Feed aggregator

South Australia's wind energy is providing secure energy to the state. Wind image from www.shutterstock.com

In the wake of South Australia’s wild weather and state-wide blackout, both Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg have emphasised the importance of energy security.

Turnbull stated that the blackout was a wake-up call, suggesting that reliance on renewables places very different strains and pressures on a grid than traditional coal-fired power.

The assumption that these politicians and others are working off is that South Australia’s wind industry has reduced the state’s energy security.

But do these politicians really know what energy security means in a modern energy landscape?

The baseload question

Baseload power is an economic term that refers to power sources that consistently generate electrical power, therefore meeting minimum demand. The minimum demand for electrical power from an electrical grid is referred to as the baseload requirement.

The underlying assumption is that the only way of supplying baseload electricity demand is by means of power stations, such as those fired by coal, that operate at full power all day and night. This is a widely held belief in Australia.

A former Australian industry minister, Ian Macfarlane, claimed at a uranium industry conference that the only serious alternative way that baseload power can be produced is by hydro and nuclear.

But this is not entirely true. In 2014 South Australia got 39% of its electricity from renewable energy (33% wind plus 6% solar). Consequently, the state’s coal-fired power stations have become redundant.

To date, despite a couple of teething problems, the system has operated reasonably well given the enormous transitional challenge.

It has strongly demonstrated the ability to achieve energy security via an energy mix that combines renewables, gas and a small amount of imported power from Victoria. The South Australian system also highlights the fact that baseload power is not synonymous with fossil fuels.

Across Australia, many coal-fired power stations have been operating at reduced capacity. For example, the Mount Piper power station near Lithgow, New South Wales, has been operating at only 45% capacity despite the closure of the nearby Wallerawang coal plant.

In this context, diversity of renewable energy sources is key. Wind and solar are dependent on the right weather to generate electricity. But fluctuations in energy generation can be balanced with alternatives that can supply power on demand, such as hydro, concentrated solar thermal power (CST) or bio-fuelled open-cycle gas turbines.

Spreading out wind and solar PV farms also reduces this variation. Wind and solar must also be connected with new transmission lines to achieve wide geographic distribution and ensure diversity is promoted within the grid.

We also need smart energy management. It is possible to shave off peaks during periods of high electricity demand by using smart meters and consumer-controlled switches. These devices allow consumers to turn off power-intensive facilities, such as air conditioning, water or heating, for short periods when demand on the grid is high or supply is low.

Two sides of the same coin

Energy security is not about traditional baseload power production. It is really about the capacity of households, businesses and government to accommodate disruptions in the supply in energy markets. This doesn’t just mean weather, it also means broader changes that are shaking up the energy sector.

The primary global driver changing our approach to energy production is climate change, a direct product of carbon-intensive emissions produced by traditional baseload power generation.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is crucial for human flourishing. Reducing our dependency on fossil fuel power stations and shifting to a renewable energy mix is one way to achieve this.

For example, if and when the Hazelwood power station in Victoria closes, it will be the product of the inevitable shift away from carbon-intensive energy production.

The closure will produce a significant decrease in traditional baseload power. It will inevitably affect supply to other states, including South Australia, New South Wales and Tasmania, as Hazelwood (through the eastern Australian transmission network) provides power to each of these states.

In this context, a secure energy future depends on energy diversity. Traditional baseload power needs to be replaced with a mix of renewable energy sources that combined are capable of achieving the equivalent of baseload power.

Dealing with more renewables

Energy security demands speeding up rather than slowing down renewable energy production and diversification.

Improving storage for wind and solar production is a priority, as is improving connectivity between the states, with the aim of increasing the renewable energy traded across borders.

Micro-grid technology will also be crucial. Microgrids are essentially localised grids that have the capacity to disconnect from the traditional grids and operate on their own. This can help reduce grid disturbances and strengthen resilience. Microgrids are important because they serve local energy loads and, in so doing, reduce losses in transmission and distribution.

Some states have already implemented strategic groups to assess the energy security issues they are facing. For example, the Tasmanian Energy Security Taskforce was implemented in 2016 with the specific aim of examining how the state’s energy security can be strengthened and improved.

The consultation paper recently released by the taskforce states that energy security in Tasmania must focus on meeting long-term energy demand to a level of energy reliability that consumers will be prepared to pay for.

The taskforce will examine the potential for reduced Basslink exports at high prices in Victoria, the costs of competing fuel sources for generation, and the costs associated with developing new generation and the associated system reinforcements.

The Tasmanian taskforce seeks to examine a range of inter-related factors that include: progressing an energy mix in renewables; reducing energy security risks from extreme weather events such as storms and bushfires; and examining how much cost consumers are willing to assume to transition energy production to achieve a higher level of energy security for the state.

The one thing these developments reveal is that energy security, both in Australia and globally, is not about going backwards to some outdated reliance upon fossil-fuelled baseload power. Energy security is about new forms of baseload power.

Its success will ultimately depend upon our capacity to transition our energy systems as we head towards our new energy future.

Samantha Hepburn does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

Australia's effort will be chaotic and more expensive than it needs be, but the federal government may be thankful for state renewable energy targets. (With Podcasts).

A new social enterprise is helping renters, low income earners and Indigenous communities transition to solar power.​

Victoria says Turnbull government has no credibility on climate and clean energy policies, and it will not bow to pressure to scrap or reduce its 40% renewables target.

Greg Hunt insists that coal power could have saved South Australia. The biggest coal fired generator in Australia says otherwise. But mainstream media is hunting renewable energy in packs, and it is all getting rather silly.

What does a global aim of 1.5 degrees mean? Is it achievable? How much difference would it make?

EnergyAustralia pours nearly $10m into Brisbane-based energy management company Redback Technologies in shift to new technology and peer to peer trading.

With its enthusiastic support for fracking, and its relentless attack on renewable energy, the UK government’s energy policy is both morally and economically bankrupt

Getting India on board is a huge deal for global climate action.

At a glittering awards ceremony at the Adelaide oval Friday night, local entrepreneur Jenny Paradiso was named the Telstra 2016 South Australia Business Woman of the Year.

Eco Energy World (EEW) Australia has received planning consent for the development of a 140MW solar farm near Maryborough, Queensland.

SolarEdge makes additions to its leading StorEdge solution to meet growing demand for storage

AGL says energy security is best developed by renewables and distributed energy, and flags a new scheme to provide solar and storage to community housing.

Two 100ft Wentworth elms were ‘hidden in plain sight’ and spotted during recent tree survey at Holyrood Palace

Trees believed to have been extinct in Britain have been discovered at the Queen’s official residence in Scotland.

The two 30-metre (98ft) Wentworth elms have been identified in the Queen’s garden at the Palace of Holyroodhouse just a stone’s throw from the centre of Edinburgh. Tree experts are now looking into ways of propagating the rare specimens, which carry the botanical name Ulmus wentworthii pendula.

Continue reading...

PACIFIC PEOPLE ORIGINS: The earliest seafaring ancestors of people living in South Pacific islands such as Vanuatu and Tonga arrived from Asia, an analysis of ancient DNA from four skeletons reveals.

Known for its long whip-like tail, the threatened Thresher shark is among a number of marine species given extra protection at the Cites meeting.

Closing parts of the ocean to fishing displaces fishers to other areas. Tuna image from www.shutterstock.com

The federal government is considering changes to Australia’s marine reserves to implement a national system. This week The Conversation is looking at the science behind marine reserves and how to protect our oceans.

While academics often focus on biodiversity objectives for marine parks, the public and political debate tends to come down to one thing: fishing.

When former federal MP Rob Oakeshott cast one of the deciding votes in support of the Commonwealth marine parks plan in 2013, he explained that he believed they benefit fisheries. The federal government has also emphasised the benefit of marine parks to fisheries production.

There’s also an academic debate. When a study showed that the Great Barrier Reef marine park had harmed fisheries production, there was a passionate response from other experts. This is despite advocates arguing that reserves are primarily about biodiversity conservation, rather than fishing production.

Clearly, fishing is a hot issue for marine parks. So what does the science say?

How do marine parks protect fish?

The proposed benefits to fisheries from marine parks include: protection or insurance against overfishing; “spillover”, where larvae or juveniles from the parks move out and increase the overall production; habitat protection from damaging fishing gear; and managing the ecosystem effects of fishing such as resilience against climate change.

Marine parks regulate activities, mainly fishing, within a specified area. They come in a variety of categories. Some allow fishing, but the most contentious are “no-take” marine parks.

Fishery managers also sometimes close areas of the ocean to fishing. This is different to how no-take marine parks work in two ways: the legislative authority is different (being through fisheries rather than environmental legislation); and the closures usually target a specific fishery, whereas no-take marine parks usually ban all fishing.

Fishery closures, rather than no-take marine parks, are usually applied to protect special areas for particular fish, such as spawning sites or nursery areas. They are also used to protect habitats, such as in the case of trawl closures, which allow the use of other gear such as longlines in the same location.

Fisheries legislation bans damaging fishing gear outright, while benign gears are allowed. In contrast, no-take marine parks tend to exclude all gear types.

Displacing fishers

Neither marine parks nor fishery closures regulate the amount of catch and fishing effort. They only control the location. Commercial fishers take most fish caught in Commonwealth waters and most of this is limited by catch quotas.

When a no-take marine park closes an area to fishing, fishers and their catch are displaced into other areas of the ocean. This occurs for all types of fishing, including recreational fishing. Recreational fishers displaced by marine parks don’t stop fishing, they just fish somewhere else – and the same number of fishers are squeezed into a smaller space.

Marine parks increase the intensity of fishing impacts across the wider coast, which is an uncomfortable outcome for marine park advocates. Modelling of Victorian marine parks showed that displaced catch would harm lobster stocks and associated ecosystems, and was counterproductive to their fishery management objective of rebuilding stock.

Because ecosystems don’t respond in predictable ways, depletion of fish stocks from the fishing displaced from marine parks could lead to severe ecosystem outcomes.

For this reason, a second and separate management change is often needed after marine parks are declared, which is to reduce the number of fishers and fish caught to prevent risk of impacts from the park.

Controlling how many fish are caught (which is what traditional fisheries management does) has substantially more influence on overall fish abundance than controlling where fish are caught with parks, as shown recently on the Great Barrier Reef.

Public cost

Commonwealth fisheries catch quotas are routinely reduced if a fishery harms the sustainability of the marine environment. There’s no compensation to fishers, so there’s no cost to the public, other than a possible reduced supply of fish.

Catches can also be reduced to manage fishing displaced by marine reserves and the outcome is identical except in terms of the public cost. Creation of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park led to over A$200 million in payments to displaced fishers. Another publicly funded package is planned for the Commonwealth marine reserves.

Marine parks also have high recurring public cost because boundaries need to be policed at sea. Catch quotas can be policed at the wharf, with compliance costs fully recovered from industry.

Do marine parks help fish and fishers?

Evidence of a benefit to fisheries from marine parks is scarce. However, there are some clear examples of fishing displacement that is so minor that there has been an overall increase in fish inside and outside the park.

These examples show that marine parks can sometimes benefit fish stocks, the fishery and also the overall marine ecosystem. However, these examples come from situations where traditional fishery management has not been applied to prevent overfishing.

This is consistent with modelling of marine parks that shows they only increase overall fish populations when there has been severe overfishing. This generally means that if there’s already effective traditional fisheries management, marine reserves cannot benefit fish stocks and fisheries, or restock fish outside the reserve (spillover) (see also here).

In jurisdictions where fisheries management is lacking, any regulation, including through marine reserves, is better than nothing. But this isn’t the situation with Australia’s Commonwealth fisheries where harvest strategies are used and overfishing has been eliminated.

The conclusions from modelling of marine reserves mean that the areas of the reserves that limit fishing would be expected to reduce fishery production and harm our ability to contribute to global food security.

The Coral Sea marine reserve, in particular, represents an area with known large stocks of fish, especially tuna, that could be harvested sustainably. Limiting fishing in the Coral Sea eliminates any potential for these resources to help feed Australians or contribute to global food supplies.

The potential sustainable, ecologically acceptable harvest from the Coral Sea is unknown, so we don’t know the full scale of what’s being lost and how much the recent changes reduce this problem, although Papua New Guinea sustainably harvests 150,000-300,000 tonnes of tuna in its part of the sea.

Allowing fishing doesn’t mean the oceans aren’t protected. Existing fisheries management is already obliged to ensure fishing doesn’t affect sustainability of the marine environment.

Caleb Gardner has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, the Australian Seafood CRC, and the Tasmanian Government to assess sustainability of fisheries, conduct research on fishery harvest systems and provide advice on improving fisheries sustainability. This includes research evaluating the effectiveness of fishery closures and marine parks. He is affiliated with the University of Tasmania and has participated or is participating in roles on committees that provide management advice to the Tasmanian, Victorian and Australian Commonwealth Government and fishing industry groups including the Tasmanian Lobster Fishermen's Association as a Director (unpaid research representative) of Southern Rock Lobster Ltd.

Greening Manhattan: bringing nature into the city is one thing, making it part of our culture and everyday lives is another. Alyson Hurt/flickr, CC BY

Australian cities are inherently diverse places, but that diversity can lead to conflict between different values about what cities should and can be. Our series, Conflict in the City, brings together urban researchers to examine some of these tensions and consider how cities are governed and for whom.

Enthusiasm for urban greening is at a high point, and rightly so.

Ecological studies highlight the contribution urban nature makes to the conservation of biodiversity. For example, research shows cities support a greater proportion of threatened species than non-urban areas.

Green space is increasingly recognised as useful for moderating the heat island effect. Hence, this helps cities adapt to, and reduce the consequences of, climate change.

Reducing urban heat stress is the main objective behind the federal government’s plan to set tree canopy targets for Australian cities. Trees are cooler than concrete. Trees take the sting out of heatwaves and reduce heat-related deaths.

The “healthy parks healthy people” agenda emphasises the health benefits of trees, parks and gardens. Urban greenery provides a pleasant place for recreation. By enhancing liveability, green spaces make cities more desirable places to live and work.

The increased interest in urban greening presents exciting opportunities for urban communities long starved of green space.

Unpacking the green city agenda

This enthusiasm for “green cities” stands in stark contrast to traditional views about nature as the antithesis of culture, and so having no place in the city. The traditional view was that the only ecosystems worthy of protection were to be found beyond the city, in national parks and wilderness areas.

We embrace the new agenda wholeheartedly, but also believe it’s important not to focus solely on instrumental measures like canopy cover targets to reduce heat stress. We should not forget about experiential encounters.

The risk with instrumental (and arguably exclusionary) approaches is these fail to challenge the divide between people and nature. This limits people’s connection to the places in which they live and to broader ecological processes that are essential for life.

Instrumental targets in isolation also risk presenting urban greening as an “apolitical” endeavour. But we know this is not the case, as we see with the rise of green gentrification associated with iconic greening projects like New York’s High Line. Wealthy suburbs consistently have the most green space in cities.

Bringing nature into the city is one thing. Bringing it into our culture and everyday lives is another.

Understanding ecology in a lived sense

Urban greening provides an opportunity to recast the relationship between people and environment – one of the critical challenges associated with the Anthropocene.

Urban greening is not just for our benefit, but must surely be for our co-habitants too. Matt Cornock/flickr, CC BY-NC

To break down nature-culture divides in our cities, and in ourselves, we argue for the importance of embracing experiential engagements that develop a more deeply felt connection with the city places in which we live, work and play.

We are advocating a focus that does more than just encourage people to interact tangibly in and with urban nature, by drawing attention to the way humans and non-humans (including plants) are active co-habitants of cities.

Such an approach works by recognising that human understanding of the environment is intricately wrapped up in our experiences of that environment.

Put simply, green cities can’t just be about area, tree cover and proximity (though they are important). We need to foster intimate, active and ongoing encounters that position people “in” ecologies. And we need to understand that those ecologies exist beyond the hard boundaries of urban green space.

Without fostering a more holistic relationship with non-humans in cities, we risk an urban greening agenda that misses the chance to unravel some of the nature-culture separation that contributes to our long-term sustainability challenges as a society.

Active interactions with nature in the spaces of everyday life are vital for advancing a form of environmental stewardship that will persist beyond individual (and sometimes short-lived) policy settings.

Green city citizens need to see themselves as part of, not separate from, the ecologies that exist beyond the hard boundaries of urban green space. PINKE/flickr, CC BY-NC No getting away from the politics

It is important to consider the policy and governance dimensions of urban greening.

If the instrumental orientation prevails, our cities might be “more liveable” (at least for some, at particular locations and points in time), but our societies may not be more socially and environmentally just, or more sustainable.

We therefore emphasise the need to understand and critique the dimensions of the renewed interest in urban ecology. We have to consider whether this interest is associated with existing political economies, which embrace technocratic expertise to the exclusion of other voices, or whether urban greening can foster the emergence of a more transformative form of decision-making.

We also ask how we can enhance the prospects for more deliberative and place-based responses. An experiential turn for urban greening may be one way to make green space planning and practice more democratic.

By questioning who we might be greening for and how, we can open the way for the much-needed acknowledgment of Indigenous histories and participation in the making of urban space.

Giving urban greening an experiential focus might also help open our eyes to the needs of the more-than-human. Rather than simply cultivating green spaces for a narrow set of anthropocentric benefits, we pose the question: who are the participants in urban greening? It’s a way of acknowledging that we inhabit cities with plants and other non-human lifeforms.

An interesting area of policy development that may be productive for urban greening is the idea of the playful commons. This is an example of a governance approach that is more open to affective and experiential interaction – the community participates in negotiating, licensing and designing the use of public space.

Applying this approach to urban greening might encourage more deliberative forms of governance that can deliver more environmentally just and sustainable cities for the long term, for both humans and non-humans.

You can read other Conflict in the City articles here.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

Spill 46 miles off Shetland is being monitored by air and said to be heading away from land and dispersing

Around 95 tonnes of oil were leaked into the North Sea from a BP platform on Sunday, the company has said.

The leak is around two and a half times smaller than the biggest North Sea spill in recent years, at Shell’s Gannet platform off Aberdeen in 2011.

Continue reading...

Conservationist who was the first national park officer for Dartmoor and the first chief executive of the Countryside Council for Wales

Ian Mercer, who has died aged 83, spent more than half a century in countryside conservation. His work as the first national park officer for Dartmoor (1973-90) and as the first chief executive of the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW, 1990-95) had a lasting impact not only on the landscapes over which he presided but on the management of land for wildlife, amenity and public access throughout Britain.

Ian’s greatest triumph concerning Dartmoor was to initiate the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985, which established a commoners’ council to safeguard the interests of the moor and open it fully to public access. The act had wider significance, for it was the precursor of the nationwide Commons Act 2006, which also provided for commoners’ councils and enabled them to obtain environmental funding.

Continue reading...