Garnaut - "you ain't seen nothing yet"

Cue the claims that Australia is a small contributor to global emissions or, more pitiful, outright denial.

In the article, Garnaut goes on to clarify that Australia is stuck with the political reality that we are the "world champions" of greenhouse pollution per capita... "not by a little bit, but by a wide margin".

The whole article suggests a depressing, karmic justice for events from Black Saturday through cyclone Yasi.

As a nation, are we prepared to address climate change; to objectively consider all options; to justly weigh all risks; and consistently apply demonstrated solutions to a schedule necessary to achieve the required objectives?

Or is there more talk in our future, more study and further delay???

in reference to:

"What is more, Garnaut said that since his 2008 review the science has only become more alarming. ''The general trend is to confirm that the [UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its fourth assessment report of 2007] underestimated the impacts of climate change. All the measurable impacts … are tracking right at the top of the range of possibilities identified by the [panel], or in some cases above them.""
- Garnaut updates gloomy review (view on Google Sidewiki)

Nuclear Australia and the WEO-2008

The International Energy Agency has published this year's World Energy Outlook. Similar to the 2007 version [which contained a feature section on China], this year's edition includes a dedicated, in-depth analysis of climate policy strategies to achieve both 550 and 450 ppm carbon-dioxide equivalent targets [atmospheric carbon dioxide is currently 388 ppm according to NOAA]. These targets are consistent with those from the recently issued Garnaut review.

The 569 page document is detailed to say the least. The report is divided into three principal sections:

• Global Energy Trends to 2030
• Oil & Gas Production Prospects
• The Role of Energy in Climate Policy

The 550 Policy Scenario equates to an increase in global temperature of approximately 3°C, the 450 Policy Scenario to a rise of around 2°C. The 550 Policy Scenario involves a plateauing of greenhouse-gas emissions by 2020 and reductions soon after. The 450 Policy Scenarios involves much more substantial reductions after 2020. Even then, emissions overshoot the trajectory needed to meet the 450 ppm CO2-eq target, requiring greater emissions reductions after 2030 [to achieve long term stability at 450 ppm]. In both scenarios, total emissions are significantly lower in 2030 in all major emitting countries. To reach either of these outcomes, hundreds of millions of households and businesses around the world would need to be encouraged to change the way they use energy. This will require innovative policies, an appropriate regulatory framework, the rapid development of a global carbon market and increased investment in energy research, development and demonstration.

The report explains that energy demand was increasing faster than emissions until the recarbonisation of the global energy supply market resumed after nuclear power fell out of favour in many countries in the 1990's.

Looking forward, the report explains how the most significant projected increases in emissions come from developing countries [China, India, etc.] as they strive to satisfy their increasing demand. To meet the goals of either scenario above, emissions from these energy expansion programmes must be pro-actively managed. In addition, the report also shows the bulk of emission cuts - form current levels - coming from OECD countries. Neither task will be easy, but all technologies have a role to play.

The 550 Scenario

The share in the world primary energy mix of low-carbon energy, such as hydropower, nuclear, biomass and renewables, increases from 19% in 2006 to 25% in 2030. Hydropower demand increases in the 550 Policy Scenario to reach 456 Mtoe [metric tonnes oil equivalent] in 2030, compared with 414 Mtoe in the Reference Scenario. Other renewables, such as wind and solar, receive a much bigger boost, rising seven-fold from just 66 Mtoe in 2006 to the same level as hydro in 2030. Modern biomass use also increases — both in power generation and in decentralised heat production for residential, commercial and industry needs — to around 1 200 Mtoe in 2030. Nuclear grows twice as fast as in the Reference Scenario to reach nearly 1 100 Mtoe in 2030.

All have a role to play. Coal miners may be pleased to see the industry continues to grow; albeit at a much slower pace than in the reference scenario. While Luke's analyses [first & second] don't give me a lot of confidence, achieving the relevant emission reduction goals relies heavily on carbon capture and sequestration [CCS]. Those who back renewables will also be busy for some time. Averaging 8.6% growth per year is ambitious, but this is without hydro and biomass which themselves must also expand considerably over the time of interest. One also notes a drop of -9% in world energy demand with respect to the reference scenario. This is due mainly to conservation and efficiency improvements.

Nuclear expansion - beyond the reference scenario - will happen mostly in the OECD. The goals are assumed to be partially achieved through license extensions of existing plants as well as the accelerated construction of new plants. The second figure below reflects a significant nuclear expansion already included in the reference scenario within other major [non-OECD] economies.

The 2006 value of just under 2,500 TWh equates to roughly 370 GWe of installed capacity operated for about 7000 hours - or roughly 80% of the year. A single 1000 MWe plant will add about 7 TWh more to the 2006 data. Therefore the equivalent of 70 new 1000 MWe nuclear power plants are assumed to come into service by 2030 in the above figure - just in the OECD. The equivalent of over 100 more plants are assumed to come on line in non-OECD countries.

The big picture from the report:

In order to reduce CO2 emissions by 7.6 Gt [7,600,000,000 tonnes], the 550 Policy Scenario requires development — on a significant scale — of less CO2-intensive technologies (Figure 18.4). In 2030, 4.8 Gt of avoided CO2 emissions — 63% of total CO2 emissions reductions compared to the Reference Scenario — stem from efficiency improvements in the end-use sector and in power generation. A further 0.6 Gt of CO2 savings come from the operation of an additional 86 GW of nuclear capacity, beyond that built in the Reference Scenario. The large-scale deployment of renewable and carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies in the power sector gives rise to 1.2 and 0.8 Gt of CO2 savings, respectively. The decarbonisation of the power sector alone involves notably the construction every year to 2030 of an additional 7 [800 MWe] coal-fired plants and 3 [500 MWe] gasfired plants with CCS, 11 new [1000 MWe] nuclear plants and almost 12 000 [3 MWe] wind turbines, while hydropower is expanded every two years by 64 GW — the equivalent of three dams of the capacity of China’s Three Gorges Dam.

The 450 Scenario

Although the reduction in global electricity demand in 2030 is only 4% compared with the 550 Policy Scenario, the fuel mix changes significantly as a result of the wider use of nuclear and renewables. The share of coal and gas as fuel for power and heat plants in the 450 Policy Scenario in 2030 declines to 47%. This contributes to the security of the electricity sector, making the sector in many countries less import-dependent.

In the more-stringent 450 Policy Scenario, a deeper transformation of energy supply and an even wider adoption of CO2-mitigation options occurs (Figure 18.4). In order to achieve the necessary additional reduction between the 550 and 450 Policy Scenarios, further end-use efficiency improvements are assumed. Renewable energy is developed considerably further, to realise a further 25% CO2-emissions reduction compared to the 550 Policy Scenario. CCS technologies are applied more widely in power generation, but are also introduced in the industry sector. Thirteen additional nuclear power plants have to be built yearly, compared to the 550 Policy Scenario. Biofuels penetrate the transportation sector more deeply.

The data is impressively cross-cut and impossible to capture in one blog post. The economic impacts of different technologies are discussed - nuclear is the cheapest option in the EU with carbon pricing via an emissions trading scheme. It is second only to on-shore wind in the USA under the same conditions. There are detailed breakdowns of specific renewable technologies [on-shore wind, biomass, solar PV, solar thermal, off-shore wind, geothermal, tidal, etc.]...

This is an excellent reference. Anyone arguing that reasonable emissions reduction goals can be achieved without the expansion of nuclear energy production is clearly refuted by this report. Similarly, nuclear advocates who criticise other low-carbon options such as wind or solar should consider the information in this report. All technologies have a significant role to play. Champions of different technologies should welcome objective and constructive critiques. However, the more pedantic arguments, usually accompanied by not-so-hidden agendas, between those who otherwise agree on the requirement to reduce emissions, undercut the very milestones they are all working to progress.

The irresistible force vs. the immovable object

Australia's role in future energy policies and economies is complicated. The economy is closely linked to fuel exports and domestic energy supply is almost entirely carbon based. These dependencies will complicate the transition to a low carbon economy in a country significantly threatened by the impacts of climate change and ironically one the world's highest per-capita carbon emitters.

Nearly two years ago, the UMPNER report analysed the potential role for nuclear power in Australia. A growing community of concerned individuals, companies and organisations - including UMPNER chief, Dr. Ziggy Switkowski, are working to resume a discussion regarding nuclear technology's role in Australia's energy future. Meanwhile nations around the world are expanding existing nuclear programmes or initiating new ones.

The World Energy Outlook report concludes:

For all the uncertainties highlighted in this report, we can be certain that the energy world will look a lot different in 2030 than it does today. The world energy system will be transformed, but not necessarily in the way we would like to see. We can be confident of some of the trends highlighted in this report: the growing weight of China, India, the Middle East and other non-OECD regions in energy markets and in CO2 emissions; the rapidly increasing dominance of national oil companies; and the emergence of low-carbon energy technologies. And while market imbalances could temporarily cause prices to fall back, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the era of cheap oil is over. But many of the key policy drivers (not to mention other, external factors) remain in doubt. It is within the power of all governments, of producing and consuming countries alike, acting alone or together, to steer the world towards a cleaner, cleverer and more competitive energy system. Time is running out and the time to act is now.

Garnaut submits final report

The final report may be found here.

I don't have much to add from previous posts on Targets and Trajectories, another here and again here.

Nuclear power is mentioned in a similar fashion as it was in the draft reports. Public opinion remains the principal hurdle and Garnaut includes it as a later, if not last, resort. I note the cost scenario in the report [Chapter 20] was only for the 550 ppm carbon-dioxide scenario and not the 450 ppm scenario. I would like to have seen the later as well.

The report includes recommendations regarding nuclear research - basically that Australia is not a global research leader in any nuclear power technology field and its resources would be better served elsewhere. Personally, I think we could develop some helpful waste mitigation, permanent isolation and storage technologies for deployment, but other countries are far in the led as the report points out.

The report goes 'all-in' for coal, gas and carbon capture; betting the proverbial farm on the development effort recently launched by Government's announcement of a $100 million carbon capture research initiative. The case made for this approach is an economic one: why wouldn't Australia pursue a solution which is also in its own best interest? The success of carbon capture development would bring with it, tremendous political and economic advantage within Australia and beyond. However, there is one warning that comes in the form of a firm recommendation:

Priority should be given to the resolution of whether a near-zero coal future is even feasible, either partially or in total. If it is not, then Australia needs to know as soon as possible, so that all who depend on the coal industry can begin the process of adjustment, and so that adequate and timely investments are made in other industries.

This gives an indication of the both the current state of carbon capture technology development as well as the liberty taken with respect to the resulting assumptions. In the end, it may not work at all. That risk may need some serious mitigating actions and attention.

If one examines the projected contributions of renewables, it appears that significant technology development assumptions have been made in this area as well. The projections are ambitious and will also require aggressive technology development and deployment.

My concern is when these assumptions come face to face with the more pragmatic world of engineering technology deployment - complete with budget constraints, schedule pressure and resource limitations - Australia will be looking at a very high emissions future.

Copy this path in a significant number of countries around the world [If Australia can bet the farm on carbon capture, why can't everyone else??]. If carbon capture fails to materialise, the world will need a fallback plan.

Coincidentally, I find I have some company. Ziggy Switkowski submitted this report, where he advocates the allocation of at least some resources to climate change adaptation.

This requires planning for extreme weather events and natural disasters, inadequate rainfall and water shortages, higher utility and food prices and insurance costs, drought-proofing, better health services for the vulnerable, and so on. And, of course, the responsible management of finite resources and fragile environments.

Solutions to these issues do not require international accords and are largely within our control and budgets. And their relevance is independent of the accuracy of climate forecasts or one's position in the climate change debate.

Ross Garnaut's report

I was happy to see nuclear power discussed in the report. The section on nuclear power concludes as follows:

In Australia, as well as in most other developed and developing countries, public acceptability is an important barrier, that would need to be recognised as a constraint and a source of delays and increased costs by any government committed to implementation of a nuclear power program. The Australian Government is firmly against Australian nuclear power generation, and the Coalition parties retreated quickly from nuclear advocacy in the face of community antipathy during the 2007 federal general election. It would be imprudent, indeed romantic, to rely on a change of community attitudes as a premise of future electricity supply for the foreseeable future.

Given the economic issues and community disquiet about establishing a domestic nuclear power capacity, Australia would be best served by continuing to export its uranium and focusing on low-emissions coal, gas and renewable options for domestic energy supply. However, it would be wise to reconsider the constraints if:

• future nuclear costs come in at the low end of the estimates provided above
• developments in technologies reduce the need for long-term storage of high level radioactive waste
• there is disappointment with technical and commercial progress with low emissions fossil fuel technologies, and
• community disquiet eases.

Many who support nuclear power already believe the third bullet's criteria are a foregone conclusion for the next several decades at least. High level nuclear waste is a political and public acceptance issue [merging it with the fourth bullet] and ongoing growth in new plant constructions and innovative designs are working to address the first.

This leaves public acceptance as the overwhelming issue within Australia. Acceptance may be swayed by dramatically increased energy costs, failures to achieve desired reductions in emissions or energy quality and reliability issues [increase in power interruptions / blackouts].

In the near-term, I hope WA and Queensland reconsider their positions on uranium mining.

World Enviroment Day

Australia continues to work through our environmental issues on a day that was probably conceived to inspire optimistic vision, highlight action and celebrate results.

A relevant post at Larvatus Prodeo highlights some differences between the optimistic pre-election Kevin Rudd and his current accomplishments and ongoing challenges. Ross Garnaut also sited numerous challenges, uncertainties and risks. Meanwhile, the ABC mentions a call for nuclear power from the business community of anti-nuclear Western Australia.

Australia isn't ready to swallow the nuclear pill yet, but I stand by my earlier statement. Through their total rejection of a domestic nuclear power programme, Kevin Rudd and the majority of the Labor party are helping Australia work through the relevant issues faster than if they had lost last year.

More Australians must come to understand that other efforts to reduce our per-capita emissions - while noble and effective - will not be effective enough to reach the cuts deemed necessary by global scientific consensus.

WA Opposition urges consideration of nuclear

Shadow energy minister John Day said the Carpenter Government needed to accept nuclear energy as a part of the long-term solution and reconsider its opposition.

Complete story from thewest.com.

Polarised politicians rarely make for 'tough decisions' or tangible action. Day's words are worthy of consideration and I'm glad he's mustering the courage to make the point while so many are happy to brush nuclear off the table for shorter term political or financial gains. There's a saying that I believe is attributed to native Americans; something about not inheriting the world from our parents but rather borrowing it from our children.

Our poor kids.

I made a comment on this article from the ABC. In my comment, I pointed out that many Australians [a majority if the last election can be used as an indication] feel the risks associated with nuclear power outweigh those related to climate change. Since there have been no deaths resulting from nuclear energy production, in the United States for example - home to more reactors than any other country, during about 40 or so years of commercial nuclear power; we can remain confident that climate change is really nothing to worry about. Similar performance records are found in other countries employing western facility designs [France, Germany, the UK, Sweden, Switzerland, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Japan, China, Korea, etc.]. For more, see the article.

As Garnaut is trying to emphasise; Australia is to suffer the most sever consequences from our lack of leadership, lack of ingenuity and - I regret to say - our lack of courage.

From this article on a new solar plant coming to Victoria in 2013 thanks to TRUenergy [good, just not enough].

TRUenergy pledged last year not to construct any more coal powered stations, is the only Australian energy company to commit to reducing emissions by 60% by 2050 but doubts Professor Garnaut's target was achievable.

"To have a 90% reduction by 2050 would mean completely new technologies in terms of renewables and would need existing fossil-fuel technologies, whether coal or gas, to be linked in with carbon capture and storage. Unless those new technologies are available and unless the CCS capabilities are available, and in the absence of anything like nuclear power, then that 90% reduction would be difficult to achieve," [TRUenergy's managing director, Richard McIndoe] said.

We simply can not get there from here without nuclear power.

Garnaut - Australia 'most vulnerable' to climate change

A report by economist Ross Garnaut has warned Australia must take a lead role in tackling climate change or risk becoming the most badly damaged country in the developed world.

Full report from the ABC

Things are getting worse, problems are accelerating, more action is required and this action must start sooner.

"[Garnaut] says Australia needs to play a lead role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions by going beyond its stated target of a 60 per cent cut by 2050."

"[Penny Wong] says Labor will not go past its election commitment of a 60 per cent cut in emissions by 2050."

"Obviously unlike the previous government we have said we would be cognisant of the science," she said.

[??? - But what if the science tells us to go beyond a 60 percent cut, which many suggest it does?? And how long must we wait for Labor to stop riding the 'previous government was very, very poor' wave. Myself, I think the topic was fully played many weeks ago.]

Nothing cries 'leading roll' more than cleaning up one's own house. No technology on the planet has the demonstrated potential to displace more carbon emissions than nuclear power.

More information

Find the interim report here

The scarcest resource humanity has is time

Kenneth Davidson posted this excellent report for the Age.

According to Ian Dunlop, a former senior executive in the international oil, coal and gas industries, who chaired the Australian Coal Association from 1987 to 1988 and is now deputy convener of the Australian Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas, "it is morally indefensible and unrealistic to expect the developed world can continue to emit at these levels, with the developing world absorbing the bulk of the climatic impact and being asked to constrain its own growth".

It his report, Davidson says, "It is now widely accepted that the solution to this conundrum is for each nation to agree to converge towards equal per-capita emissions".

[In Bali,] Australia was reluctant to sign up to intermediate targets before it receives the Garnaut report in May. If the Garnaut report is serious, it will attempt to tackle three issues: whether the science has moved on since the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made its 2007 report, the prospect that Australia will have to make cuts at the 40% end, given it is one of the highest emitters, and what policies have to be adopted to achieve the cuts.

In a speech at Sydney University this month, Dunlop said: "The political and corporate structures we have created render us uniquely ill-equipped to handle this emergency. Our ideological preoccupation with a market economy based on short-run profit maximisation is rapidly leading towards an uninhabitable planet. As inconvenient as it may be politically and corporately, conventional economic growth and rampant consumerism cannot continue."

He quotes Aristotle on what is known as the tragedy of the commons: "What is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it. Everyone thinks chiefly of his own, hardly at all of the common interest."

The article also discusses the advocacy for putting the science first [ahead of politics and economics]. Very interesting perspectives, but I don't believe the implied 'choice' is really there. Humanity can choose to ignore the data for now, but not indefinitely.

If the climate scientists and their associated 'growing consensus' are anywhere near the mark, the world is being driven to a very undesirable state. The laws of science are - in a sense - the vehicle through which our collective decisions will manifest themselves over the coming years. It is ultimate accountability.

Independence needed for emissions trading

Professor Ross Garnaut, Australian State and Territory equivalent to Sir Nicholas Stern, made some interesting points, referenced in this Sydney Morning Herald report. One in particular caught my eye.

[H]e dismissed the suggestion that Australia should slow its rate of economic growth to immediately reduce emissions.

"When you have lower economic growth you start to get a lot of pressure to get economic activity going at any cost. I think it would be more difficult [to reduce emissions] in that situation than the current one," he said.

It would be better to use Australia's wealth to break the link between economic growth and greenhouse gas emissions.

Nuclear Power is one currently available means to help sever the aforementioned link. It's certainly a major player in several significant, green economies around the world.

In the report Professor Garnaut stresses the importance of keeping any carbon/emissions trading body protected from political pressure. A big ask from my perspective but a MUST nonetheless.