes a regular problem, cutting off roads around the city of Norfolk.
"It's not going to stop us from accomplishing our mission. We're the military. We'll figure it out," said Capt. Dean VanderLey, commanding officer of Naval Facilities Engineering Command for the Mid-Atlantic region. "But it just makes things more difficult."
"The higher the sea level gets, the more we're going to have to deal with that," he adds. "I don't think we fully understand the scope of the problem. And we definitely don't fully understand the solution."

Hoax vs. threat multiplier
The commander-in-chief, President Donald Trump, has called global warming a hoax, although he now says there is "some connectivity" between human activity and climate change.
The Pentagon, on the other hand, takes the risks of climate change seriously.
Rising seas threaten coastal installations. Severe storms can cut off supply routes. Extreme heat limits training.
"The military has seen climate change as a problem since 2003, if not earlier," says retired Army Gen. Gerry Galloway, now with the Center for Climate and Security.
National security threats from climate change are included in eight defense and intelligence documents published before President Obama took office, according to the center.
"Climate change acts as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world," a group of high-ranking former military officials wrote in a landmark 2007 report.
"Economic and environmental conditions in already fragile areas will further erode as food production declines, diseases increase, clean water becomes increasingly scarce, and large populations move in search of resources," the report continued.
These conditions "foster the conditions for internal conflicts, extremism and movement toward increased authoritarianism and radical ideologies."
Planning for the impacts accelerated under the Obama administration. In 2014, DOD published a "Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap" outlining risks and responses.
While the new president is a climate skeptic, his pick for secretary of defense acknowledges the threat.
Retired Marine Gen. James Mattis led the U.S. Joint Forces Command. The 2010 Joint Operating Environment report that he signed described climate change as "one of the 10 trends most likely to impact the Joint Force."
It notes the melting of the Arctic and the competition for newly available resources "is but one example of potential security challenges that did not exist in the past."

Eye to the future
Trump supports a strong military, and "I personally don't believe that the administration is going to do anything that's going to interfere with the military being prepared," Galloway says.
"Now, there will be fights over dollars," he adds, and who gets the resources will depend on the president's defense priorities.
At Naval Station Norfolk, they already are adapting to the realities they see coming. Newer piers are built higher, with the utility lines under a protected concrete deck.
"When we do construct facilities, we're doing that with an eye toward the future, as we always do," Capt. VanderLey says. "One of those things we see in the future is, potentially, sea level rise."
VanderLey stays away from the politics of climate change and how the new administration might affect adaptation plans.
"We're just trying to be good, smart engineers," he says. "And I can't imagine anyone's going to decide to stop being good, smart engineers.

Links

• Why the U.S. National Security Community Takes Climate Risks Seriously
• More Evidence on Climate Change and Conflict Links: Context is Key
• Chronology of Military and Intelligence Concerns About Climate Change
• EU Looks to China on Climate Change as US Signals Retreat

West Australians Embrace Solar Panels At Record Rate

ABC News - Kathryn Diss

Rising electricity costs are driving sales of solar panels in WA. (File photo)

WA households and businesses are installing solar panels at a record rate, with installations up 33 per cent last year, driven by rising power prices and the falling cost of the technology, new research has found.

The data, compiled by solar industry consultancy SunWiz, also revealed ten of the nation's top 20 solar-adopting suburbs were in WA, with Wanneroo, Mandurah and Armadale leading the way.
Sunwiz managing director Warwick Johnston said two factors were driving the uptake in WA.
"We're seeing solar prices have come down to levels they've never been before — prices in Perth are at their lowest compared to the eastern states — and we're also seeing the electricity price rises really kicking in in Western Australia", he said.
"In Perth electricity prices started climbing again and [are] expected to do so for a number of years, so I think that's in people's minds, in people's consciousness when they're thinking about solar power.
"Those factors are really making solar something people are interested in."

James Baverstock from Solar Gain said business boomed in late 2016. (ABC News: Robert Konig-Luck)

The huge uptake in solar panels during 2016 provided a boon for solar installers across the state.
Solargain WA sales manager James Baverstock has been selling solar panels since 2008 but 2016 was his best year yet, with unprecedented sales during the last three months of the year.

"Towards the end of 2016 we saw record numbers — we were 80 per cent up compared to the same time during the previous year," he said.

"The average size of the system has also gone up, we've seen that go up a kilowatt to a kilowatt and a half. That's been a steady increase and [it has] certainly accelerated a little bit more recently.

Leading change
The research came as more than 40 interest groups joined forces in WA to call for action on climate change.

GP Dr Richard Yin said a move to renewable energy is essential

Headed by doctors, farmers and church groups, the coalition wants the government to commit to an ambitious renewable energy target of 100 per cent by 2030.
General practitioner Richard Yin spoke on behalf of the coalition and said a shift towards renewable energy was essential.

"We understand the target is ambitious but it's been modelled as being possible and it's been modelled in such a way we believe it can achieved," he said.

"Everything has a cost. To not proceed down this line has an effect on our climate, to not proceed has a health impact, the combustion from coal kills many thousands of people in Australia each year and the estimated cost is about $2.6 billion in terms of our health cost."

Dr Kingsley Faulkner said climate change was having a big impact on public health. (ABC News: Kathryn Diss)

Former WA doctor and surgeon Kingsley Faulkner is also behind the movement.
He now chairs Doctors for the Environment and said climate change was having a big impact on public health.
"In medicine we have a real responsibility to not only treat individual patients but to be involved with public health matters, and climate change and other environmental challenges are amongst the biggest of those matters," he said.
Increasing use of solar panels has come at a time when, according to the state's economic watchdog, households are increasingly struggling to pay their power bills on time.

Links

• Solar panels owners caught between a rock and a hard place
• Household solar power producers counter lower feed-in tariffs
• WA energy bills forecast to climb $200 in next two years