Feed aggregator

China's coal future is up in the air. Coal image from www.shutterstock.com

As the world moves to combat climate change, it’s increasingly doubtful that coal will continue to be a viable energy source, because of its high greenhouse gas emissions. But coal played a vital role in the Industrial Revolution and continues to fuel some of the world’s largest economies. This series looks at coal’s past, present and uncertain future.

Something remarkable happened in China in 2014. China’s coal consumption - the highest in the world - appeared to stabilise for the first time in 16 years. Many commentators proclaimed a new era for China’s energy mix and perhaps even the beginning of the demise of coal in China.

As China is the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter, this was heralded as good news for the climate.

But the future is rather more uncertain. China is a major regional power with a major energy economy. Its primary energy consumption has grown by more than 500% over the past 30 years. China overtook the United States as the world’s largest primary energy consumer in 2010.

Not surprisingly, the world has been watching the role of coal in China’s energy development with considerable interest over the past few decades.

Twin threats: pollution and climate change

In 2010, China released its 12th Five-Year Plan (FYP), the country’s defining economic plan for 2011-15. It fundamentally changed China’s approach to energy and climate policies.

Instead of broad goals and statements, the plan shifted to specific policy instruments aimed at reducing emissions. It was driven in no small part by domestic environmental concerns centred on smog, air and water pollution.

The 12th FYP established binding targets to reduce energy intensity by 16%, reduce carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions intensity (emissions per unit of GDP) by 17%, and increase the proportion of non-fossil fuels in the primary energy mix to 11.4% – all by 2015.

These targets were reinforced by the historic US-China Joint Announcement on Climate Change in 2014.

Through the announcement, and its pledge ahead of the Paris climate summit in December 2015, China promised to peak in CO₂ emissions around 2030 (and try to peak earlier), cut emissions intensity by 60-65% of the 2005 level, and source around 20% of its primary energy consumption from non-fossil fuels by 2030. Provided that economic growth is limited to 5.5% (China’s economy grew by 6.9% in 2015), China’s emissions in 2030 would return to close to 2005 levels.

After the Paris Agreement, China announced its 13th Five-Year Plan, covering 2016-20. With a focus on capping energy consumption to within 5 billion tonnes of coal equivalent (capping overall energy use, not only coal use) by 2020 and addressing air pollution, energy intensity will be reduced by 15%, CO₂ emissions intensity will fall by 18%, and the proportion of non-fossil fuels will increase to 15%.

What does this mean for coal?

BP’s 2016 Energy Outlook shows China’s fuel mix is changing. The share of coal in primary energy is projected to fall from 66% in 2014 to 47% by 2035. Demand for coal is likely to peak in 2027 and then fall by 0.3% each year over the next seven years.

To compensate for China’s reduced reliance on coal, the share of natural gas is expected to more than double, with the share of non-fossil fuels also increasing rapidly to bridge the gap.

One interesting question is what does this mean for coal-fired power infrastructure in China?

Two main drivers influence the building of new power plants.

The first is growth in future electricity demand. This is influenced by population growth and the intensification of energy use in developing economies, such as China.

The second is “business-as-usual retirement” of infrastructure. This is driven largely by regulatory compliance and competitiveness in the electricity market, as well as a preference to shift to low-carbon sources to assist in meeting emissions reduction targets.

Most power plants approaching retirement age are located mainly in the USA and Europe, as you can see in the chart below. China, on the other hand, has a remarkably young fleet with a median age of 10 years.

And this is where the dilemma emerges. Very few plants are approaching the age of natural retirement in China, even by 2030 when emissions are scheduled to peak.

Global Data/Author provided, CC BY-ND

Given the age of coal-fired infrastructure in China, it doesn’t appear as though business-as-usual retirements will drive a dramatic reduction in China’s coal use.

Increasing climate action

Of course the pledges announced prior to Paris are only part of the story. The Paris Agreement aims to hold warming to well below 2℃ and attempt to limit warming to 1.5℃.

Estimates suggest the Paris pledges would result in warming of 2.7-3.6℃. Accordingly, much greater emissions-reduction efforts are likely to be required to hold global average temperature increase to less than 2℃.

A recent study looked at the implications for global coal-fired power investments (operating, committed and planned) for a 2℃ average temperature rise scenario (in line with the International Energy Agency’s global mitigation scenario).

The investments in recent and new coal-fired power plant capacity are dominated by expansion in Asia, in particular China and India. A global reduction in coal-fired power infrastructure to shift from the business-as-usual scenario to the 2℃ mitigation scenario unsurprisingly would require China to make a significant contribution to this reduction.

Accordingly, China would need not only to reverse its growth trend in installed capacity by 2030, but also decommission some 400 gigawatts of coal-fired infrastructure, approximately equivalent to a third of its capacity, before the end of its useful life.

The implication is that non-OECD countries including China could be asked to carry more of the economic burden to transform the global energy system because these countries will need to prematurely retire cost-effective coal power assets. Questions about whether this is realistic and around compensation for the cost of such early retirements may influence the prospects of addressing the risk of climate change.

A second driver of China’s coal consumption trend is the push to reduce air pollution, in particular damaging pollution known as PM2.5. While BP’s Energy Outlook for 2016 suggests that this will drive the switch from coal to natural gas, in the absence of serious constraints on carbon emissions, energy security drivers may favour the use of coal-derived synthetic natural gas (syngas or SNG).

While this reduces air pollution, the production process is very carbon-intensive. China has made ambitious plans to develop this technology.

With the release of the 13th FYP earlier this year, the energy sector was expecting a limit on total coal consumption and cuts to coal production in order to peak emissions by 2030.

Yet while some production cuts have been announced, precisely how this will play out for coal-fired power infrastructure and actual coal consumption remains to be seen.

Caroline Stott, UQ Energy Initiative Research Officer, contributed to this article.

Chris Greig owns shares in Rio Tinto, BHP and Wesfarmers. He is chief investigator on a grant provided by ACALET (Australian Coal Association Lowe Emissions Technologies Ltd).

How UK astronaut Tim Peake will get back from the International Space Station (ISS).

The Paris climate conference set the ambitious goal of finding ways to limit global warming to 1.5C, rather than the previous threshold of 2C. But what would be the difference? And how realistic is such a target? Environment 360 reports

How ambitious is the world? The Paris climate conference last December astounded many by pledging not just to keep warming “well below two degrees celsius,” but also to “pursue efforts” to limit warming to 1.5C. That raised a hugely important question: What’s the difference between a two-degree world and a 1.5-degree world?

Given we are already at one degree above pre-industrial levels, halting at 1.5C would look to be at least twice as hard as the two-degree option.

Continue reading...

European Union launches infringement procedure against Poland over tree-clearing in the Białowieża forest, a protected Unesco World Heritage site

The European Union on Thursday launched an investigation into Polish logging in its ancient Białowieża forest, a protected Unesco World Heritage site which includes some of Europe’s last primeval woodland.

“The commission has launched an infringement procedure against Poland ... the commission is in contact with the Polish authorities to make sure that any measures are in line with EU law,” a spokesman said.

Continue reading...

Poll shows Brexiters are also more likely to think media exaggerates agreement on climate science, distrust scientists and oppose windfarms

British people backing a leave vote in the EU referendum are almost twice as likely to believe that climate change does not have a human cause, according to a new poll.

Continue reading...

The UK could play a great role in the creation of Europe’s integrated single energy market – and reap its share of the significant benefits

Energy is the lifeblood of society. It heats our homes, powers our industry and entertainment, and fuels our transport. It has become yet another punchbag in the UK referendum campaign, with claims and counterclaims about costs. But there is a simple and very positive story to be told.

Some 65 years ago, after the devastation of world war two, the European Coal and Steel Community provided the vision, the coordination, and the investment that fuelled an unparalleled period of growth and stability in Europe. It laid the foundations for what then became the European Communities, the EEC and then the European Union. But ironically the energy sector got left behind.

Continue reading...

The sea eagle, also known as the white-tailed eagle, was driven to extinction in Britain earlier this century. Now, thanks to a reintroduction programme by Scottish Natural Heritage and the RSPB, it has returned one of its former haunts, the Inner Hebrides island of Mull in Scotland

Continue reading...

Hundreds of fishermen and officials rescued 24 of the whales after their pod swam ashore in Probolinggo, East Java

Eight pilot whales have died after a mass stranding on the coast of Indonesia’s main island of Java that sparked a major rescue operation, an official said Thursday.

Thirty-two of the short-finned pilot whales came ashore during high tide early Wednesday in Probolinggo, East Java province.

Continue reading...

Climate Central: The last monitoring station in the world without a 400 parts per million reading has now reached it, NOAA confirms

We’re officially living in a new world.

Carbon dioxide has been steadily rising since the start of the Industrial Revolution, setting a new high year after year. There’s a notable new entry to the record books. The last station on Earth without a 400 parts per million (ppm) reading has reached it.

Continue reading...

European commission launches world’s first system for classifying and banning endocrine disruptors against a barrage of criticism

The European commission has launched the world’s first system for classifying and banning endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), against a barrage of criticism from scientists, NGOs, industry and consumer groups.

Endocrines are hormone-altering chemicals common in everyday substances from paint to pesticides that have been linked to an array of illnesses including cancer, infertility, obesity, diabetes, birth defects and reproductive problems.

Continue reading...

Greenpeace analysis of satellite data reveals 3.5m hectares have burned this year, while government statistics claim only 669,000 hectares

Forest wildfires rampaging across Russia are being significantly under-reported by authorities, according to analysis of satellite data.

Climate change is making wildfires much more likely in Russia, but regional officials have been reluctant to report the true extent of the problem, and campaigners are warning that the harm to forests, property and human lives could rise.

Continue reading...

In April 2011, not long after Julia Gillard was returned to power in the 2010 federal election, I asked a representative sample of Australians about their attitudes to climate policy.

Climate was a water-cooler issue at the time. The carbon tax legislation had been introduced into Parliament in March, paving the way for a subsequent emissions trading scheme.

That scheme bit the dust in 2014 after becoming a hotly debated issue during the rancorous 2013 election campaign, but carbon policy has not had the same high profile during the current campaign. My colleagues and I decided to repeat our survey and see whether attitudes really have cooled on global warming.

Despite climate policy being something of a sleeper issue in this election, our results suggest that concern about the climate is more widespread now than it was five years ago.

We found that 75% of people surveyed believe it to be an important global issue, and 74% see climate as an important issue for Australia.

As to what we should do about it, we found that 57% of people want Australia to act on climate change irrespective of whether other countries do or not. This is significantly more than in 2011, when 50% of people were in this category.

A further 28% in our new survey think that action should be taken only if there were concerted international policy action, whereas just 15% would prefer that Australia take no action at all. When asked why they did not want to proceed, 34% of them stated that they only wanted to proceed if global action was taken.

These are fairly clear indicators that Australians are not complacent about the need for climate action.

What policies do voters want?

Both of the major political parties have committed to emissions targets: the Liberals have a target of a 26-28% reduction relative to 2005 levels by 2030, whereas Labor has pledged a 45% cut over the same time frame. Both are modest in comparison with the Climate Change Authority’s recommended cut of 40-60% by 2030 relative to 2000 levels.

As for the policies needed to meet these targets, Labor has proposed an emissions trading scheme, but some details are still vague. The Liberal Party is persisting with its Direct Action plan to “auction” emissions reduction projects to the cheapest corporate bidders.

Our survey, however, suggests that many voters' preferred policy is a mixture, potentially including a carbon tax, an emissions trading scheme and other direct action policies. Some 40% of respondents preferred this policy mix, up from 31% in 2011. Support for carbon taxation or emissions trading as standalone policies both fell relative to five years ago.

When divided according to voting intentions, all groups preferred a policy mix to any of the other choices. This preference was strongest for “unsure voters”, who made up nearly a quarter of our respondents. For Labor and Greens voters, the most favoured second-choice option was a carbon tax, while no single policy (not even Direct Action) came a close second among Liberal voters.

The numbers get even more intriguing when we split them by gender, age and income. We found that 82% of females see the issue of climate change as important at a global level, and the same proportion described it as important at a local level; this was 15 and 16 percentage points, respectively, greater than among their male counterparts. There was a similar 15-point gender difference in the desire to proceed on climate policy irrespective of global action.

This desire for climate policy irrespective of global action was the dominant view in every age group, although we found that it declined among older groups. The 55-59 age group was the weakest in its support for climate action and the most likely (at 36%) to select “no policy” as the desired climate response.

In our 2011 study, higher incomes were associated with less desire for climate policy. This was replicated in 2016, as can be seen in the graph below – note the significant increase in support for “no climate action” among those with salaries over A$110,000.

As these stats show, concern about climate change is relatively steady until we get to the highest income bracket, where it drops off significantly. There are several potential explanations, including the suggestion that those with higher incomes will be less adversely affected by climate change because they can afford to ameliorate its impacts.

But if there is a take-home message for politicians in these numbers, I would suggest it is this: even in those groups with the lowest levels of climate concern, a majority is still worried about the issue and wants to see action.

Perhaps, in the midst of the longest election campaign since the 1960s, it might be worth finding a bit more time to acknowledge that.

Deborah Cotton received funding from Macquarie University Higher Degree Research Fund for the survey in 2011 and The University of Technology Sydney Business School for the 2016 survey.

Wolsingham, Weardale Adult dung flies chew hoverflies like hotdogs, but many fall victim to an insect-eating fungus

Cattle had been sheltering in the lee of the hedge and had spattered the footpath with fresh cowpats. We had to be careful where we put our feet, but the male dung flies, Scathophaga stercoraria, sitting in the centre of these discs of ordure, had no such reservations; these were their courtship arenas. Each suitor, resplendent in golden hairs that glowed in the early morning sunlight, was waiting for the arrival of females – usually found to be in short supply.

Dung flies’ behaviour and their sex lives have intrigued evolutionary biologists. Males vary in size and females tend to choose the largest mates available on the cowpat, with multiple mating being the norm. It’s a situation where large males, which tend to be more fecund, should prosper.

Continue reading...

BehaviourWorks Australia has recently reviewed research and data from 47 examples of CDR schemes or trials around the world. 

Victoria has joined three other states and territories in setting a renewable energy target. Wind energy from www.shutterstock.com

The Victorian Labor government has announced an “ambitious and achievable” Victorian Renewable Energy Target (VRET). This target will commit the state to generating 25% of its electricity from renewable energy by 2020, and 40% by 2025.

While details of the VRET are yet to be fully fleshed out, it is set to be based on a similar mechanism to the scheme used in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), which has managed to sidestep the uncertainty that has plagued the renewables industry in recent years. The ACT deputy chief minister, Simon Corbell, called Victoria’s announcement on Wednesday “a game-changer”.

In fact a key motivation identified by the Victorian energy minister, Lily D'Ambrosio, was “restoring the confidence needed to invest”.

National tally

The federal Renewable Energy Target (RET) was reduced by 20% following the Warburton Review in 2014. Since then, state and territory governments have announced their own targets to support the industry.

Earlier this year, the ACT announced it would bring forward previous commitments. It is now aiming to meet 100% of its electricity needs by 2020.

In 2014, South Australia announced a 50% target by 2025. More recently, Queensland committed to generating 50% of its energy from renewable sources by 2030.

Based on forecasting by the Australian Electricity Market Operator, these commitments add up to a considerable expansion of renewable energy. In total, these commitments represent 56 terawatt hours (TWh) each year, above baseline generation. Baseline generation is renewable generation that existed before 1997, almost exclusively hydro power.

Comparison of national renewable energy target and state renewable energy targets Author

The remaining states already have renewable generation and these facilities presumably won’t be torn down. So even assuming that these states don’t build a single new project, in combination with the targets, Australia is headed towards a total of 61TWh above the baseline.

This compares to the current national target of 33TWh. If the states fulfil their commitments, they will deliver almost twice as much renewable generation as the national RET requires.

If we add baseline hydro back into the equation, total renewable energy generation in Australia is set to be at least 77TWh by 2030. Depending on how electricity demand changes, and how rooftop solar is included, Australia is on track to meet 30-35% of its power demand from renewables by 2030.

What does the target mean for coal?

Victoria has always been a major exporter of electricity in the National Electricity Market. In 2014-15, it generated more than 55TWh of electricity and exported over 8TWh. Generally, Victoria exports to South Australia, New South Wales and Tasmania (although Tasmania’s flows have been more interesting in recent times).

It is unlikely that Victoria will substantially increase exports. Indeed, it has limited ability to do so. The South Australian government recently announced funding for a study into new interconnection for South Australia to import power when required, and export more renewable energy to other markets.

Consequently, such a significant increase in renewable generation in Victoria – expected to be in the vicinity of 5,400 megawatts – will have dramatic implications for the state’s existing power stations.

An increase in market share of renewables, from roughly 14% today to 40% in 2025, will necessarily come at the expense of market share for existing power stations. And in Victoria that means brown coal, Australia’s most carbon-intensive power source.

The question now is can the brown coal generators collectively survive such a reduction in market share? And if they can’t, who drops out, and when? Or perhaps brown coal can be progressively phased out without too much pain.

This is, however, good news for Australia’s national climate change mitigation commitments. At average Victorian emissions intensity, by the time the 2025 Victorian target is fulfilled, the new renewable generation in Victoria would be avoiding the emission of some 18 million tonnes of CO₂ per year.

National policy implications

At the national level, several different policies and pathways have emerged through the election campaign. These includes a national 50% renewable energy target, an emissions trading scheme, a brown coal exit plan and potential modifications to the government’s cap on emissions (known as the safeguard mechanism).

Whatever emerges at the federal level, the Victorian scheme is well adapted to future changes to both the energy market and energy policy developments. Indeed, it is expressly designed to complement national schemes in the long term, and to provide certainty and confidence for investors in the short term.

In response to the VRET, the Business Council of Australia has called for climate policies that are “integrated with broader energy policy”. A decade of policy uncertainty and toxic political debate has thus far prevented this from occurring.

As the Grattan Institute reported earlier this year: “An economy-wide carbon price remains the ideal climate policy. But pragmatism and urgency demand a practical, next-best approach.”

Given the popular support for renewable energy, perhaps this policy is actually such a pragmatic approach.

Dylan McConnell received funding from the AEMC's consumer advocacy panel.

A female tortoise in southern India is given a new lease of life after losing both legs.

Member states of the European Space Agency have reaffirmed their commitment to launch a rover to Mars in 2020.

A year since the pope’s clarion call to climate action, Australia must declare a moratorium on new coal, oil and gas mines and end fossil fuel subsidies

• Divesting from fossil fuels: open letter from religious leaders in full

Few papal proclamations have reverberated more strongly throughout the world than Pope Francis’s encyclical on the environment, Laudato Si’. The anniversary of this clarion call to protect the environment comes as Australia’s election is in full swing and, in terms of its message, the contrast could not be greater.

Released exactly a year ago, the encyclical was part of a deluge of statements from the major faith traditions in the leadup to the Paris climate agreement.

Continue reading...

Exclusive: Four Australian Catholic orders are jointly and publicly divesting from coal, oil and gas: ‘We believe the Gospel asks no less of us’

• Divesting from fossil fuels: open letter from religious leaders in full

Four Australian Catholic organisations have announced they are completely divesting from coal, oil and gas in what they say is the first joint Catholic divestment anywhere in the world.

The move comes as prominent Jewish rabbis, Muslim clerics, Anglican bishops and other religious leaders call on the Australian government to protect the Great Barrier Reef, stop approving coalmines and remove subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, in an open letter published by the Guardian.

Continue reading...

Among the increasing sums of money being pledged to help save the Great Barrier Reef is a federal government pledge to spend A$40 million on improving water quality. The Queensland government has promised another A$33.5 million for the same purpose.

One of the biggest water-quality concerns is nitrogen runoff from fertiliser use. It is a concern all along the reef coast, and particularly in the sugar-cane regions of the Wet Tropics and the Burdekin. The government’s Reef 2050 Long Term Sustainability Plan calls for an 80% reduction in dissolved inorganic nitrogen flowing out onto the reef by 2025.

Our recent research suggests that “nitrogen trading” might be worth considering as a flexible economic mechanism to help farmers deliver these much-needed reductions in fertiliser use.

What is nitrogen trading?

You probably already know about carbon trading, which allows polluters to buy the right to emit greenhouse gases from those with spare carbon credits. Nitrogen trading would work in a similar way, but for fertiliser use.

A nitrogen market could offer a flexible way of encouraging farmers to use fertiliser more efficiently, as well as rewarding innovations in farming practice. It could be a useful addition to existing fertiliser-reduction schemes such as the industry-led Smart Cane Best Management Practice. These are making headway but evidently not enough.

A nitrogen market isn’t going to happen tomorrow, but it could be part of a future in which an annual limit (called a cap) is set on the total amount of nitrogen flowing out from river catchments to the reef.

One way to enforce this cap would be to set a limit on fertiliser applications per hectare. Cane farmers would have to manage the best they could with that fixed amount of nitrogen.

But nitrogen trading would offer more flexibility, while still staying under the same total nitrogen cap. Instead of a fixed limit, farmers would receive a certain number of “nitrogen permits” per hectare of cane. Then, if they wanted or needed to, they could buy or sell these permits through a centralised online “smart market”.

How would it work?

Imagine you’re a farmer with a property that sits on good soil. The amount of fertiliser you can apply to your crop must match the number of nitrogen permits you hold. But you know that, on your good land, you would get more profits if you could apply more fertiliser.

To do this you would have to buy extra permits through the nitrogen market. These extra permits would be worth buying as long as they deliver more than enough extra profit to cover the cost.

The total number of permits is limited by the cap – so buyers can only buy extra permits if other farmers are selling them. So who’s selling?

Putting fertiliser onto a field with poor soil won’t increase your profits as much, because a lot of that fertiliser will just run off before the crop can use it. On a bad paddock, nitrogen permits aren’t worth much in terms of extra crop yield, so you might make more money by just selling them to other farmers with good paddocks. That is why trading happens.

The overall effect of this trading would be to switch a significant amount of nitrogen fertiliser away from less profitable, leaky soils, and onto more profitable, less leaky land. As a result, the total nitrogen cap would be distributed more efficiently across the farming landscape.

For individual farmers, the reward for low-nitrogen farming practice is the opportunity to sell unused permits at a profit. This incentive will help to drive ongoing improvement and innovation.

Our simulations suggest that overall sugar cane profits and production would be higher with trading than they would under a fixed per-hectare nitrogen limit – with the same overall cap on the amount of nitrogen hitting the Great Barrier Reef.

Opportunity for the future?

Will it just mean more expensive regulation, green tape and hassle for farmers? Farmers are already signing up to calculate and record actual fertiliser applications paddock by paddock under the Six Easy Steps nutrient management program.

If we’re in a future where the government is monitoring and managing a fixed nitrogen cap anyway, then not much extra work is needed to set up an online trading market.

So could nitrogen trading help the Great Barrier Reef? Maybe. There’s more thinking still to be done, but nitrogen trading schemes are already operating in New Zealand and the United States.

A firm overall limit on fertiliser use seems to be essential for the reef’s survival. The incentives provided by a nitrogen market could give Queensland’s farmers the flexibility they need to thrive in this nitrogen-constrained future.

Graeme Curwen and Michele Burford of the Australian Rivers Institute at Griffith University contributed to the research on which this article is based.

Jim Smart receives funding from the National Environmental Science Program - Tropical Water Quality Hub and Seqwater.

Adrian Volders receives funding from the National Environmental Science Program - Tropical Water Quality Hub.

Chris Fleming receives funding from the National Environmental Science Program - Tropical Water Quality Hub, the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility, the Australian Government Department of the Environment and the Worldwide Wildlife Fund.

Syezlin Hasan receives funding from the National Environmental Science Program - Tropical Water Quality Hub.