Feed aggregator

Grattan Institute’s latest report suggest rapid expansion of renewable capacity means higher electricity prices. But is that true?

Australia's public desire for climate action is strongest it has been since 2008. The question, now, is how will our politicians respond?

South Australia’s electricity shock exposed an emerging conflict between Australia’s climate policies and the demands of our energy market.

Aviation emissions are growing about 5% each year. Flying image from www.shutterstock.com

Tomorrow, delegates from more than 190 nations will begin an 11-day meeting in Montreal to determine the final form of a scheme to reduce greenhouse emissions from the aviation industry.

The meeting – the latest in a series of three-yearly summits held by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), the United Nations agency tasked with reducing aviation emissions – is poised to decide on a scheme that would ultimately make it mandatory for most airlines from member countries to buy carbon offsets for their flights.

The resolution would fill a key gap in global climate policy. The Paris climate agreement, brokered last December, makes no mention of aviation emissions, despite having featured these in earlier drafts.

Earlier this month, the ICAO Council issued the final draft of a resolution text to be considered – and, presumably, after some debate, approved – at the Montreal meeting.

In its current form, questions will be raised over the scheme’s effectiveness, not least because it won’t become mandatory until 2027 – and even then not for all carriers. But these loopholes make it more likely that the plan will be adopted.

Mandatory offsetting (in the future)

The planned carbon offsetting scheme set out in the draft resolution would begin with a pilot phase running from 2021 to 2023, involving states that have volunteered to participate. These states will have some flexibility in determining the basis of their aircraft operators' offsets.

The purpose of this pilot phase is not really clear, and some aviation industry organisations, such as the Air Transport Action Group, regard it as unnecessary.

A first “formal” phase from 2024 to 2026 would apply to states that voluntarily participate in the pilot phase, and again would offset with reference to options in the resolution text. The main difference between the pilot and first phases is that, for the pilot phase, states can determine the applicable baseline emissions year.

A second, mandatory phase would only operate from 2027 to 2035 and would exempt the least developed countries and those with the smallest proportion of international air travel.

There are also exemptions based on the routes themselves. While the rules would apply to all flights between countries covered by the offsetting requirements, they will not apply to flights that take off or land in a non-member state.

Offsetting the issue

Then there are the well-publicised problems with the whole concept of carbon offsetting. Most countries and groups of countries (and ICAO is a group of countries) have ignored offsets in favour of mechanisms such as emissions trading schemes or carbon taxation – and with good reason.

Offsets, which by definition simply move emissions from one source to another, have little net effect on emissions. As such, offsets could be viewed as a diversion from regulations that genuinely encourage emissions reduction, such as carbon pricing. The Paris Agreement does not directly rely on offsets because all governments recognise that it’s collective, substantive action that counts.

What is really needed is a policy that motivates major industrial sectors – aviation included – to cut emissions and use resources more efficiently. Market-based mechanisms offer the best way to apply the price pressure needed to drive such a change.

The question in designing any market-based mechanism is whether to base it on quantity or price. A quantity-based instrument is an ETS, the most common example of which is a cap-and-trade system; a price-based instrument is a carbon tax.

ICAO has chosen neither of these options. Instead, it has chosen a system of voluntary and then mandatory carbon offsets, with all their attendant problems.

Other issues

An analysis by Carbon Brief has found that even if the aviation industry meets all of its emissions targets, by 2050 it will still have consumed 12% of the global carbon budget for keeping warming to 1.5℃. This could increase to as much as 27% if the industry misses its targets.

Meanwhile, airlines estimate that air travel will grow by an average of almost 5% each year until 2034, in an industry where low-carbon alternatives are difficult to find.

It is perhaps good news, then, that three weeks ago 49 states indicated they were willing to opt into the ICAO’s offsetting scheme in its earliest phase. The following week, in a joint statement, the European Union, Mexico and the Marshall Islands said they would join the scheme. And at G20 talks earlier this month, China and the US offered support.

Brazil, one of the fastest-growing aviation markets, said, however, that it will not join until the mandatory scheme begins in 2027.

Notwithstanding substantive draft texts prepared before the assembly, there is still plenty of negotiating to do before we know its final shape. And despite the pitfalls of carbon offsetting and some difficulty with integrating the scheme with the Paris process, a resolution at the meeting would be a step forward (to be followed by further steps and leaps) for an industry with emissions roughly equal to those of the entire nation of South Korea.

The authors will be attending the 39th ICAO Assembly in Montreal.

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

African elephant population has contracted by around 111,000 in the past decade as a result of poaching, study finds

The number of African elephants dropped by about 111,000 in the past decade as a result of poaching, a report released at the Johannesburg conference on the wildlife trade has found.

News of the worst drop in elephant numbers in 25 years came amid disagreement on the second day of the global meeting over the best way to improve the plight of the animals, which are targeted for their tusks.

Continue reading...

We go in search of the superb lyrebirds that live in Victoria's Dandenong Ranges; a commercial fisherman makes dog treats from unwanted fish; and ex race horses find new homes in western Queensland.

Hydrogen fuel cells are firing the imagination about the future of energy.

As the Cites conference on endangered species meets in Johannesburg, Matt McGrath travelled to Zambia to hear the voices of people with first-hand experience of conflicts between humans and wildlife.

All beaches in northern New South Wales shire closed after man believed to be in his 20s bitten by shark

A male surfer has suffered lacerations to his right thigh after being attacked by a shark at east Ballina’s Lighthouse beach on the New South Wales north coast.

Lifesavers treated the man, believed to be in his 20s, on the scene at 9am on Monday before he was rushed to hospital, a NSW ambulance spokeswoman said.

Continue reading...

A conference in South Africa could make the trade in pangolin illegal.

Politicians need to 'fess up' and recognise that there is 'no way' Australia can make the transition to clean energy without higher costs and power prices, says energy expert Tony Wood from the Grattan Institute.

Bureau of Meteorology predicts ‘rolling cycle of flooding’ near Condobolin and Euabalong as river in Forbes surpasses level reached in 1990s floods

Residents of central western New South Wales should expect “a long flood” over the next few weeks.

The Lachlan river reached 10.65m at Forbes overnight, surpassing the 1990s floods, but the worst was predicted to hit next week.

Continue reading...

In the wake of South Australian price rise, the Grattan Institute calls on governments to explain that the transition to renewables is coming, with costs attached

Huge spikes in wholesale electricity prices in South Australia in July show stable, nationally consistent climate policy must urgently replace “unmanageable uncertainty” for energy market investors, according to a new analysis by the Grattan Institute.

When the short-term spot price of electricity spiked to its peak of $14,000 several times on 7 July, some commentators sought to blame the high share of wind power in the state. Energy experts argued the price spikes were a result of an abuse of market power, with a small handful of generators gaming the system.

Continue reading...

Climate Institute study also finds 77% of Australians believe climate change is happening, up from 64% four years ago

Public support for Australia to be a world leader in climate change solutions has rebounded to its highest since the major political parties agreed on emissions trading, research shows.

About 65% of the nation want to see Australia lead the world in solutions, an increase from 52% in 2010-12 when the “carbon tax” debate was front and centre in politics.

Continue reading...

Originally published in the Manchester Guardian on 30 September, 1916

Surrey, September 28
Apples still ripening in the orchard are frosted over these misty mornings, but the frost is so light that it runs to dew, and big drops are pendant on the fruit, the first rays of the sun glistening and beading them before they drop on now littered leaves. The apples turn a richer colour, red streaked with yellow, on the face which fronts the west and south, and rich green underneath; a few butterflies alight on them, finches and a robin perch on the branches – the robin sings, but does not touch the fruit. When a chattering starling comes as if to perch, the robin makes a dart forward and, apparently, frightens the bigger bird away.

These misty dews covering the leaves and then drying slowly in the faint warmth set the autumn tints everywhere. The limes along the bottom of the wood are all yellow, the beeches are tinted brown, and even when there is a thin cloud over the sun the elm tops are as if a gleam was still slanting along. The oaks are green, and the fallen acorns yellow and hard. The ash is as rich as if August were still here.

Continue reading...

Highly unusual behaviour in the upper atmosphere indicates that northern Europe may be in for another nasty winter

What kinds of weather do the coming months hold? Highly unusual behaviour in the upper atmosphere indicates that northern Europe may be in for another stormy winter. The first sign appeared back in February, when scientists spotted something odd in high-level balloon wind measurements.

Way up in the stratosphere – 16-50km above the equator – the balloon measurements revealed a narrow band of westerly winds, tucked inside the freshly formed equatorial easterly winds.

Continue reading...

It is September 27, 1956. At a dusty site called One Tree, in the northern reaches of the 3,200-square-kilometre Maralinga atomic weapons test range in outback South Australia, the winds have finally died down and the countdown begins.

The site has been on alert for more than two weeks, but the weather has constantly interfered with the plans. Finally, Professor Sir William Penney, head of the UK Atomic Weapons Research Establishment, can wait no longer. He gives the final, definitive go-ahead.

The military personnel, scientists, technicians and media – as well as the “indoctrinee force” of officers positioned close to the blast zone and required to report back on the effects of an atomic bomb up close – tense in readiness.

And so, at 5pm, Operation Buffalo begins. The 15-kilotonne atomic device, the same explosive strength as the weapon dropped on Hiroshima 11 years earlier (although totally different in design), is bolted to a 30-metre steel tower. The device is a plutonium warhead that will test Britain’s “Red Beard” tactical nuclear weapon.

The count reaches its finale – three… two… one… FLASH! – and all present turn their backs. When given the order to turn back again, they see an awesome, rising fireball. Then Maralinga’s first mushroom cloud begins to bloom over the plain – by October the following year, there will have been six more.

RAF and RAAF aircraft prepare to fly through the billowing cloud to gather samples. The cloud rises much higher than predicted and, despite the delay, the winds are still unsuitable for atmospheric nuclear testing. The radioactive cloud heads due east, towards populated areas on Australia’s east coast.

Power struggle

So began the most damaging chapter in the history of British nuclear weapons testing in Australia. The UK had carried out atomic tests in 1952 and 1956 at the Monte Bello Islands off Western Australia, and in 1953 at Emu Field north of Maralinga.

British nuclear bomb test sites in Australia. Jakew/Wikipedia, CC BY-SA

The British had requested and were granted a huge chunk of South Australia to create a “permanent” atomic weapons test site, after finding the conditions at Monte Bello and Emu Field too remote and unworkable. Australia’s then prime minister, Robert Menzies, was all too happy to oblige. Back in September 1950 in a phone call with his British counterpart, Clement Attlee, he had said yes to nuclear testing without even referring the issue to his cabinet.

Menzies was not entirely blinded by his well-known anglophilia; he also saw advantages for Australia in granting Britain’s request. He was seeking assurances of security in a post-Hiroshima, nuclear-armed world and he believed that working with the UK would provide guarantees of at least British protection, and probably US protection as well.

He was also exploring ways to power civilian Australia with atomic energy and – whisper it – even to buy an atomic bomb with an Australian flag on it (for more background, see here). While Australia had not been involved in developing either atomic weaponry or nuclear energy, she wanted in now. Menzies’ ambitions were such that he authorised offering more to the British than they requested.

While Australia was preparing to sign the Maralinga agreement, the supply minister, Howard Beale, wrote in a top-secret 1954 cabinet document:

Although [the] UK had intimated that she was prepared to meet the full costs, Australia proposed that the principles of apportioning the expenses of the trial should be agreed whereby the cost of Australian personnel engaged on the preparation of the site, and of materials and equipment which could be recovered after the tests, should fall to Australia’s account.

Beale said that he did not want Australia to be a mere “hewer of wood and drawer of water” for the British, but a respected partner of high (though maybe not equal) standing with access to the knowledge generated from the atomic tests.

That hope was forlorn and unrealised. Australia duly hewed the wood and drew the water at Maralinga, and stood by while Britain’s nuclear and military elite trashed a swathe of Australia’s landscape and then, in the mid-1960s, promptly left. Britain carried out a total of 12 major weapons tests in Australia: three at Monte Bello, two at Emu Field and seven at Maralinga. The British also conducted hundreds of so-called “minor trials”, including the highly damaging Vixen B radiological experiments, which scattered long-lived plutonium over a large area at Maralinga.

The British carried out two clean-up operations – Operation Hercules in 1964 and Operation Brumby in 1967 – both of which made the contamination problems worse.

Legacy of damage

The damage done to Indigenous people in the vicinity of all three test sites is immeasurable and included displacement, injury and death. Service personnel from several countries, but particularly Britain and Australia, also suffered – not least because of their continuing fight for the slightest recognition of the dangers they faced. Many of the injuries and deaths allegedly caused by the British tests have not been formally linked to the operation, a source of ongoing distress for those involved.

The cost of the clean-up exceeded A$100 million in the late 1990s. Britain paid less than half, and only after protracted pressure and negotiations.

Decades later, we still don’t know the full extent of the effects suffered by service personnel and local communities. Despite years of legal wrangling, those communities' suffering has never been properly recognised or compensated.

The Maralinga landscape today. Wayne England/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY

Why did Australia allow it to happen? The answer is that Britain asserted its nuclear colonialism just as an anglophile prime minister took power in Australia, and after the United States made nuclear weapons research collaboration with other nations illegal, barring further joint weapons development with the UK.

Menzies’ political agenda emphasised national security and tapped into Cold War fears. While acting in what he thought were Australia’s interests (as well as allegiance to the mother country), he displayed a reckless disregard for the risks of letting loose huge quantities of radioactive material without adequate safeguards.

Six decades later, those atomic weapons tests still cast their shadow across Australia’s landscape. They stand as testament to the dangers of government decisions made without close scrutiny, and as a reminder – at a time when leaders are once again preoccupied with international security – not to let it happen again.

Liz Tynan will launch her book, Atomic Thunder: The Maralinga Story, on September 27. A travelling art exhibition, Black Mist Burnt Country, featuring art from the Maralinga lands, will open on the same day.

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

Time spent weeding, potting and pruning can be as good for the gardener as it is for the garden. Image from www.shutterstock.com

As the weather warms and days lengthen, your attention may be turning to that forgotten patch of your backyard. This week we’ve asked our experts to share the science behind gardening. So grab a trowel and your green thumbs, and dig in.

“That’s all very well put,” says Candide, in the final line of Voltaire’s novel of the same name, “but we must go and work our garden.”

I studied this text at high school before I became a gardener and professional horticulturist. We were taught that Candide’s gardening imperative was metaphorical not literal; a command for finding an authentic vocation, not a call to take up trowels and secateurs.

In fact, Voltaire himself really believed that active gardening was a great way to stay sane, healthy and free from stress. That was 300 years ago.

As it turns out, the science suggests he was right.

The science of therapeutic horticulture

Gardens and landscapes have long been designed as sanctuaries and retreats from the stresses of life – from great urban green spaces such as Central Park in New York to the humblest suburban backyard. But beyond the passive enjoyment of a garden or of being in nature more generally, researchers have also studied the role of actively caring for plants as a therapeutic and educational tool.

“Therapeutic horticulture” and “horticultural therapy” have become recognised treatments for stress and depression, which have served as a healing aid in settings ranging from prisons and mental health treatment facilities to schools and hospitals.

Gardening and school

Studies of school gardening programs – which usually centre on growing food – show that students who have worked on designing, creating and maintaining gardens develop more positive attitudes about health, nutrition and the consumption of vegetables.

They also score better on science achievement, have better attitudes about school, and improve their interpersonal skills and classroom behaviour.

Research on students confirms that gardening leads to higher levels of self-esteem and responsibility. Research suggests that incorporating gardening into a school setting can boost group cohesiveness.

Gardening and mental health

Tailored gardening programs have been shown to increase quality of life for people with chronic mental illnesses, including anxiety and depression.

Another study on the use of therapeutic horticulture for patients with clinical depression sought to understand why gardening programs were effective in lessening patient experience of depression. They found that structured gardening activities gave patients existential purpose. Put simply, it gave their lives meaning.

In jails and corrective programs, horticultural therapy programs have been used to give inmates positive, purposeful activities that lessen aggression and hostility during and after incarceration.

In one detailed study from a San Francisco program, involvement in therapeutic horticulture was particularly effective in improving psychosocial functioning across prison populations (although the benefits were not necessarily sustained after release.)

Gardening has been shown to help improve the lives of military veterans and homeless people. Various therapeutic horticulture programs have been used to help people with learning difficulties, asylum seekers, refugees and victims of torture.

Gardening and older people

As populations in the West age, hands-on gardening programs have been used for older people in nursing homes and related facilities.

A systematic review of 22 studies of gardening programs for older adults found that gardening was a powerful health-promoting activity across diverse populations.

One study sought to understand if patients recovering from heart attack might benefit from a horticultural therapy program. It concluded:

[Our] findings indicate that horticultural therapy improves mood state, suggesting that it may be a useful tool in reducing stress. Therefore, to the extent that stress contributes to coronary heart disease, these findings support the role of horticultural therapy as an effective component of cardiac rehabilitation.

Horticulturist and nurse Steven Wells talks about his work at Austin Health.

While the literature on the positive effects of gardening, reflecting both qualitative and quantitative studies, is large, most of these studies are from overseas.

Investment in horticultural therapy programs in Australia is piecemeal. That said, there are some standout success stories such as the Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden Foundation and the work of nurse Steven Wells at the Royal Talbot Rehabilitation Centre and beyond.

Finally, without professionally trained horticulturists none of these programs – in Australia or internationally – can take place.

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

South Australia is leading the way on wind energy - but that's posing problems for the electricity sector. Wind image from www.shutterstock.com

Australia’s energy markets got a big shock in July this year, when wholesale electricity prices spiked in South Australia, alarming the state government and major industrial customers. Commentators rushed to find the immediate culprits. But the real issues lie elsewhere.

As shown by the Grattan Institute’s latest report the market worked. Having soared, prices fell back to more manageable levels. The lights stayed on.

Yet South Australia’s power shock exposed a looming problem in Australia’s electricity system – not high prices or the threat of blackouts, but an emerging conflict between Australia’s climate change policies and the demands of our energy market.

A perfect storm

On the evening of July 7, the wind wasn’t blowing, the sun wasn’t shining, and the electricity connector that supplies power from Victoria was down for maintenance. This meant gas set the wholesale price, and gas is expensive these days, especially during a cold winter. At 7.30pm wholesale spot prices soared close to A$9,000 per megawatt hour. For the whole month they averaged A$230 a megawatt hour. They were closer to A$65 in the rest of the country.

Australia has committed to a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2030. Despite this well known and significant target, the national debate on climate change has been so toxic and so destructive that almost no policy remains to reduce emissions from the power sector in line with that target.

By 2014 the much maligned renewable energy target (RET), a Howard government industry policy to support renewable energy, remained as the only policy with any real impact on the sector’s emissions.

Wind power has been the winning technology from the RET, and South Australia has been the winning state. Wind now supplies 40% of electricity in South Australia due to highly favourable local conditions. Because wind has no fuel costs it suppressed wholesale prices in the state and forced the shutdown of all coal plants and the mothballing of some gas plants. But wind is intermittent – it generates power only when it is blowing, and the night of July 7 it barely was.

A report by the Australian Energy Market Operator noted that the market did deliver on reliability and security of supply in July. It reviewed the behaviour of market participants and concluded there were “no departures from normal market rules and procedures”.

The events of July do not expose an immediate crisis, but they have exposed the potential consequences of a disconnection between climate change policy and energy markets. If it is not addressed, the goals of reliable, affordable and sustainable energy may not be achieved.

The bigger problem

Climate change policy should work with and not outside the electricity market. With a fixed generation target of 33,000 gigawatt hours of renewable electricity by 2020 and a market for renewable energy credits outside the wholesale spot market under the RET, the conditions for problems were established some time ago.

The specific issues that arose from the design of the RET would have been far less problematic if one of the attempts over the last ten years to implement a national climate policy had been successful. A rising carbon price would have steadily changed the relative competitiveness of high and low emissions electricity sources and the RET would have quietly faded.

The first lesson for governments is that we need to establish a credible, scalable and predictable national climate change policy to have a chance of achieving emissions reduction targets without compromising power reliability or security of supply. A national emissions trading scheme would be best, but pragmatism and urgency mean we need to consider second best.

While such an outcome is the first priority, it will not provide all the answers. The rapid introduction of a very large proportion of new intermittent electricity supply creates problems that were not foreseen when traditional generation from coal and gas supplied the bulk of Australia’s power needs.

All of the wind farms in one state could be offline at the same time – a far less likely event with traditional generation. The problem can be solved by investment in storage and in flexible responses such as gas and other fast-start generators. Commercial deals with consumers paid to reduce demand could also contribute.

Lower average prices combined with infrequent big price spikes are not an obvious way to encourage long-term investors. The market may find solutions with new forms of contracts for flexibility or the market operator could introduce new structures or regulations to complement the existing wholesale spot market.

Much uncertainty exists, no easy fixes are in sight and the consequences of failure are high. Getting it right will provide clear signals for new investment or for withdrawal of coal plants as flagged by speculation over the future of the Hazelwood power station in Victoria.

Josh Frydenberg, as the new minister for the environment and energy, and his fellow ministers on the COAG Energy Council would be unwise to waste a near crisis.

Tony Wood owns shares in energy and resources companies via his superannuation fund

The Hazelwood power station has been named Australia's 'dirtiest' for its carbon emissions. Takver/Flickr, CC BY-SA

Over the weekend Fairfax media reported that the Hazelwood power station in the Latrobe valley could close as early as next April. Senior management at Engie, the French company which is the majority owner of the brown coal-fired power plant, has emphasised that no decision has been made yet.

As was the case with the Northern Power station in South Australia, the imperative to close Hazelwood has evidently come from the company’s board.

Earlier this year, Engie, the majority owner of Hazelwood, flagged it was considering closing or selling the plant. But at this point, no timeline for closure was suggested. Now it seems that Engie is planning to make a decision on the future of the plant at its board meeting in October.

There are many factors that would be contributing to their deliberation. These include, but are not limited to, the plant’s age, changes in the electricity market, and an erosion of the social license to operate, courtesy of long running campaigns from environment groups such as Environment Victoria.

Commissioned in the late 1960s, the power plant is almost 50 years old and one of the oldest coal-fired power plants still operating in the National Electricity Market (NEM). Smaller coal plants of similar age have closed in recent years, including Playford B in South Australia and Anglesea and the Morwell Energy Bricks Complex in Victoria.

Increasing amounts of renewable energy, and expected future increases would also be weighing on decisions to close. As has been well documented, there has been be an oversupply of electricity capacity in recent years. This has the effect of lowering wholesale prices and is exacerbated by increasing renewable energy generation.

What is interesting about both the potential closure of Hazelwood and the closure of Northern and Playford in South Australia, is that these have occurred in the absence of schemes like the (failed) “contracts for closure” and ANU professor Frank Jotzo’s proposal for brown coal exit.

On the one hand, this is good news for taxpayers and consumers. To date, the companies that own these assets are not being paid to close. On the other hand, the decision is made at the company level, without consideration for local workers and communities.

What would replace Hazelwood’s output?

Hazelwood has historically generated about 11-12 terrawatt-hours of energy each year. This is approximately 20% of all energy generated in Victoria, and 5% of energy generated in the National Electricity Market.

Like other brown coal power stations, Hazelwood produces cheap electricity (if we ignore carbon emissions). As a result, these power stations are used a lot (on average at more than 80% of their total capacity) and Victoria is a significant net exporter of energy.

Victoria exported 8.5 terrawatt-hours of electricity in 2014-2015 and 7 terrawatt-hours in 2015-2016, representing about 70% of Hazelwood’s output. A large share of this (approximately 5 terrawatt-hours) flowed to New South Wales.

If Hazelwood closes, the flows might substantially change. Generation in New South Wales could be expected to increase.

New South Wales is dominated by black coal generation, which is slightly more expensive that brown coal, and currently is used relatively infrequently. Over the past five years, NSW’s black coal power stations have operated at approximately 50% of their total capacity on average.

The idle black coal capacity in NSW alone could more that replace the energy output of Hazelwood.

But coal and other fossil fuel generation is only part of the story. By 2020, a large amount of renewable generation will have to be built to fulfil the obligations of the national Renewable Energy Target.

And the Victorian government’s Renewable Auction Scheme will see 5,400 megawatts of new renewable energy built in Victoria alone by 2025. This 5,400 megawatts will produce approximately 30% more energy than is currently delivered by Hazelwood.

What about emissions?

Hazelwood is also the most emissions-intensive coal generator still in operation in Australia. In fact it was previously identified by WWF as the most emissions-intensive generator in the major industrialised nations.

Based on current emission intensity estimates, Hazelwood produces around 15 million tonnes of CO₂ emissions per year, approximately 2.8% of Australia’s emissions.

However, this does not represent the overall emissions impact in the short term. In a high emissions scenario, the output of Hazelwood might be entirely replaced by NSW black coal (assuming the remaining brown coal power stations cannot dramatically increase their output). In this case, the total emissions from the electricity sector might reduce by only 5.5 million each year.

So, while we don’t know whether Hazelwood will close yet, we do know that Australia could easily replace the energy, and it could make a substantial difference to our carbon emissions.

The Melbourne Energy Institute, the Grattan Institute, the EU Centre on Shared Complex Challenges, GEE-21, the Australian-German Climate and Energy College, and ATSE are holding a symposium on Australia’s Electricity System: Transition to 2030 this week.

Dylan McConnell has received funding from the AEMC's Consumer Advocacy Panel and Energy Consumers Australia.