Feed aggregator

New analysis makes bold claim that renewable power generation costs are already lower on average worldwide than generation costs of fossil fuels.

BNEF analyst Ethan Zindler says world on verge of substantial solar PV oversupply; bad news for manufacturers, good news for installers, end-users – and Australia.

Malcolm Turnbull's signature Clean Energy Innovation Fund is to be stripped of nearly all its monies. Apparently, there is such a thing as too much innovation.

As the reality of climate change is accepted, the focus shifts from the science to economic and social outcomes – and the conversation gets way harder.

Tasmania has had a damaging year, with the island state hit by a series of bushfires and floods.

Now a comprehensive new assessment of Tasmania’s exposure to natural disasters shows that bushfire remains the number one hazard to people and property, while also highlighting a range of new threats. These include coastal flooding, pandemic influenza and – despite being Australia’s most southerly state – an increasing likelihood of heatwaves.

The 2016 Tasmanian State Natural Disaster Risk Assessment (TSNDRA) aims to provide emergency services with key information to help prepare for and reduce the impact of disasters.

It is the first state-level assessment in Australia that adheres to the recently updated National Emergency Risk Assessment Guidelines. All states and territories are required to produce their own risk assessments by June 2017. Given Tasmania’s unprecedented recent run of natural disasters, it is fitting that it should be the first state to publish a comprehensive roundup of the risks.

The assessment of natural disaster risk took place over 12 months from March 2015. It involved a series of workshops and online surveys of experts in each hazard area.

For the first time, the process was led not by state government agencies, but by a close collaboration between researchers at the University of Tasmania, RMIT University and the Antarctic Climate & Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, together with members of the State Emergency Service and related agencies, and other stakeholders including the Bureau of Meteorology, Australian Red Cross and Engineers Australia. The process aimed to allow a range of different voices to inform the identification of priority risks for Tasmania.

Each workshop considered the underlying risk of different natural hazards, as well as considering the consequences of worst-case scenarios for each hazard, such as the 1967 bushfires or the 1929 Launceston floods.

The use of a “confidence” rating – a new addition to the assessment process – allowed for uncertainty in data, or disagreement between experts. This enabled us both to identify gaps in overall knowledge about different natural hazards and to weight the advice of different stakeholders appropriately.

Bushfire is the highest risk, but Tasmania’s hazard profile is changing

Perhaps not surprisingly, our results showed that the risks of bushfires, floods and severe storms continue to figure prominently in Tasmania. Bushfire remains the greatest aggregated risk, as illustrated below.

Such “catastrophic” scenarios could result in one in 10,000 deaths, or an economic loss of greater than 4% of gross state product. Furthermore, the likelihood of a catastrophic bushfire event is increasing as our climate changes.

Three new “emerging” risks were added to this 2016 assessment. These additions reflect either improvements in information availability or shifting likelihoods of an event occurring. The emerging risks are heatwaves (now acknowledged as the most dangerous hazard in Australia in terms of deaths caused), pandemic influenza (which can potentially affect a large area for a prolonged time), and coastal inundation (which will grow more likely as sea levels rise).

Better prepared for disaster

The report updates and builds on an earlier assessment published in 2012. This allows the state’s risk profile to be tracked over time as conditions continue to change. The improvement in hazard knowledge, changes in socio-economic and environmental conditions, and the implementation of new treatments or controls by state authorities as new disasters occur mean the risks we face will need to be continually re-assessed into the future.

Based on the new risk registers for each hazard, a separate expert workshop developed a portfolio of potential treatment options for the most at-risk sectors. These include, for example, recommending the continuation of the successful fuel-reduction program and the updating of flood-evacuation plans for at-risk communities, as well as putting forward new or enhanced treatment options such the creation of a state-wide flood hazard map and the expansion of existing disaster preparedness programs.

The treatment options also highlight key research gaps around such topics as coincident extreme events or the impact of heatwaves on Tasmania’s population. This portfolio is being refined to help prioritise new risk-reduction actions across Tasmania.

While the report is mainly aimed to inform the State Emergency Management Committee, its findings are also relevant to a range of authorities, agencies and individuals with responsibilities for emergency risk management. Hazard fact sheets and a summary document to inform Tasmanian communities are available via the report links below.

The TSNDRA 2016 report, summary report and hazard fact sheets are available for download from the Tasmania State Emergency Service or the Antarctic Climate & Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre.

Chris White receives funding from various Tasmanian State Government research funding programs, Wine Australia and the Bushfire and Natural Hazard CRC.

Alexei Trundle previously received funding from the Tasmanian State Government, and currently receives an Australian Postgraduate Award from the Australian Government.

Darryn McEvoy receives funding from a variety of research funding organisations.

Stuart Corney receives funding from various Tasmanian State Government research funding programs and the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC.

Tomas Remenyi receives research funding from Wine Australia and various Australian State Government agencies and research programs.

These sessions will provide information and guidance on how to achieve carbon neutral certification. Participants will also have the opportunity to hear from organisations already certified and to develop business to business contacts across and...

Victoria regulator makes landmark decision on solar feed in tariffs that could have implications for other states. But does it go far enough?

Study shows going 100% renewables would be cheaper than staying connected to the main grid for Kangaroo Island. But the decision on what to do will be a significant national and international test case for numerous other communities considering similar decisions, as well as network operators and regulators.

With about 72 million tonnes of coal stockpiled at mines and power stations,enough fuel for over 50 days operation – and power demand growth running lower than forecast.

For the first time ever, investment in new renewables was more than enough to cover rising global electricity demand in 2015.

Nearly half of Australians would be prepared to switch to another bank if they found out their current bank is financing projects that worsen climate change.

Just keeping an eye on small prostate cancers results in the same 10-year survival rate as treating them, a major study suggests.

PLANETARY SCIENCE: The north pole of Pluto's moon Charon is dark red, and now scientists think they know why.

But in Australia we are seeing a very significant change. We’ve seen eight out of our 12 most emission intensive power stations close in the last five years. All of those have been coal. – Environment and energy minister Josh Frydenberg, interview, September 5, 2016.

When discussing Australia’s commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, environment and energy minister Josh Frydenberg said that that eight out of the nation’s 12 most emission intensive power stations have closed in the last five years. All were coal, he said, describing the pace of change as “very significant”.

Is that right?

Checking the source

When asked for data to support the minister’s assertion, a spokesperson referred The Conversation to the following table:

tCO2-e/GWh means tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per gigawatt hour of energy produced. It is a way of expressing emission intensity. This table lists eight emission intensive power stations that have closed in the last five years and four emission intensive power stations that remain open. Office of Josh Frydenberg

Let’s test his statement against publicly available data.

Power station closures

Emission intensity is a measure of the greenhouse emissions produced per unit of energy. If a power station produces a lot of greenhouse gases per unit of energy generated, then it is a high emission intensity power station.

It’s true that eight emission intensive power stations have closed in recent years. Sticklers may say that change occurred over six years, not five (depending on when the process of closure began), but it’s close enough.

These power stations closed at a time when electricity demand was falling, although it has picked up again recently.

Are those eight among the most emission intensive power stations in Australia?

They’re in the ball park – although it depends a bit on which power stations you include on the list of “most intensive power stations in Australia”.

Frydenberg’s table includes 12, but his list doesn’t mention two Western Australian power stations – Worsley and Muja AB – which are among the most emission intensive power stations in Australia.

There could be good reasons for omitting these two from the top list. Worsley, for example, is a cogeneration plant, meaning that some of the energy it produces is fed into the electricity network and some is diverted for industrial use by a local alumina refinery in the form of steam energy. Or that list may only be considering the averaged combined emission intensity of the three power stations at Western Australia’s Muja facility (not just the Muja AB station), which would bring the emission intensity down.

The list may also have not included any Western Australian power stations because when people talk about Australian power generation, it’s quite common to use data for the National Electricity Market - which covers all states except Western Australia and the Northern Territory.

In summary – the eight listed as having closed in the last five years are definitely among the top 14 most emission intensive power stations in Australia. They may also be among the top 12, depending on which Australian power stations you include in the list of the nation’s most emission intensive.

How do we know they’re among the most emission intensive power stations?

We know that’s true because of data contained in a recent report commissioned by the Australian Energy Market Operator and undertaken by consulting firm ACIL Allen.

The Australian Energy Market Operator is responsible for operating Australia’s largest gas and electricity markets and power systems. It runs the National Electricity Market, the power system that covers the eastern states of Australia and South Australia. It also runs the Wholesale Energy Market.

We can check Frydenberg’s statement against the most up-to-date data from the ACIL Allen report, which details the emission intensity of various power stations in Australia.

This chart, using the ACIL Allen data, shows the capacity and emission intensity of Australian coal generators with high emission intensity.

Has there been ‘very significant change’ in Australia?

That depends on what you understand by the phrase “very significant”. What we do know is that the closure of these eight power stations hasn’t put a significant dent in Australia’s overall greenhouse gas emissions.

Using publicly available data, we can calculate how many million tonnes of emissions these eight power stations produced back when they were all operating – around five or so years ago.

To do that, you multiply the electricity produced by a power station (measured in gigawatt hours and sourced from here) by that station’s emission intensity (sourced from here and here).

The result? The eight powers stations that closed down produced about 12.7 million tonnes of emissions in 2010-11, and about 10.06 million tonnes of emissions in 2011-12 (after some had either closed or reduced their output).

Australia’s total emissions for 2011 were 544.9 million tonnes. So the eight power stations contributed roughly about 2% to Australia’s 2011 emissions, back when they were all still in operation.

For 2011, the emissions produced by Australia’s electricity sector was 200.5 million tonnes. So as a proportion of emissions caused by electricity generation, the eight power stations were responsible for about 5-6% of Australian electricity emissions in 2011.

The eight plants that closed were all quite small, and consequently made a smaller contribution to the electricity sector’s total greenhouse gas emissions.

The aggregate capacity of the eight closed power stations totalled about 2550 megawatts, and produced 9670 gigawatt hours of energy in 2010-11. In contrast, one of the plants still operating, Loy Yang A, has a capacity of 2210 megawatts and produced 16,880 gigawatt hours in 2010-11.

Verdict

Josh Frydenberg got his figures right on power station closures – but it’s a matter of interpretation whether that represents “a very significant change”.

The minister got it right that eight emission intensive power stations have closed over the last five or six years.

Frydenberg also got it right that these eight were among the top 12 (or top 14, depending on how you measure it) most emission intensive power stations in Australia.

But to put that in perspective, the eight powers stations that closed down produced about 12.7 million tonnes of greenhouse emissions in 2010-11 – or roughly about 2% of Australia’s overall emissions in that year. – Dylan McConnell

Review

This is a thorough and well-explained analysis, using impeccable sources to reach a very fair conclusion. – Hugh Saddler.

Review

This is a comprehensive FactCheck. There are a couple of additional points worth noting here.

The eight closed coal plants were certainly amongst the most emissions intensive in our electricity industry. However, beyond the question of the two West Australian coal plants raised in the FactCheck, the ACIL Allen report highlights the actual uncertainties in calculating plant emission intensities. It also flags the very high emissions intensity of several small distillate (liquid fuel) generators. However, these are used for only peaking duties so make a very minor contribution to overall electricity sector emissions.

Why did they close? A range of reasons, no doubt. Beyond the falling demand for generation over this period and small size of the plants noted in the FactCheck, all but two of the stations were over 40 years old. Their closure might also well be linked to the introduction of a carbon price on the electricity sector in mid-2012 (its removal only two years later was rather unexpected by industry participants).

Finally, there is the question of what replaced the output of these eight emissions intensive generators. Renewable generation has certainly increased over this time under the Renewable Energy Target. Unfortunately for emissions, the last two years have also seen falling gas-fired generation including the temporary closure (cold storage) of one of the National Electricity Market’s most modern and lowest emission fossil fuel plants, Swanbank E. The key reason is much higher gas prices driven by the start of liquid natural gas (LNG) exports from Queensland.

Finally, it is interesting to see that the owners of one of the remaining high emissions coal plants in operation, Loy Yang B, have just applied to upgrade the plant and hence extend its life and generation output. – Iain MacGill

Have you ever seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. For complex topics, we sometimes ask a third academic to be an additional blind reviewer. You can request a check at checkit@theconversation.edu.au. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.

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

Hugh Saddler is a member of the Board of the Climate Institute

Iain MacGill is a Joint Director of UNSW Australia's Centre for Energy and Environmental Markets. The Centre has received funding from a range of government sources including the Australian Research Council, Energy Consumers Australia and ARENA. Iain is a member of the ARENA Advisory Panel which provides advice to support the development and selection of projects and initiatives for funding by ARENA. He also contributes unpaid expert advice to a number of government organisations, industry associations and not-for-profit groups in the clean energy area within Australia and internationally. Iain's share portfolio includes AGL which owns a range of coal, gas and renewable generation in Australia.

Attribution studies are letting researchers respond quickly to questions about human influence – before the news cycle turns elsewhere

Is it still true to say you can’t point to any single extreme weather event and claim you can’t link it to human-caused climate change?

Plenty of people seem to think this is still the case. But a rapidly evolving field of climate science suggests that it’s not.

Continue reading...

Poll findings released as prominent Australians call on big four to withdraw backing for fossil fuel industry

About half of all Australians would be likely to switch banks if they found out their bank was lending money to projects that contribute to climate change, according to polling commissioned by the financial activist group Market Forces.

The findings came as more than 100 prominent Australian individuals and organisations signed a letter demanding that the big four banks stop supporting projects that expand the fossil fuel industry. Among the signatories are JM Coetzee, Charlotte Wood, James Bradley, Missy Higgins, Peter Singer and Jack Mundey, as well as unions, religious orders and conservation groups.

Continue reading...

Over the last year wholesale electricity prices have been falling just about everywhere across the developed world except here in Australia, where they are skyrocketing.

Perth is not known as a model for suburbia and its suburban condition is similar to that of developed cities the world over. However, it does stand out in one respect: it sits in an exceptionally biodiverse natural setting. A strong, informed vision for this setting’s relationship with the city could help Perth become an exemplar for similarly positioned metropolises everywhere.

The greater Perth region has been designated the Southwest Australia Ecoregion (SWAE). This is one of only 35 “biodiversity hotspots” in the world.

Reconciling future growth with biodiversity is a key issue for urban design and planning this century. Indeed, if current trends continue, global urban land cover will increase by 1.2 million square kilometres (equivalent to half the area of Western Australia) by 2030. Much of this will happen in biodiversity hotspots.

This is important because it is estimated we will lose nearly half of all terrestrial species if we fail to protect the hotspots. We will also lose the ecosystem services upon which human populations ultimately depend.

“Ecosystem services” may sound like abstract jargon, but it’s actually a term used to describe the services nature provides – such as clean air, water and food, and heatwave and flood mitigation. Without these, human life would be extremely unpleasant, if not unviable.

Perth has a reputedly strong planning system and is comparatively wealthy. If it can’t control its city form to protect biodiversity – compact cities generally being recognised as the best model for protecting land for conservation – then city administrators elsewhere, particularly in the developing world, are likely to struggle.

Misreading the land

The current treatment of the Australian environment has its roots in the European annexation of Australia, which has been characterised by catastrophic misreadings of the land. Governor James Stirling, who was singularly responsible for the European annexation of Perth, was the kind of man who saw what he wanted to see rather than what was there. In The Origins of Australia’s Capital Cities, Geoffrey Bolton writes:

…arriving at the end of … an uncommonly cool, moist summer, [Stirling was] misled by the tallness of the northern jarrah forest and the quality of the alluvial soils close to the river into believing that the coastal plain would offer fertile farming and grazing. It was, Stirling wrote, equal to the plains of Lombardy; and he persuaded himself that the cool easterly land breeze of these early autumn nights must originate from a range of snowy mountains.

Vegetation of Southwest Australia Ecoregion near current-day Perth at the time of European settlement. Based on statewide mapping by John Beard between 1964 and 1981. DPAW

The results of such misinterpretations of the land were generally less poetic. Stirling sited the settlement of Perth on a narrow, constrained strip of land between swamps to the north and marshy river edges to the south. These low-lying areas fuelled plagues of mosquitos and, once polluted, deadly typhoid outbreaks.

In time, due to a lingering discomfort with Perth’s “unsanitary” wetlands, more than 200,000 hectares – an area equivalent to 500 Kings Parks – were drained on the Swan Coastal Plain. These biologically productive areas directly or indirectly support most of the coastal plain’s wildlife, so the effects on biodiversity have been catastrophic.

Furthermore, a perception of the Banksia woodland and coastal heath on Perth’s fringes as unattractive and useless has seen much of it cleared for the expansion of the city. Between 2001 and 2009, suburban growth consumed an annual average of 851ha of highly biodiverse land on the urban fringe.

The lesson from this experience is that any future growth in a biodiversity hotspot, or indeed elsewhere, has to be founded on the understanding that we cannot continue to bend nature to our will. We must learn how to work with it.

Within this humbling process, we need to recognise that working with the land is not an entirely pure or noble act; rather, it is imperative for humanity’s survival. As species and ecosystems become threatened and vanish, so too do the ecosystem services that support human wellbeing.

Perth’s Green Growth Plan

The release of the state government’s long-anticipated Perth and Peel Green Growth Plan for 3.5 million may herald a shift in the relationship between the city and the biodiversity hotspot. The plan encapsulates two broad goals:

• to protect fringe bushland, rivers, wetlands and wildlife in an impressive 170,000 hectares of new and expanded reserves on Perth’s fringe

• to cut red tape by securing upfront Commonwealth environmental approvals for outer suburban development.

While ostensibly positive achievements, a question remains as to the implications of clearing a further 45,000ha (3% of the Swan Coastal Plain) of remnant bushland which is not protected by the conservation reserves.

Furthermore, the typically disconnected conservation reserves proposed in the Green Growth Plan lack overall legibility. This stymies the public’s ability to conceptualise the city’s edge, which leads them to care about it (like London’s greenbelt, for instance).

Finally, a question remains about how a plan that places restrictions on outer suburban development will accommodate the powerful local land development industry over time. This is a concern given the frequent “urban break-outs” – where urban development occurs outside nominated growth areas – between 1970 and 2005.

In 2003, the ABC asked revered Western Australian landscape architect Marion Blackwell, “Are we at home now in the land we live in?” She replied, “No, we’re not. We don’t know enough about it, and not enough people know anything about it.”

We still have work to do on our engagement with biodiversity in Western Australia, and Perth specifically, before we can become a model for future cities.

The Conversation is co-publishing articles with Future West (Australian Urbanism), produced by the University of Western Australia’s Faculty of Architecture, Landscape and Visual Arts. These articles look towards the future of urbanism, taking Perth and Western Australia as its reference point. You can read other articles here.

The Australian Urban Design Research Centre, whom employs Julian Bolleter, receives funding from the Western Australian Planning Commission for undertaking specific research projects however these projects are not directly related to the content of this article.

Report comparing past mass extinction events warns that hunting and killing of ocean’s largest species will disrupt ecosystems for millions of years

Humanity is driving an unprecedented extinction of sealife unlike any in the fossil record, hunting and killing larger species in a way that will disrupt ocean ecosystems for millions of years, scientists have found.

A new analysis of the five mass extinction events millions of years ago discovered there was either no pattern to which marine species were lost, or smaller species were the ones that disappeared.

Continue reading...

A crow that survives only in captivity has been found to adapt and use tools to find food, according to scientists.